Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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 5219 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

..

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...