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

Reported for having a wee


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2112 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

 

please can i get some advice regarding todays events,

 

i was off sick with a trapped nerve in my lower back (I am a delivery driver)

 

i was asked by my manager via text if i would return to work as a passanger to show the lad covering my run the route as my normal finish time is 14.00 and he finished at 19.30 the previous day, I agreed to this and also informed my manager that the Naproxin and anti inflamitaries do help a little so i will chip in as much as i can,

 

Upon arrival at one of my deliveries which was a pub that doesnt open until 11.00am we got there at 10.40 and i was absolutely dying for a wee

i checked the gate to see if anyone was already there so i could use their loo however it was all locked up

i decided to go to the furthest secluded corner of the car park to have a wee,

 

suddenly i heard a woman shouting at my work mate but couldnt work out what she was saying however her tone was very aggressive,

i finished and went to see what the commosion was about,

 

i saw a female hanging out of the upstairs window of the pub (in the whole year ive been delivering there i never knew that they lived above as someone always comes and opens up)

 

she started to hurl abuse at me something about a tramp weeing in her car park

i calmly apologised and explained that i was very desperate and couldnt hold until they opened up in 15 minutes

she was having none of it

 

again apologised and got back into the lorry and rang my boss to tell him.

he told me he would sort it and not to worry.

My colleague then returned explaining that they were refusing the order so we took it back.

 

Upon arrival back to work i saw my manager who said that they'd complained and are wanting to speak with the directors

therefore he doesnt know what will happen now and the pub has told them they dont want me delivering there anymore

 

if they order tomorrow i wont be on it, (however id only returned from sick to show my colleague this round so would i be in my right to go back off sick)

Also the pub had sent in some sort of footage showing my colleague smoking in the lorry and my manager said i apparently "jumped" out of the lorry which is not bad for someone with apparently a bad back,

 

i actually felt insulted and said id already told you im on medication and it does help a little so i will chip in as much as i can.

if i was faking it i wouldnt have gone in at all why would i ?

 

would it be advisable to get a doctors note explaining the problem to my bladder that this trapped nerve has caused.

My previous 2 deliveries were schools who dont let you use the toilet for obvious reasons and i was in rural area with very thin roads no lay bys nor services.

 

Any advice would be greatly received, sorry about the spelling

Edited by dx100uk
spacing/spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If the trapped nerve and/or medication affects your bladder then get a medical note

 

If however, it is not true then don't

You would be making a bad situation worse

Edited by Andyorch
Quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you know you have that condition then, like pretty much every driver, you carry a bottle. I’d be furious if I were the customer and can’t see much hope on this one. Poor planning doesn’t excuse gross behaviour.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The law safeguarding children takes precedence over the HSE guidance HSG136 referred to. HSE guidance is just that, guidance on general good practice, not a statement of the law (and clearly refers to large premises with loading and unloading bay areas, not something a school would have). "When deliveries and collections are made, loading and unloading areas should ... have a safe area for drivers to wait that allows them to rest between driving shifts, especially if they may be waiting for several hours, with easy and safe access to toilet, washing and refreshment facilities and shelter in case of bad weather". No school is going to allow delivery drivers to wander around the school using the toilets and washing and having their lunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I agree with this.

 

The school should have allowed you and if they had safeguarding issues then they should have provided someone to follow you

 

In construction, sometimes we get workers who have no DBS, the school gets someone to watch over them while they do short work in classrooms

 

The school usually sends the bill back to us though (£10/hr and no more)

 

Anyway, your health condition would be mitigation so get the medical note

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The school should have allowed you and if they had safeguarding issues then they should have provided someone to follow you

 

All schools have safeguarding issues about allowing strangers into the building when children are there. There's no 'if' about it.

 

Schools do not have staff available to escort delivery drivers to the toilet! Nor are they under any obligation to do so. If you are lucky they may have a visitors toilet in the reception area which can accessed without going into the main school building, then no problem. My school has that, most schools don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot go urinating in some ones car park....... If you have a medical condition then you would have a catheter fitted or son other way of staying decent.

 

You've urinited in public... Offence and potentially could of been charged with exposing youself as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot go urinating in some ones car park....... If you have a medical condition then you would have a catheter fitted or son other way of staying decent.

 

You've urinited in public... Offence and potentially could of been charged with exposing youself as well.

 

I don't agree with the OP at all but wow, that is harsh. Maybe you would feel different if ever a debilitating condition affects you.

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all make mistakes, I guess the OP must have realised that he made one

 

Maybe we should just focus on what advice we could give

 

Don’t fight lost causes and apologise where appropriate. But first OP has to get past making excuses for himself.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Moggy491,

 

I haven't walked in your shoes so I wouldn't criticize you

 

By the way, how long were you off sick?

