Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1849 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

My wife owns a second property, and recently recieved a notice from the Freehold managers demanding payment of £100 ground rent and £146.88 in "Administration Expenses" i have tried unsucessfully (so far ) to extract a breakdown of the costs that have been applied to the account.

 

There had been no previous correspondance from this firm although they have since informed me that the ground rent was due on 31st March 2005, the letter which also contained a "copy" of the original invoice. The "Copy" of the original invoice was dated the day before the letter demanding the total of £246.88.

 

I pointed this out to the company involved and they now say that it was a reprint and not a copy.

 

Can i ask for a breakdown of charges under the DPA in this instance ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it would be covered by the DPA. Did your wife use a solicitor when she purchased the lease? If so, they may be able to provide a copy.

 

The amount of the ground rent would be set out in the lease and doesn't seem outrageous. Under the lease it may be possible for the management company to levy an administration fee but the amount being claimed seems excessive to say the least. Unfortunately without knowing what's in the lease, it's quite difficult to advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this property is a flat then, there will be ground rent, unless the owners own the Freehold between them.

 

As for the other charge. This is not unreasonable, it is for the upkeep of the common parts, ie communal gardens, parking areas, communal lighting, and of course Building Insurance, which can be quite expensive.

 

If there is a managing agent they are entitled to add up to 15% of everything that they spend on the upkeep of the property.

 

Also if you have just recently purchased this property, then you cannot be charged for ground rent or service charges that are for last year if someone else owned the property.

 

Your solicitor should have asked about the management of the Freehold when you purchased the property, and you should have had a copy of the lease.

 

Hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree on a couple of points.

 

"Administration Expenses" could be anything. Taken at face value it seems to be a charge for administering the ground rents process. Normally leases will be quite specific about what is being charged for and good practice dictates that a service charge bill will be sufficiently detailed to enable the leaseholder to check that the costs fall within the definitions included in the lease. Indeed the ODPM has just finished consulting on a minimum standard for service charge invoices. If these expenses are indeed for services, then the leaseholder has a statutory right to inspect the accounting records and I would suggest that they do so in this case.

 

The 15% administration expenses is a common misconception. Again this is determined by what's in the lease. They will sometimes specify a fixed percentage. Others say that the charge should be based on actual costs. 15% is likely to be the maximum amount chargeable in such cases but quite often these charges have been reduced by Leasehold Valualtion Tribunals to much lower levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ground rent can be the money for rent of the land... we get ground rent and we do not include other things in the ground rent like maintenance which is extra. i suppose we could call those "administrative fees." if you have lots of properties its actually cheaper to call maintenance that rather than detail it individually, would you rather have a full invoice with everything detailed that costs £10 because someone had to work out 15% of painting the outside to meet conservation area standards, 15% of a new lightbulb, 15% of tree pruning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Admin fees" are due to the unpaid rent, they are nothing to do with the maintenance costs which are paid to a seperate entity, When i wrote to them asking them how "admin Expenses" OF £146.88 could be incurred within 2 days of the issue of the invoice, i sent them a cheque for £100 for the ground rent in full and final settlement of the account as i did not think that their charges were reasonable.

 

They wrote back returning the cheque and threatened to inform the mortgage company that we had not paid the ground rent, and that they were going to approach them (the mortgage co) for payment.

 

I wrote again requesting a breakdown of how such charges could be accrued in 2days from the issue of the original invoice.

 

They wrote back with a list of the charges that they charged for things for example

 

A breakdown of "Administration Expenses" would cost me £17.82

 

A copy of the lease would cost me £x

 

Etc etc.

 

I have since written back confirming that we have no intention of paying any unsubstantiated "Admin Expenses" and that i had informed the mortgage provider of the situation and that i had offered to pay the Ground Rent but refused to pay such ridiculous charges.

 

Will the DPA letter get me the breakdown of charges ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try the following website:

 

http://www.leaseholdadvisoryservice.co.uk/

 

You are entitled to a breakdown of Service Charges, which should show all expenditure on your behalf, plus the Management Fees. This should not be charged for if you are a Leaseholder.

 

And the maximum that can be charged for managing is 15% on top of the amount of expenditure.

 

The ground rent should be billed for separately. And they have to give you 30 days in which to pay.

 

If they send the bill out late then you still have 30 days in which to pay.

 

If you are unhappy with the amount of service charges levied you can go to a tribunal.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still cant see how the DPA letter will not make them give me a breakdown of charges to my account, They are charges to MY account only these are not for any maintenance, just charges due to "non payment of Ground Rent"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see how they have arrived at this amount on top of the ground rent, unless they have gone to court and its court fees and interest.

