Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2128 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 All,

 

I'm hoping someone can give me a steer on the correct course of action here.

 

I "own" a leasehold property with an annual service charge of £150 payable annually in advance.

I foolishly missed the payment in April this year and received an invoice for the payment due plus a "reminder fee" of £34, which i duly challenged in writing, accepting the original £150 was payable but asking where in my lease it states that the reminder fee is payable.

I also requested a breakdown of the £34 fee as I believe it to be disproportionate.

 

I received a response stating that this fee will not be waived but no breakdown and no reference to the clause in my lease that allows a reminder fee to be charged (I'm unable to find such a clause).

 

I challenged again, stating I was happy to pay the outstanding balance, less the reminder fee unless they responded to my request for further information.

 

I received no response but have today received a letter from Property Debt Collection Ltd, in respect of the outstanding amount of £150, plus the reminder fee of £34, plus another £80 admin fee, plus an additional £150 for PDC's instruction: a total of £414.

 

My questions are:

 

1. Are any of these fees lawful

 

2. Should I contact PDC or the original management company and pay the outstanding balance of £150 whilst I challenge the remainder?

 

3. Is there a valid challenge or should I just suck it up and pay?

 

3. Is there some other action I should take?

 

Any advice would be gratefully received...

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you should set about reducing the problem as much as possible. Pay them the £150 that you owe. Then you can argue about the rest.

 

They are not entitled to charge what amount to excessive penalties. Even if it is in the contract, they would only be allowed to charge sufficient to cover their administrative losses. Begin by paying them the £150 – even if they try to refuse to accept it they are obliged to. After that tell them to go and do the other thing in respect of the other money they want to claim. If they want to take the court we will help you defend. Your chances of success are better than 90%

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bankfodder and Andyorch for the quick and informative responses! I'll craft a suitable response to PDC, offering to pay the original amount and drawing their attention to theirs and their client's failure to comply with the requirement to provide a summary of rights.

 

I may be back.... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

you dont offer, you send a cheque and if they refuse to cash it they ahve just lost themselves any chance of getting another penny in costs. read up on mitigation of losses for that bit. as siad above the 2 things are separate issues but read your lease carefully regarding paying of costs when paying ground rent or service charges late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A brief update. I wrote to PDC today as follows:

 

"Dear XXX,

 

I will call shortly to make payment of the outstanding service charge of £150 - this amount has never been in dispute.

I have written to your client on two separate occasions since the demand for an increased payment amount was made, requesting both details of the specific clause in the lease that allows for admin charges, and a breakdown of said admin charge as I believe it to be disproportionate to the actual costs incurred.

 

Furthermore, your client (and latterly your company) has failed to provide an accompanying summary of rights, required under the provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

 

As such I am exercising my right under said act to withhold payment of the initial admin charge of £34.

Given these circumstances, and considering that I have acted within my rights under the aforementioned Act, I believe your client has acted unreasonably and inappropriately in instructing a debt collection agency.

As such I do not accept liability for any additional costs incurred, over and above the original service charge.

 

Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

 

Yours sincerely"

 

I followed up with a call (recorded) and attempted to make payment of the original £150 in settlement of the original overdue amount, and was advised that they would not accept "part payment". I asked for this in writing and received the following:

 

"Good Afternoon,

 

In regards to our telephone call,

 

The amount of charges due = £150.00 (Service Charge and Reserve Fund)

 

The amount due of fees passed on by RMG = £114.00 (Due to Non Payment)

 

The amount due of our PDC fee = £150.00

 

Due to Non/Late payment you are laible as per the terms in your lease to pay these.

 

Unfortunately we will not take payment minus these fees.

 

Kind Regards,"

 

RMG (and PDC) have failed to provide the summary of rights required by the 2002 Act and PDC have now refused payment, thereby failing to mitigate their losses. Is this a fair summary?

 

If this is correct, should I just wait it out or would it be advisable to attempt to pay the £150 direct to RMG??

 

As always, any advice gratefully received.

 

C

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Retain that safely...they cant litigate now as they have refused payment and you have it in writing.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...if they think their charges are justified and can refuse payment...let them bring a court claim on.

 

You will have to think of another way to make this payment..possibly bypassing them.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received an email response today:

 

"Good morning,

 

 

 

I believe you have called our office since sending this email and have been advised by one of my colleagues that we are unable to accept part payment of the outstanding arrears and that the amount is due to be paid in full.

 

 

 

With regards to the fees, you are liable to pay these for non-payment of charges due as per the terms of your lease. I have attached a copy of the lease and would like to refer you to Schedule 5, Part 1 – Covenants enforceable by the landlord, Point 1 & 3.

 

Our client has fulfilled their obligation by sending you an invoice for payment. It is your responsibility to ensure payment is made and on time, due to non-payment further fees have been incurred and subsequently referral to Property Debt Collection and further incurring fees.

 

 

 

Please call our office within 7 days to make payment of the outstanding balance of £414.00"

 

 

As far as I can tell, this doesn't change anything for a number of reasons:

 

1. Clauses 1 and 3 (see attached pic) make no reference to admin fees (although I suppose it could be implied?)

2. Even if they did, there was no accompanying summary of rights

3. They are explicitly choosing not to mitigate their losses.

 

Can anyone confirm my thinking is correct?

 

Cheers

Chris

lease1.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no need to pass it to a Debt Collector ...I wouldn't regard that as a legal fee.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy, totally agree.

 

I'm going to write back and offer to pay the original £150 plus the late payment "admin" fee of £34, simply because I value the time it will take me in carrying on with this nonsense at more than £34.

 

If they don't accept it, I'll contact RMG direct and try the same tack.

 

If that doesn't work, I'll await their LBA.

 

Thanks

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...