Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1876 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 1876 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...