 

From what I can see, you were desperate to come back to work and you made the mistake of starting too early

 

Most people love being productive and working and I feel you just wanted to get back to work

 

I hope your employer is reasonable about the whole situation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the doctor is prepared to write a statement about the link between the trapped nerve and bladder problem, the employer could be hardly punishing you.

When you're not fit for duty don't go to work.

Employers have no mercy, so why should employee go out of their way to please them when there's a good reason for not doing so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

all schools have staff toilets. Safeguarding rules dont exclude people from entering the premises, they talk about unchaperoned contact with children and so forth, not a bar on using building facilities. Common sense should prevail

 

 

 

 

 

 

The law safeguarding children takes precedence over the HSE guidance HSG136 referred to. HSE guidance is just that, guidance on general good practice, not a statement of the law (and clearly refers to large premises with loading and unloading bay areas, not something a school would have). "When deliveries and collections are made, loading and unloading areas should ... have a safe area for drivers to wait that allows them to rest between driving shifts, especially if they may be waiting for several hours, with easy and safe access to toilet, washing and refreshment facilities and shelter in case of bad weather". No school is going to allow delivery drivers to wander around the school using the toilets and washing and having their lunch.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t fight lost causes and apologise where appropriate. But first OP has to get past making excuses for himself.

 

first of all as quoted in my op i apologised twice whilst explaining the situation to the customer, and whilst taking a whole load of verbal personal abuse, To be fair your response Emmzzi is no help whatsoever and only judgemental and patronising. So therefore would request that you get off you're high horse and keep ones personal opinions to ones self. other than that please do have a nice day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Moggy491,

 

I haven't walked in your shoes so I wouldn't criticize you

 

By the way, how long were you off sick?

 

From what I can see, you were desperate to come back to work and you made the mistake of starting too early

 

Most people love being productive and working and I feel you just wanted to get back to work

 

I hope your employer is reasonable about the whole situation

 

Hi dondada,

I had trapped a nerve over the weekend just gone and my first day off sick was monday, My boss later text me asking if i would come back to work and just sit in the passenger seat to guide my replacement driver around the route as i do this route in 6 hours yet it had previously taken the replacement 12hours , i agreed to this as to be fair with work and also expressed that my pain is less whilst on my medication so will chip in in any other way i can throughout the day.

so basically i was off sick for 1 day,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dondada,

I had trapped a nerve over the weekend just gone and my first day off sick was monday, My boss later text me asking if i would come back to work and just sit in the passenger seat to guide my replacement driver around the route as i do this route in 6 hours yet it had previously taken the replacement 12hours , i agreed to this as to be fair with work and also expressed that my pain is less whilst on my medication so will chip in in any other way i can throughout the day.

so basically i was off sick for 1 day,

 

 

So you were trying to help out A lot of people would have stayed home

 

I see you as a good person trying to assist his employer

 

I really wish you the best and pray that your employer is also reasonable

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you were trying to help out A lot of people would have stayed home

 

I see you as a good person trying to assist his employer

 

I really wish you the best and pray that your employer is also reasonable

 

Trying to help out doesnt excuse himself from potentially breaking the law.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a Friday night, I see a lot of people peeing in the streets and every available place. They must have been drinking heavily

 

The OP wasn't drinking but had a medical condition He stepped up to assist despite that condition

 

I really can't fault him at all I really hope he forgives himself too

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to help out doesnt excuse himself from potentially breaking the law.

 

I dont know how true this is but i have been informed there is no law against urinating however there is for public indecency, being in a secluded place out of public view and on private property would not constitute public indecency, only advised of this so dont know how true it is,

was also advised by my boss that you by law can urinate against your back left wheel, however i would then be closer to the building, in clear view of the public and in the middle of the car park,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know how true this is but i have been informed there is no law against urinating however there is for public indecency, being in a secluded place out of public view and on private property would not constitute public indecency, only advised of this so dont know how true it is,

was also advised by my boss that you by law can urinate against your back left wheel, however i would then be closer to the building, in clear view of the public and in the middle of the car park,

 

 

I don't know if this is true but I can see that your boss is a reasonable person

 

I don't think you should worry too much about the whole incident

 

I guess it is what is called Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

Urinating on left back tyre!!!

Oh my!!!!

 

It is legal for a man to urinate in public, as long it is against the rear offside wheel of his motor vehicle and his right hand is on the vehicle.

 

Although this is widely reported as fact, this is actually not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Urinating on left back tyre!!!

Oh my!!!!

 

It is legal for a man to urinate in public, as long it is against the rear offside wheel of his motor vehicle and his right hand is on the vehicle.

 

Although this is widely reported as fact, this is actually not true.

 

Yep in all fairness it’s very absurd but if my boss believes this then who am I to convince him otherwise,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...