Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • 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.   
  • 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

Housing Letting agency holding deposit said house smells like dog when it is clearly damp. advice needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3661 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

Hey here from the UK, England

 

me, my wife and my baby recently moved out of a property due to black mold growing throughout the house, we were release as the landlord couldn't (or wouldn't) pay for the repairs or improvement needed to make the property livable. when we first moved in we did have pets (two smalls dogs) but as you can see in the email below they were removed from the property.

 

 

 

we have now moved out and had the carpet professional cleaned as instructed in our agreement, i went back into the property to finish cleaning with a horrible smell of damp in the property and was still there when we handed back the keys, me and the man who conducted the inventory commented on the smell.

 

 

we have now received a call for the letting agency saying that we need to sort out the smell of dogs in the property, i said that it was the smell of damp and she disagreed.

we have now received emails that you can see below:

 

 

Thank you for your receipt for the cleaning of the carpets. With reference to my conversation with lee last week regarding the strong smell of dogs that remain at ** Address removed ** have you spoken to the cleaning company regarding this ?. Unfortunately the smell is not acceptable and this will need to be rectified before we can release the deposit. If you wish to discuss the matter further please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Kind Regards.

 

 

We replied with:

 

The smell in the property is not that of dog but rather the smell of damp. The damp is visible in all rooms of the house and is the reason we were released from our contract in the first place.

We haven't had dogs at the property since 15th February, I informed Louise of this in an email, so I think it's highly unlikely that there would be a smell of dog over a month later, after all the carpets in the property have been professionally cleaned and deodorised.

We have not spoken to the cleaning company regarding the matter, you have their contact details should you wish to contact them directly.

I have read through the contract and cannot find anything regarding the smell of the property upon check out. If I have missed something then of course, please send me the section highlighted, otherwise we have abided to the terms of the contract and had the carpets cleaned as requested so I will be expecting the deposit back without further delay.

Kind regards

 

 

and she has replied with:

 

I have personally visited the property and both I and the check out clerk can confirm there is a strong smell of dog at the property, to such an extent we would not be able to relet it with that smell.

Under section 3 (e) (xi) of your assured shorthold tenancy it states that you are to hand back the property in the same state as specified in schedule A. If you would like to re visit the property with myself and the cleaning company to discuss how we could resolve the issue please contact me to arrange a mutually agreeable time.

 

 

we have had multiple inspections and visits during our short time there because of the damp and this has never been mentioned before

any advice would be amazing.

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

EDIT: i forgot to mention that the damp was there when we moved in and we were assured with was dealt with. we found from a neighbor that the damp has been there for years with previous tenets getting there rent reduced because of it.

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

how wet were the carpets left by the cleaners when they had finished.

Do the carpets contain any wool?

 

The reason I ask is that once wool carpets are damp they smell like wet dog, and once the carpets are completely dry the smell will disappear. If the carpets were not cleaned properly ie a rug doctor or similar was used, they do leave a lot of water in the carpets and can take 3-4 days to dry.

I am not a solicitor :!::!:

 

Most of my knowledge came from this site :-D:-D

 

If I have been helpful in any way at all .............. Please click my star..... :-(:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly couldn't say, but it wasn't overly wet by any means. when i returned to finish cleaning and check there really was a heavy smell of damp in the air and damp up the walls (in the same area which they said was sorted when we moved in). i understand how wet dog and damp may have a similar smell, but i don't believe it is our responsibility to remove the smell as its the structural issues causing the damp and leading to the smell.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iwp8530, Were there signs of black mould on the walls ?

I've worked on a lot of damp buildings in my time and it does smell like wet dogs.

Living in a mould filled atmosphere is a serious health risk.

 

I would ask if you can go back to the property and try again .....

... and smother it with "Cheap perfume".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iwp8530, Were there signs of black mould on the walls ?

I've worked on a lot of damp buildings in my time and it does smell like wet dogs.

Living in a mould filled atmosphere is a serious health risk.

 

I would ask if you can go back to the property and try again .....

... and smother it with "Cheap perfume".

 

yes there was signs of black mold.

as you can see in the emails they want to re-let it as quickly as possible, but with black mold in the house isn't this illegal as it is a serious threat to health?

 

i feel that i want to push this further as i believe they moved us into a unlivable house, so bringing up the part of the contract that deals with this is void (as we have found out from the neighbor the black mold has been there years, with previous tenants having their rent reduced because of it). All they did was clean and paint over the mold without fixing the problems causing it.

 

considering we moved in with 6 week old and there was black mold grownig in the property (when we moved in there was no signs of mold just damp, with the mold growing later) i feel they put my child live at serious risk.

Edited by lwp8530
Link to post
Share on other sites

lwp8530.

Contact your local council. You want the environmental health dept and the housing dept as well.

 

Mould spores can cause breathing problems, coughs etc.

 

If you can get a letter from the neighbor that would add to your case when you go to the council.

I agree the property should never been rented to you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just "Googled" "Mould spores and health risk"

Take a look !!!!!

 

Did you or your family have to attend the Doctors for coughs etc. ?

 

By contacting the Council. They will not allow it to be rented until it meets their standard.

That will be after a full inspection once the work has been compleated

Link to post
Share on other sites

f16, Council cannot prevent re-letting unless they serve a prohibition Notice on LL. They could serve an improvement Notice, giving LL 3-6 months for remedial repairs, usually achieved with fungicide wash down and repainting with paint containing a fungicide and regular T cleaning.

Possible causes, in addition to T lifestyle are lack of ventilation, condensation on cold external wall, penetrating damp from leaking gutter, porous bricks etc.

We do not know location of affected area, age, type and construction of property.

Black mould is only considered a health hazard to the very young, very old or immuno-compromised patients.

 

 

It does not matter when dog left, more, how long it was present and could have pee'd on carpet/floorboards, which when washed could have re-activated dog smell, new wet carpets can also smell like wet dog.

If T has vacated, he has no further opportunity to take remedial action but agent has offered the opportunity for site inspection when points can be made. T does not even know how wet the cleaned carpets were afterwards, whether heating left on and rooms adequately ventilated? All of which could have contributed to later black mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black mold has been in the house from a number of years, this was the reason we were released from our contract. LL stated that couldn't afford fix the roof where they believe the damp it coming in from, however the black mold has been know about from quite some time, as i started previous Ts have had their rent reduced because of the problem, and in a conversation between the LL and the LA she stated that it was like that when she originally lived there which was a good few years ago

 

So the black mold has nothing to do with carpets but rather the structural issues of the house.

 

We provided a receipt which states the carpets have been cleaned and deodorized

 

as for her bring up a part of the contract, would the contract be voided in someway as we were moved in to a house that wasn't in a condition of fitness for human habitation due to the dangers of black mold? as if we were made aware of this there would be no way i would of brought my 6 week old son to live in the house

 

As for the the health of my family, i have asthma to which i have had to change inhalers due to it becoming worse and my son has also been put on an inhaler.

Edited by lwp8530
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just "Googled" "Mould spores and health risk"

Take a look !!!!!

 

Did you or your family have to attend the Doctors for coughs etc. ?

 

By contacting the Council. They will not allow it to be rented until it meets their standard.

That will be after a full inspection once the work has been compleated

 

Was the reason I had to move out from my rented place. My health became so bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the reason I had to move out from my rented place. My health became so bad.

 

Local Council Environmental Health Dept. All the way.

 

I worked in a place where the LL. was saying the damp and smell in the property was due to the way the tenant was living.

Turned out to be a broken sewage pipe behind some stud work in the bathroom.

There was 100mm of sewage and Environmental Health had to "over see" the whole job !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...