Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I have not. I will probably do that
    • Based on ECP's previous, what will definitely happen is this. They will send more idiotic letters. After they will send a Letter of Claim, and it is essential that your brother replies at this point to this to show them he would be big trouble in court. Next it is highly likely (but not certain) that they will crawl back under their stone and that will be the end of the matter. The slight worry is that if they do do court it will seem a likely story to a judge that your brother has no connection to the ticket, when it was him who appealed and replied to the Letter of Claim.  Indeed I think it would seem the lot of you were playing games with ECP and with the court by getting unconnected people involved and then later deny they were involved. So be aware there is that slight risk. You talked about "a mess" in your first post, and you weren't wrong. Someone hires a car and gets a ticket.  There is an appeal.  Who appeals, the hirer?  No, the hirer's mate's son.  Obvious! There is an approach for help to a consumer website.  By the hirer?  No, by the hirer's mate's son's brother! This is so damn silly and totally avoidable. Anyway, it seems the decision has been made for your brother to carry the can so whatever consequences will ensue will ensue. 
    • Doc 04-19-2024 11-01-51-merged-compressed.pdf good morning.    9 pages attached.    thank you  UCM
    • Hi I was being supplied my ovo after unknowingly being swapped from SSE.  My issues began when we had a smart meter fitted and our bills almost doubled overnight - we at the time assumed we were just paying not enough until then and just continued to pay the excess bills each. Month.    I would from time to time contact ovo and get faced with a call centre on South Africa of the most rude agents who would just hang up after hours of wait and I could not even get an acknowledgement of an issue with my meter.  At one point we were not in the property for like 4 months and the bills were coming just as high!  It was at this point I was sure something is not right and ovo only care to send bailiffs and started threatening us with a pay as you go meter despite me taking out a 3.5k loan to pay of my outstanding balance.  Around 1600 each on both gas and electricity.  This is where its gets really bad -  the very same day they sent me out a new bill saying the money paid already was only to cover up until the November previous and because its now Feb we owe another 1k.   By that August this had risen to over 3k and I still couldn't get anyone to even acknowledge a fault let alone fix it.    In despair I tried to swap suppliers and to my surprise octopus accepted us because even tho the debt is owed we are trying deal with.  During our time with them the bill was coming only on my wife's name as I was responsible for other bills and she this one - now that we owe them 3k they have magically started adding my name as well as my wife's to the same debt to apply double pressure and its showing on my experiwn report now with a question mark and 2700 showing in grey -  This was my wife's debt which we dispute we owe yet the have now sent me letter with both our names on from oriel and past due credit debt agencies - is this illegal and how can I get them to take my. Name of this and leave on wife's name as its so unfair they give us a both a defualt for wife's debt which we dispute anyway.    In the end about 3 weeks ago I wrote an email to their ceo and rishi sunak and low and behold for the first time in our history with ovo someone who spoke English contacted us and said she will look into our claim.    I explained to her that we feel our meter is faulty and despite me contacting them using WhatsApp email and phone I still have not got anyone to acknowledge a fault even. And that I dispute I Owe anything as my son was in hospital for 3 months and we stayed with him so house was empty and still. They were sending us super sized bills more than when we started at home.  She promised to investigate and a few days later replied that she is sorry for the poor customer service and offered us £50 compensation - however she also. Mentioned that she's attached statements for us confirming the payment for 3k I made was only up until Nov and in Feb despite me pay 3.5k nearly it's correct for them to bill. Me. Another £900 the very same day and she did not agree our meter was faulty and therfore the debt stands and she will not be calling it bcak from past due credit.  During my time with my new supplier post ovo, octopus I requested tehy check my. Meters because I felt they were faulty and over charging me and I got excellent response asking me for further details which I supplied and I got a. Response bcak within days to say my meter was indeed faulty and octopus have now remotely repaired it.   I then contacted the energy ombudsman and explained my situation how she at ovo tried to fob me off and demand I apy money we don't feel we owe due to faulty equipment we reported but ovo had to process or mechanism to deal with it or lodge complaint even without having to cc their ceo and our pm. And now I feel sick to think both husband and wife will get a 6  year default for debt which have a validity of a questionable nature.    I explained all this to the energy ombudsman and they accepted my case and I explained to them that my new supplier found my fault which ovo refueed to accept - I've uploaded the email from new supplier to ombudsman showing we had a fault.    My. Question is is there anything I can upload in defence of my case to ombudsman before they decide outcome ina few weeks    All advice greatly appreciated not only would I like advice on how to clear this debt but also how I can pursue ovo for compensation and deterrence for the future.  Thansk 
  • 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

Tenant leaves early: whether landlord has a duty to mitigate his losses - new caselaw


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6035 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

Mitigation of loss

 

A recent Court of Appeal case has weakened the tenant's defence on the question of mitigation of loss.

