Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • 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

Cancelling A Teletext Holiday


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5831 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 daughter who is 17 and her friends decided to look into going on holiday in June when they are all 18. So they contacted teletext and enquired about a holiday for the 4 of them. The lady advised them that she could get them a all inclusive deal for 2 weeks in Salou. They could secure the booking with a £1.00. My daughter rang me and asked if she should go ahead and book it and I said as long as it was all in agreemnet then yes. So they went ahead and booked it.

 

When she got home from college she decided to have a look on the website at the hotel - to our horro the write ups on the hotel were appalling. There wasn't a nice thing to say about it. The site also indicated that there had been things stolen from the hotal and the food had been unfit to eat. After lengthy discussions my daughter decided to cancle the booking.

 

She contacted teletext and asked them to cancel it - the operator saiid she needed to ring back the next day and cancel it with a different department.

 

The very next day she rang the department concerned and after a lengthy discussion with the operator she told my daughter that the cancellation had to be in writing, sent recorded delivery and then they would cancel the holiday.

 

Then the bombshell was dropped - she told my daughter that she would have to pay £75.00 per person for cancelling the holiday. My daughter asked why and she was told it is in the terms and conditions of the agreement and the operator who booked you holiday would have told you this. She advised her that nothing had been mentioned about the cancellation fee of £75.00. After only 1 day she was being asked to pay £75.00.

 

After 2 weeks of waiting to find out if the holiday has been cancelled she rang teletext again - they told her because the letter had taken so long to get to them that they would be charging £75.00 per person. As her card id the card they used will it be taken from her?

 

I am incensed that a holiday compnay can charge £75.00 for cancelling a holiday 24 hours after it was booked. There was no other way they would accept the cancellation unless it was in writing. Can they accept a booking of 4 people aged 17? Why wasn't this explained to them on the phone that there was a cancellation fee?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi laineynic,

 

Its standard with most tour operators that when they offer a low deposit, in the case of cancellation you must pay the full deposit. Check any brochure or website and you will find this. It is to entice you to book early.

 

You say that the terms were not explained to your daughter at the time of booking. If she 100% certain, she can request the call records to prove this.

 

Have a look at this thread started by mutley2007, I hope he does not mind me using it:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/holiday-companies/122894-cancellation-customer-going-court.html

 

It is a similar issue - T & C's not explained at time of booking. He got the result he was looking for.

 

As a side note, your daughter read some bad reviews about the hotel? No holiday company will allow cancellation without charges because of bad reviews.

 

Out of interest, can you post the name of the hotel?

Loubychew

 

I am not a travel lawyer. All info is based on my own experience of working in the travel industry in resort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your posting - I understand what your saying but to be made to pay £75 after only 24 hours seems very harsh. Surely there must be some kind of cooling of period. What about the distanc selling laws?

 

At 17 is she legally allowed to ook a hiloday? The T&C'S weren't explaind to them, she has signed nothing. I understand that on friday they ill attempt to take £300 from her bank, even though she has told them that she hasn't the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again laineynic,

 

I've never heard of a cooling off period for holidays but if you check the link I gave you that should help a lot.

 

I don't think they have done anything wrong by booking the holiday, as they will all be 18 at the time of departure. What about 18-30 hols? They do it all the time. If she was not legally allowed then the agent would not have been able to go forward with the booking.

 

Remember, Teletext are only the booking agents. Its like going into a travel agent in the high street. They are booking holidays for Tour Operators such as First Choice, Thomson etc so they have to abide by the T & C's laid out by the particular operator.

 

As I said though, if the T & C's were not explained, this is your best bet based on Mutley's experience.

Loubychew

 

I am not a travel lawyer. All info is based on my own experience of working in the travel industry in resort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the distanc selling laws?

 

Holidays are exempt. There is no right of cancellation or cooling off period.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why, I don't make the laws! It's probably to do with the nature of booking holidays - you can't have a 14 day cooling off period when you could have been on the holiday in that time.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been on the OFT site and it doesnt mention that holidays are exempt from the ruling. If your not sure of the law why state it as being so?

