Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that i thought id just ask as i was unsure.  Just hope its returned to me and doesnt spend the rest of its life going back and forth to Singapore  
    • Thanks @lolerz. I've attached it to the post. What do you think? What's the organ grinder? NTK.pdf
    • I'm afraid that if the value of the item was under declared then that is probably the best that you can hope for. Also, because the item was incorrectly addressed – even by a single letter, if that because the issue relating to the delivery then that has probably compounded the problem. There is probably very little that can be done. If you are lucky you will get the item back and then you can start again and declare it properly. Undervaluing parcels which are sent by any means is always going to cause a problem if the item is lost or damaged. It may mean that the cost of delivery is slightly less – but at the end of the day the risk becomes yours. When you enter into any kind of contract, effectively you declare it a level of risk to your contracting partner – and they decide to enter into the contract with you based on that level of risk. You have declared a level of risk and £50 – and that's the deal.   Additionally, undervaluing an item which is an internationally has the effect also of evading customs and any VAT system which is in force in that country – and that makes the whole thing a little bit more serious
    • Perfect. Nice and brief and to the point. You don't bother to start telling your life story. Just the way it should be. Send it off. You have probably done enough reading to understand that it won't make any difference don't start drafting your particulars of claim. Open an account with the MoneyClaim County Court system and start preparing. Post your particulars of claim here before you click it off. You may have noticed that at some point you will be asked if you want to go to mediation on this. We used to advise it but now we recommend that you decline mediation and go to trial. Your chances of success are much better than 95%. Going to trial will incur an additional hearing fee but of course you will get that back. However if you go to mediation, they will simply try to penny pinch and to get you to compromise and also they will sign you up to a confidentiality agreement and probably threaten you if you breach it. Not only that, if the mediation fails because you stand your ground, it will add additional delay while they then give you a date to go to trial. The best thing to do is to decline mediation – prepare for court hearing. Pay the extra fee. The chances are that rather than get a judgement against them they will then offer you a full settlement rather than go to court. If they do offer you full settlement then you will be obliged to accept it – but that's what you want. If they don't offer you full settlement then you will go to trial and there will be a judgement against them. Just so that you understand, our first interest is that you get your money back – but a close second is that it does go to trial and there is a judgement which we will then be able to use to help other people. Anyway as you should realise, we will help you all the way.
    • I sent a parcel to Singapore but i spelt the address incorrecltly by 1 letter so the parcel couldnt be delivered and was returned back to the Uk but checking the tracking today the parcel had returned to the UK but is somehow on its way back to Singapore as the tracking says "Item leaving the UK"    Ive spoken ( tweeted) Royal Mail help who confirm that the parcel seems to be going back to Singapore and that if its not " Delivered" by the 29th of April theyll deem it as lost and will accept a claim but i cant remeber when booking what the compensation amount was but i dont think it covers the amount of the item.  As it was my fault that it wasnt delivered in the first place can i trey and claim the full amount back ? i think if i remember correctly it was £50 compensation but the item was £170 So the timeline is thus ...   22nd Of March .    Booked via P2G & dropped off a Post Office.  25th March arrives in Singapore and goes through customs ect ect 26th   Incorrect address and item is flagged as "return to sender" 28th Item leaves Overseas intenational processing centre 15th of April , Item is leaving the Uk (Again)   ?    
  • 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

Actionable Misrepresentation In Property Transaction


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4606 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

I purchase a property under the 'Right to Buy' scheme in 2003. I received a 'Offer Notice' under Section 125 of the Housing Act 1985 from the council before completion which stated under the heading ‘Structural And Other Defects’ a list of defects know by the council to affect the property..It also stated in bold

 

"No structural survey has been made in connection with the following valuation, nor have the services been tested. Moreover, those parts of the property which are covered, unexposed or inaccessible, including the roof space, have not been inspected and the Council’s Valuer is, therefore unable to report that such parts of the property are free from insect infestation, rot, or any other defect, apart from those listed below. It is for the intending Purchaser of the above property to satisfy himself or herself as to the condition of the property. An intending purchaser is strongly advised to obtain a full survey of the property."

 

Bearing in mind that it states under S125(4a) Housing Act:

 

(4A) The notice shall contain a description of any structural defect known to the landlord affecting the dwelling-house or the building in which it is situated.

 

The defects listed were:-

 

Replace metal framed single glazed windows when necessary.

 

Replace lead riser (water pipe)

 

*Repoint minor cracking*

 

Investigate/treat woodworm

 

Last year it was brought to my attention by a surveyor that my property had previously suffered subsidence, he pointed out a 25mm vertical crack that ran from the roof line to the porch. It had been pointed with mortar and there were also 2x 2.5m helical bars that had been bedded into the mortar joints horizontally to hold the property together.

 

I told him that I never been aware of that crack and it was the first time it had ever been brought to my attention, I told him that I had purchased the property from the council. As he had surveyed properties for the council before he asked me if I had the 'Offer Notice'

 

After viewing the paperwork and looking around property he could not find any other cracks or any that needed repointing accept for the one he had identified to me. He told me that the crack that the council had referred to as 'minor' was in fact a substantial crack and he told me to notify my insurers immediately as it was evident that the property was still moving.

 

It is of the opinion of the surveyor and a structural engineer that the property was never repaired properly and will need underpinning to stabilise it. It's no surprise to me that my insurers are only willing to do minor remedial repairs as it is evident that the subsidence is historical and was present prior to me taking out my policy with them which really voids my policy.

 

I understand that I should have had a full structural survey at the time of purchase but I also understand that the council failed in their statutory duty to disclose all known defects known to them that affected the property at time of me receiving my 'Offer Notice'.

 

What I would like to know is, would this also be classed as an actionable misrepresentation under s.2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 as the information they documented on the ‘Offer Notice’ was wholly misleadingly and they should have known that if the crack of that magnitude needed repointing 'again' then the property was still showing signs of movement after the work ‘they’ had carried out (prior to me becoming a tenant in the property) and a defect of this nature would required remedial work in distant future.

 

I’m not actually too sure 'IF' there was in fact a contract between myself and the council but had the subsidence been disclosed to me at the time of sale, I would never have entered in to a contract with my mortgage company.

 

Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...