 

Reichman -v- Gauntlett (13 December 2006) decided that where the tenant abandons the premises a landlord, suing for rent due, is not under a duty to mitigate his loss by re-letting.

 

The tenant argued that the landlord had a legal duty to re-let the premises, in order to thereby reduce the loss of rent which the landlord suffered as a result of the tenant's abandonment of the premises. But this argument failed.

 

There was, however, nothing to prevent the tenant re-letting the premises himself. The tenant in Reichman -v- Gauntlett had overlooked this option; but if you are a tenant in a similar situation then it's an option that is open to you.

 

 

Surrender of Lease

 

Another option open to a tenant in a similar situation is to surrender the lease, something which requires the landlord's agreement.

 

It is essential to record the agreement in writing. A draft deed of surrender that might be adapted for this purpose is on-line at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/landlords-tenants/116775-deed-surrender.html

 

 

Summary of the Court of Appeal decision:

 

Reichman & Dunn -v- Beveridge & Gauntlett

Court of Appeal

13 December 2006

Landlord under no obligation to mitigate loss when seeking to recover rent due under a lease and tenant had abandoned the premises.

 

Source: Transcript [2006] EWCA Civ 1659

 

 

Miss Beveridge (B) and Mr Gauntlett (G) were in practice together as solicitors. They leased offices from Mr Reichman ® and Miss Dunn (D) for a term of five years from January 2000. In February 2003, B and G ceased to practise as solicitors and abandoned the offices. They did not pay the rent due on 25 March 2003 and made no further payments thereafter.

 

In January 2004, R and D sued for the rent arrears due. B and G served a defence contending that their landlords had failed to mitigate loss arising from any non-payment of rent, which they could have done by forfeiting the lease. B and G also argued that the landlords failed to instruct agents to market the premises; failed to accept an offer of a prospective tenant who wanted to take an assignment or a new lease of the offices; and failed to accept an offer from B to negotiate payment of a consideration for surrender of the lease.

 

The county court hearing considered whether it is necessary, as a matter of law, for a landlord to mitigate his loss when seeking to recover rent arrears. The judge held that a landlord was under no such duty. B and G appealed. The circuit judge dismissed the appeal. B and G appealed to the Court of Appeal.

 

 

Decision: Appeal dismissed

 

Held: There are very few cases where an innocent party to a contract (in this case R and D), having chosen not to accept a repudiation of the contract, was prevented from enforcing his contractual right to keep the contract alive and sue for any monies owed. This could only be prevented where damages would be an adequate remedy and where a decision to keep the contract alive would be wholly unreasonable.

 

The court considered whether R and D had acted wholly unreasonably in not finding a new tenant, rather than leaving it to B and G to propose one, or in rejecting a proposal made by B and G. The Court of Appeal decided that R and D had not acted wholly unreasonably.

 

Additionally, if market rent had been lower than the rent stated in the lease, damages would not be an adequate remedy for R and D if they had terminated the lease by way of forfeiture and re-let at a lower rent, because [as a consequence of forfeiting] they could not recover damages to compensate for the loss of rent.

 

Alternatively, if the market rent had been the same or higher, B and G could have taken their own steps to find an assignee. If they had done this, and R and D refused to accept them on reasonable terms, then B and G would have had a statutory remedy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

 

Finally, there was no authority to show that a landlord could recover damages from a former tenant in respect of loss of future rent after termination of a lease. Therefore, either damages were not an adequate remedy for the landlord, or the landlord would be acting reasonably in taking the view that he should not terminate the lease because he would not be able to recover such damages.

 

 

 

Advice & opinions on this forum are offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk unpinned this topic
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6035 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...