Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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
      • 161 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

NOSP Ground 8 rent arrears Catalyst housing association


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5212 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

Please really need some help. My Housing association have told me they want to hand me a ground 8 Notice of seeking possession order due to rent arrears of more than 2 months.

 

They have not really consulted with me whether i can afford to make payments, but have told me to pay more than £10 per week for the arrears is now £1783.

 

Unfortunately some of the arrears acquired due a previous tenancy which was transferred to them, and when i was working. I am already paying £10 per week although i am on benefits and by law required to pay £3.75.

 

I have a meeting with the manager on the phone before Christmas who told me that i either paid a big amount as £10 will take forever and they would seriously seek a NOSP ground 8 where the judges have no discretion.

 

Can anybody help on what to do at the next meeting with the manager, who just seems he just wants to kick me out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The manager is correct, if you have 2 months rent owing on an 'AST' tenancy agreement then they can issue a section 8, ground 8 notice, and when it eventually goes to court the judge has no alternative but to give the association possession.

 

So, you need to find a compromise with the manager. Remember, your housing is a priority.

 

You say the court order is for £3.75 per week? And you are paying £10? So you can show that you are making an effort. I presume all your current rent payments are up to date?

 

When did you last sign a tenancy agreement with the HA? (This could be very important) How much is your rent per month? Do you claim all the benefits you're entitled to? Could you find somewhere cheaper to live? (A new landlord wouldn't / couldn't evict you for a debt to someone else).

Edited by Rooster-UK
Reference to unauthorised website removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

the HA can only take as prescribed in law for a person on benifits not what they want to demand , contact the welfare rights @ your local council urgently, a NOSP when issed will not be actioned if an agreement is kept to, ( and this must comply with the law ) also once the arrears are cleared it becomes null and void, the best way is to get DWP to make the amount they can legaly demand deducted from your benifit and paid direct,

 

Also a strong letter to the CEO of the HA complaining about the Managers demands should be done urgently, and also to your local councillor and MP

NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and thanks so much for your replies.

  • The tenancy is an assured.
  • i moved into the property in Feb 09 with another landlord and Catalyst took over in July.
  • Catalyst have not provided me with a tenancy agreement as to date or a rent book
  • Also because I am classed as having a disability would this apply:
    22.— Discrimination in relation to premises.
     
    (1) It is unlawful for a person with power to dispose of any premises to discriminate against a disabled person—
    (a) in the terms on which he offers to dispose of those premises to the disabled person;
     
    (b) by refusing to dispose of those premises to the disabled person; or
     
    © in his treatment of the disabled person in relation to any list of persons in need of premises of that description.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, firstly, I think your 'disability' clause is a bit of a red-herring - you could only rely on it if you could prove a non-disabled person in the same financial situation would be dealt with differently.

 

However...

 

It might be worth getting advice on who you actually owe the rent arrears to. It is my understanding that although your tenancy transferred to Catalyst, the arrears won't have done. Any rent you should have paid to Old Landlord is still owed to OL, not Catalyst. Therefore all the money you have paid to catalyst, since Catalyst took over, should have gone to pay rent from the date catalyst took over. Does that make sense?

 

Example:

 

Apr Rent Due £1000, Rent Paid £100, Owed £900

 

May Rent Due £1000, Rent Paid £100, Owed £1800

Jun Rent Due £1000, Rent Paid £100, Owed £2700

=====Catalyst take over=====

Jul Rent Due £1000, Money Paid to Catalyst £500, Owed to OL £2700, Owed to Catalyst £500

Sep Rent Due £1000, Money Paid to Catalyst £1000, Arrears Paid to OL £500, Owed to OL £2200, Owed to Catalyst £500

Oct Rent Due £1000, Money Paid to Catalyst £1000, Owed to OL £2200, Owed to Catalyst £500

 

Substitute your own figures, but so long as rent due to Catalyst remains below 2 months worth or rent, then you can fight a section 8 ground 8 re-possession.

 

An easy way to check might be to phone old landlord and ask if you owe them any money - if they will put in writing that you owe (say) £1000, then that is £1000 that Catalyst can't claim you owe them.

 

The above is my UNDERSTANDING of your situation, it is not a situation I have been in, so I may have misunderstood either your situation or the law. Put this suggestion to someone who knows about tenancy matters (CAB Solicitor?) and see if they agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the HA can only take as prescribed in law for a person on benifits not what they want to demand

 

This is true, but while it stops them taking too much money it doesn't prevent them applying for possession of the property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info I have been scurring the website for info as well even lexix nexis.

 

The property is Housing Association and I have developed a plan to pay off more than half (3/4) the arrears in 3 years would that seen reasonable to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...