 

If they will not give you a breakdown of these Administration charges, then tell them you will take them to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. That might flush them out.

 

There is a lot of information about how to deal with this and about your rights on the link below:

 

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/search/esearch.asp?search=Leasehold+publications&start=0&type=boolean&col=ODPM&perpage=10&sort=rank&summary=yes

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My landlord is demanding, through yet another managing agent, payment for "outstanding" service charges and management fees, which he claims are 7 years old. Is there a legal limit to how far back demands can be made? We have a troublesome history with the freeholder and this seems to be another example of his underhand methods.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a copy of your Lease, it should contain the sum of the Ground Rent, and any increase that may be written into the Lease. This is the rent that you pay to the Freeholder for the ground on which the property stands. Most ground rents are paid twice yearly on Lady days, and if the Lease is fairly new it may contain increases set up every 25 years. The average ground rent is about £100 per year, but there are a lot of old leases still running from 90+ years ago that may only be about £10 per year.

 

If all the residents jointly own the Freehold then the Ground Rent is usually waived, as if you own it together you have no real need to pay it.

 

However, if it is Service Charges, then it is different. Service charges are made up of Insurance of the buildings, cost of keeping communal areas clean, cost of gardening and cost of Electricity to light the communal areas.

 

Its quite straightforward if it is managed properly by the residents themselves. You all pay the same for the management of the upkeep of the common parts and the building insurance.

 

You are entitled to have a copy of the Management Accounts every year and there should be an Annual General Meeting to discuss any increases in charges etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for message re ground rent - my problem relates to an OLD demand - i.e. one the freeholder 'discovered' has not been paid through an old, unreliable managing agent. This is 7 years olf - alledgedly. Can they make demands that far back ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • 7 months later...

There is an angle under the Data Protection Act 1998 that could address this issue. Under the Act, any person in control of information which relates to an individual, such details about service charges, is under a statory duty to ensure the information is 'accurate'. If it is not, then it is unfair processing under the Act and an indivudla can apply to a court for the information to be corrected. The person controlling the information, such as a freeholder, must show how the information is fair. Compensation can also be claimed for stress caused by the inaccuracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Help Please anyone?

I have been unable to pay my ground rent since 1998 as that was the last time I had an address to send the money to, I always paid and it was not a problem. However, the organisation changed and I was no longer able to forward my ground rent. Conseqently last August I received a letter from a Property Management firm stating I owed 12 yrs (which is incorrect) and that as they had been appointed to collect the fees would I send a cheque. I was so angry that after all these years someone is just able to just demand the fees, which had I had the correct payee address, the Ground rent would have been paid. I wrote to my MP who wrote to the Property Management firm but they simply reported back to him as they had told me, I am owing 12 years, I have heard from another Property Management (where my Mum pays hers) that in Law they are not able to claim more than six years in arrears. Is this correct and should I ask my MP to investigate further?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole system for service charges is set up to favour the freeholder. you have a lease and it talks about 'reasonable amount' to be charged. the management comp uses its discretion as to what should be spent on, such as upgarding fire escape but not on cleaning the estate, without asking the leaseholders. when you ask them for more info, they do not bother to reply.if you go to the leasehold valuation they invariably favour the freeholder. even if the leasehold valaution tribunal holds in your favour the freeholder can appeal to the lands tribunal and if they loose here they can go on appealing to the next court available to them. in the meantime legal costs built up by the freeholder are charged to the service charge account, which has to be paid by the leaseholders. the freeholder is always on a win-win situation and the leaseholder is the looser from every aspect. where is the justice here? private freeholders seem to be having a winner. the company getting away with this situation is freshwater and now county estate management(managing for wisestates ltd) seems to be getting to the action.

Edited by mart22
correcting information
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I own a 999 year lease at Bromyard House. Berkeley Homes is the landlord. I received in the post last week (June 25 2009) a demand notice for ground rent covering the periods 2007 and 2008. Is the landlord allowed to delay issung an invoice for ground rent beyond a 3-6 month period from when it becomes due? My lease is silent on the issue of when invoices should be issued to leaseholders for ground rent charges. Please advise if I could refuse to pay the 2007-2008 ground rents without fear of penalty or forefiture of my lease?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My freeholder is notorious for not issing invoices. He is not "bad" or "neglectful" - just elderly and rather absent-minded! I have simply paid the ground rent and an estimated amount for buildings insurance and electricity for shared areas into a savings account. The property is for sale and I suspect an invoice will be forthcoming when he gets notification from the solicitors at the time of the sale:(.

Kentish Lass

Information given is based on my knowledge and experience and is not to be considered as legal advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1849 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...