Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer and that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim and don't add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the members of suggested above – it should be the final version. court, that I would respectfully requestup but I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Can freehold residents challenge estate service charges?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3843 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello All

 

1st time here, wondered if anyone has experience of the following.

 

We (and the majority of residents on the estate) are freehold houses, there are a few apartments on the estate I believe are leasehold. The management company has sent through the latest budget for 2009, and the again the costs have increased significantly.

 

The house was sold by the developer on the basis that the service charge would be £125 for the 1st year. A management company is employed to look after gardening of communal areas, communal electricity (roads not adopted yet or for at least another 2yrs), general repairs, a managing agent fee, accountancy fee, company secretary fee.

 

All this seems reasonable at £125. In 2008 it went up to £185, and for 2009 it moves to £215! And then because there was a shortfall from 2007, they charged a further £50 recently.

 

The gripe among many of the freehold residents is that the biggest cost of grounds maintenance (approx 1/2 of the total estate charge) is that the road is nowhere near where the communal area is, and we have to maintain our own gardens directly outside our houses) and a small area that the gardeners were supposed to look after was neglected for over 12 months because the landlord (the building developer) alledgedly didn't inform the management company it needed doing. Also, the management company claim it also covers repairs to "private" road, which conflicts with the council, who say that if a road is planned to be adopted, which it is, the landlord must pay for maintenance as oppose to the resident.

 

I appreciate costs will increase over time, but this is hugely above an inflationary increase, and the overall cost seems excessive for the frequency and quality of gardening (that we don't see), but as freehold, I understand we can't easily challenge the costs through leasehold valuation tribunal.

 

Any ideas anybody?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, had a look, their are a number of subsections:

 

Transferees covenants in favour of the transferor and the development

Transferees further covenants

Covenants by the transferor

Covenants by the Management Company

Covenants by the Transferee in favour of the management company and the transferor

And then a section regarding maintenance expenses

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it's the section on maintenance expenses that you need to concentrate. If the management company have done their homework, I suspect they can pretty well make any 'reasonable' charge for maintenance. Unfortunately, there never seems to be any definition of what is reasonable.

 

How about forming a resident's association and inviting the management people along so that they can explain everything - and you can have a go back at them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

You could try arguing that the contract is not a fair & reasonable one. What surprises me is that you are a Freeholder. Here's a Q. for you. Does it state within the Title Deeds, words to the effect Fee Simple as being yours? (fee simple is your right to pass on to your heirs your home). The reason I'm asking is that if so then once the Mortgage is redeemed the Property is yours in accordance with a shed load of old Acts which have yet to be repealed. Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old thread bellijayne. As its not been posted on for over 4 years I would think the problems been resolved, or at least moved on.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...