Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

S.32 Limitation Act and Bank Charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5010 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

There is certainly a devil in the detail!

 

The deed of variation existed and was registered at HMLR when you bought. The question is therefore whether you are fixed with notice of what the deed said (or in fact did not say) from the date of purchase or whether, in the circumstances you describe and bearing in mind that the deed did not in fact come to your attention until later, you were entitled to rely on the copy of the deed supplied by the landlord/landlord's agent. To put it another way, is it your actual state of knowledge when you first queried the amount of rent that counts or the knowledge imputed to you? It could go either way in court.

 

The deed is actually dated some 6 months after the purchase date, it appears to be shrouded in mystery, it is signed by neither myself nor my brother. Like many people the whole subject of lease and ground rent was a mystery to me, so we (sometimes reluctantly) paid the amounts of ground rent and service charges demanded.

 

The whole subject has got rather confusing, it has already been the subject of a LVT case which wasnt really conclusive, LVT's have no jurisdiction over ground rent, this is why it has its own seperate case.

 

I certainly don't think i am being unreasonable in not accepting the offer

from my landlord (they have only actually offered to repay 4 years worth), I shall be relying not only upon S32 on the limitation Act but also S166 of the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act which deals with ground rent demands.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure section 166 will help. First the section says that the tenant is not liable to make payment until he receives notice; I do not think that that means that any rent payable which is paid without notice being given has to be refunded. Secondly and in any event, the Act cannot apply to any demands made before it came into force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure section 166 will help. First the section says that the tenant is not liable to make payment until he receives notice; I do not think that that means that any rent payable which is paid without notice being given has to be refunded. Secondly and in any event, the Act cannot apply to any demands made before it came into force.

 

Sorry..I need to clarify this bit too.

 

The landlord is seeking to also offset £60, which is the ground rent for the last 2 years (2 x £30), BUT he hasn't complied with S166 for these two years, so as it stands nothing is payable for the last two years, so therefore he can't offset an amount that is not yet due.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just to add to this, my court case was 100% successful, the landlord didnt seem to know what he was talking about and the judge was annoyed with him.

 

She asked him why S32 wouldnt apply in my case and he didnt have an answer so the judge allowed my claim going back to 1996 :), as you can imagine there was quite a lot of interest on this and I came away a grand happier, she also agreed that he hadnt complied with s166 of CALR Act. After a very dissapointing LVT decision (which I am appealing)_, this case has restored my faith in british justice, plus it was worth it to watch my landlord squirm n make a fool oh himself !

 

In my case it was the 'mistake' part of S32 that allowed my claim to go back beyong 6 years.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly your devil was a very friendly little imp. :)

 

Without, I hope, in any way deflating your triumph, I would just like to emphasise that the scope of section 32 is a lot narrower than many think and is not always going to ride to the rescue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly your devil was a very friendly little imp. :)

 

Without, I hope, in any way deflating your triumph, I would just like to emphasise that the scope of section 32 is a lot narrower than many think and is not always going to ride to the rescue.

 

You may be right, what helped me was that in their initial defence they clearly admitted a mistake had been made, I wasn't 100% sure if this applied in my case and I was prepared to argue the merits of 'fraud' or 'concealment of facts', but I hardly had to say a word, in fact when I was going to, the judge said do you need to say something, I think meaning 'this guy is just digging himself in a hole so just shut up'..ha.

 

I'm sure I've read on here about claiming litigant in person costs, but the judge said they didnt apply to a small claims track but she did allow me, 3 hours of missed work costs :)

 

There is also the slight worrying feeling that he may appeal, although i cant really think on what grounds.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...