 

I have read other comments fom previous postings and hey used that argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure of it, and I have never suggested otherwise.

 

The details are on the OFT website. The exceptions are, funnily enough, detailed on the 'exceptions' page.

 

The Office of Fair Trading: Exceptions to the regulations

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote from OFT "the provisions do not apply to package travel"

 

laineynic, barracad is trying to help you and as a moderator of this forum I do not think for one minute that he would post without knowing the facts. No point going for the distance selling angle if it does not apply to your daughters case.

As I said before you have two options. Fight them on the lack of info at time of booking - like Mutley did or just take the holiday.

Loubychew

 

I am not a travel lawyer. All info is based on my own experience of working in the travel industry in resort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked baracuda a question which was "why are holidays eempt" he was the one who got on his high horse and said he didn'tmake the rules.

 

I am beginning to wonder wether this sie is as useful as it used to be. I seem to ask the wrong questions and get blasted. I am not an epert and I asked for advise. Instead I get an obnoixous reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a bad day lainey? In response to barracad's reply you asked why they were exempt and his response was simply that he didn't know as he didn't make the laws. You then came back and said "If your not sure of the law why state it as being so?" Barracad did not state that he wasn't sure of the law only that he didn't know why the powers that be exempted them. I think you have misinterpreted things. Go and put the kettle on and have a nice cuppa :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well holidays are exempt - that is the information you were looking for, is it not? As for why a particular law exists then that would not be the kind of thing you can expect to find an answer to here as this would be down to the people who put such laws in place.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

laineynic

 

We have answered your questions the best we can. In all honesty, the only obnoxious reply has been posted by yourself.

Perhaps you need a specialist in travel law to help you further.

 

I wish you and your daughter good luck in finding a resolution.

Loubychew

 

I am not a travel lawyer. All info is based on my own experience of working in the travel industry in resort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just thought i'd update on the latest from the Sun4U saga - we have been in constant contact with the holiday company to have the £75 per person penatly stopped and have got no where. Yesterday we received a letter giving the girls 48 hours to pay the £475 each.

 

We have advised them that they did not advise the girls at anytime of the cancellation penalty. There response was we don't have the time to read out the terms and conditions over te phone. They have now stopped responding to any emails we have sent and the customer services advisor I have been dealing with won't give me details of someone more senior.

 

It seems that many others are falling into the same thing. I just wonder why this is not regulated better. Surely you should be able to change your mind without being penalised especially after only 4 hours.

 

I am completely stumped - it looks like holding out and not paying the £75 has put the girls in a position of having to pay for a holiday that they won't be taking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying this would be the correct answer, but have you requested new card details for your DD? I assume the attempted transaction was declined. £75 PP is a joke if you ask me.

 

What do they threaten should they not pay? Could anybody tell me if this is liable for court action? (not that I think they'd bother) only, if they did, the T&C's bit would be on your side, would it not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

On the 14th April I spoke my daughters friends mum contacted customer services to sort out changing the holiday. Despite being promised that they would move it foc, the told her there would be a charge per person. We even had the persons name who told us she would move it free of charge. After a 15 minute debate we decided that we would give in and pay the £75 charge and use another holiday company. We gave in and asked how to pay. We were told to put it in a email and someone would get back to us with what we need to pay to cancel the holiday.

 

11 days later - no email, no response to the email and the demand letters have stopped. Could it be that they have finally given in? or is this the lull before a storm.

 

I would never ever use Sun4u.com ever again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

We have advised them that they did not advise the girls at anytime of the cancellation penalty. There response was we don't have the time to read out the terms and conditions over te phone.

 

Isn't that the get-out for you. Was that said in an e-mail? Isn't it the case that the contract isn't binding until you receive the written t & C. Think of any only purchases. You always have to tick the T & C box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am using this against them. Still no response from anyone regarding the cancellation penalty. I have contacted them, and one of the other mums has been in rouch and the correspondnce from them has stopped. No threatening letters or any thing now. I have enough emails from them admitting that they don'r give t&c's over the phone.

 

Thanks bribri

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...