Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
  • 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

CCTV camera and street sign in garden


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4644 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

Hi there,

 

I wonder if someone might be able to help me with a query I have. I purchased a property 5 years ago which was a converted police station and in the "garden" (patch of tarmac outside the sitting room windows) was a large (approx 25ft tall, and 4ft square CCTV camera) and also a sign directing traffic to a nearby car-park. I get no financial compensation for them.

 

I wasn't fussed about them really - but I changed my garden fence and the council have been around saying that the fence was too high and saying that if I didn't take 2ft off the top then they would take me to court. It seems that before I bought the place someone else had tried to add a higher fence - the council kicked up saying it was against planning, the owners at the times didn't apply for retrospective planning permission so it went to court and it was judged that a fence that high could never be sited there (which was annoying for me). The planning offices said I had no option but to cut down the fence or they would just take it to court and it would go straight though as it had already been agreed.

 

Well, I have cut the fence down - but I have this CCTV camera and sign post in my garden (which I now want rid off!) I have looked through the deeds and there is no mentions of them - and nothing I can see on any other documents.

 

would anyone happen to know:

 

a) Would I be entitled to anything from the council for these being sited on my land?

b) Would I be entitled to request they resite them, and make good the garden?

c) Would I have a leg to stand on writing to them about the above, or could they just make my life more difficult?

 

Many thanks in advance

 

Graham

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I assume that when you purchased the property that there were no conditions pertaining to the CCTV?

 

Also have you written to the council requesting a copy of permission letter from the previous land owner for the original installation of the CCTV?

 

What are the protocals now if maintenance needs to be undertaken to the CCTV? how do staff access you land with/without permission.

 

Have you written to the council requesting that they relocate the CCTV? and what was there response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that when you purchased the property that there were no conditions pertaining to the CCTV?

 

Also have you written to the council requesting a copy of permission letter from the previous land owner for the original installation of the CCTV?

 

What are the protocals now if maintenance needs to be undertaken to the CCTV? how do staff access you land with/without permission.

 

Have you written to the council requesting that they relocate the CCTV? and what was there response.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

I've just written to the council asking for the details and permission for this to be located on my premises. I requested it under the FOI act and the 20 days reply time is up today, so I'll see what happens.

 

There was no conditions when I purchased the house regarding the CCTV, and as I am never really in I don't know how they get to the CCTV camera - I did notice however that they recently changed the car park sign, so they must've got in my garden to do that.

 

I'll let you knw when I hear anything from the coucncil, and if I don't hear anything in the next week I will be contacting the ICO to find out why they are not replying to an FOI request.

 

Thanks again for the reply...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subbing. Sounds like they deserve the run around off you :)

PLEASE DONATE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN

 

 

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw

 

 

 

 

Go on, click me scales (if I have helped) :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I've had a reply from the council as below:

 

Legal Services:

The property was formerly a Police Station. It is believed that the poles were installed on your premises while the property was a Police Station. When the property was sold it would have been the responsibility of the conveyancer to ensure that the sale was correctly undertaken and searches done to ensure the correct permissions were in place for the camera.

As the Council was not privy to the sale we cannot advise what checks were carried out. Therefore we advise that you contact the police regarding this matter who may be able to assist further.

Crime Disorder & Reduction Team:

CCTV: This would have been installed by a consortium of XXXX Council, XXX TC, XXX Chamber of Commerce and the Police approx. 7years ago, I believe.

We believe that the address refers to the former Police Station building in where we have a CCTV camera – this camera was erected in 1999 and the district councils gained wayleaves for all cameras situated on private property with the then owners (which subsequently changed, the new owners should then have been notified via their solicitors on purchase). CDRT do not hold copies of the wayleaves. The camera is pole mounted not building mounted.

Property Service:

From the responses already given it would seem that permission was sought from the owner of the property at the time the items were put up – this would have been by way of a wayleave or easement. Each party should have a copy of the agreement, which transfers with the deeds of the property when the ownership changes.

I am not certain if this is the case for signage, but certainly for utilities, although permission is still sought to place equipment on private land, if it is not forthcoming the utility companies can exercise their statutory rights to enter land and carry out the works.

can anyone advise, would I be entitled to ask for them to re-site the camera and sign?

any help really gratefully received.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...