Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would suggest that you stop trying to rely on legal theory – as you understand it. Firstly, because we are dealing with practical/pragmatic situations and at a low value level where these arguments tend not to work. Secondly, because you clearly have misunderstood the assessment of quantum where there are breaches of obligations. The formula that you have cited above is the method of loss calculation in torts. In contract it is entirely different. The law of obligations generally attempts to remedy the breach. This means that in tort, damages seek to put you into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. In other words it returns you to your starting position – point zero. Contract damages attend put you into the position that you would have been had the breach not occurred but this is not your starting position, contract damages assume that the agreement in dispute had actually been carried out. This puts you into your final position. You sold an item for £XXX. Your expectation was that you your item would be correctly delivered and that you would be the beneficiary of £XXX. Your expectation loss is the amount that you sold the item for and that is all you are entitled to recover. If you want, you can try to sue for the larger sum – and we will help you. But if they ask for evidence of the value of the item as it was sold then I can almost guarantee that either you will be obliged to settle for the lesser sum – or else a judge will give you judgement but for the lesser sum. This will put you to the position that you would have been had there been no breach of contract. I understand from you now that when you dispatch the item you declared the retail cost to you and not your expected benefit of £XXX. To claim for the retail value in the circumstances would offend the rules relating to betterment. If you want to do it then we will help you – but don't be surprised if you take a tumble.  
    • I was caught speeding 3 times in the same week, on the same road. All times were 8-12mph higher than the limit. I was offered the course for the first offense and I now need to accept the other 2 offenses. I just want to be ready for what might come. Will I get the £100 fine and 3 points for each of them or do I face something more severe?  These are my only offenses in 8 years of driving.
    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower. I still believe that I should be claiming for the item's full value, rather than how much I sold it for, as this is the same for insurance: we don't insure the value we paid, but rather the value of the item to put us back into the position we would be in if we ever needed to claim. Its for the loss adjuster to argue the toss
    • amusing that 'bad economic judgement on behalf of prior party ISN'T a major reason to wingers to move to deform yet immigration is, where record levels of such has been driven by the right wings terrible brexit and the later incompetent dog whistle 'proposals largely driven to whistle to the right wingnuts Just seems to confirm the are clueless numpties 'wetting their own shoes   Has farage bought a property in Clacton yet?   yet concern for the NHS is listed as a major issue even by those saying they are moving to deform  
    • Also, have you told us how much you paid for this vehicle? Are there any other expenses you have incurred – insurance, inspections et cetera? How far away from the dealership do you live?
  • 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

Need advice on Tenancy Deposit Scheme


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4262 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, I have a question re TDS too but not sure how to start a thread, can't see the thread starter button anywhere?

I read the post above and hoped to follow a link but you forgot to post it :)

 

My question is.....

 

I have been renting a property 12 May 2006. The building (and most land in whole county) is owned by a large wealthy estate. However they sublet the house to a local farmer, who is my landlord and who signed the contract with me via a letting agent. Yeah, hard to follow!

 

Out of the blue the other day, I get a voicemail from my landlord saying as of the end of the week (3 days later) he is no longer my landlord and i "will be under the xxxx estate". First question is, can they do this?

Second and more importantly.... I emailed the agent to ask what was going on, as its a few weeks later now and in theory I think I am here without a contract. The reply I got was basically...

 

Yes it reverted to the estate who own the building, your deposit was given to them as was your signed contract. :!:

 

I emailed back asking why that had happened, and that I didn't think it was legal, I never signed anything or had any agreements with anyone else, and more importantly asking where my deposit is, whether it was in a secure TDS thingie, and what happened to any interest. The reply I got was basically 'We complied with the law because your deposit was taken prior to the deposit protection certification coming into effect and there is no interest on the amount'

 

Can anyone PLEASE advise me on this?

 

Many thanks

The financial system is collapsing, time to raise a glass to the end of the biggest pyramid scheme in history - The Debt Industry :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your letting agent is correct. TDS protection was not reqd for an existing AST that commenced in 2006 and any interest on deposit is not payable to T.

I suggest your ex-LL did the correct thing and protected deposit with TDS when the Localism Act came into effect Apr 12.

In effect your immediate LL has 'sold' the property back to the superior LL, who is now 'your' LL. Ex LL has done nothing illegal and you have no say in sale/ 'reversion'. Your Tenancy continues on same T&Cs as before, but the 'new' LL or agent should write and inform you who is now your LL with details of how to pay rent in future and an address for Service of Notices. They are now required to protect your deposit in one of 3 approved schemes of their choosing and ensure you have the stat 'reqd info' as tech it is tech a new AST, albeit with orig T&Cs.

 

All this assumes your original letting was an Assured Shorthold Tenancy under the Housing Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doh, thanks so much, I just asked for your help on another thread!

Thanks also for your reply. The only comment I would make is in relation to your second sentence. You suggest my ex-LL did the correct thing and protected deposit with TDS. Why do you suggest that? I don't think they did any such thing, why do you think that? Should I ask the question direct? If so, what do I ask? i.e. "When the Localism Act came into effect did you protect my deposit?"

 

Yes I was on an AST. Thanks again for your kind help

The financial system is collapsing, time to raise a glass to the end of the biggest pyramid scheme in history - The Debt Industry :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest your LL did the right thing as there is still legal uncertainty that existing pre 2007 ASTs need deposit protection even under the recent Localism Act (which is not retrospective).

The smart advice for any pre 2007 ASTs at any stages since Apr? 2007 was 'if in doubt, protect', which LL did at some stage.

Why are you unhappy that deposit was protected?

 

The Q you wish to ask is meaningless, LL was under no obligation to protect a deposit taken in 2006, unless a new AST was contracted after Apr? 2007 and the deposit transferred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really follow where you said "Why are you unhappy that deposit was protected?" I don't think it was!

 

I believe the AST may have been reissued some time since, need to check

The financial system is collapsing, time to raise a glass to the end of the biggest pyramid scheme in history - The Debt Industry :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

There are 3 deposit protection schemes that operate in England & Wales, any deposit taken on an assured shorthold tenancy agreement must be protected with one of these schemes within 30 days of the deposit being taken or the associated tenancy starting (whichever is sooner), the 3 schemes are:

 

Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) - www(dot)tds.gb.com

my|deposits - www(dot)mydeposits.co.uk

Deposit Protection Service (DPS) - www(dot)depositprotection .com

 

If your deposit has been protected with a scheme then you are able to raise a dispute (free of charge) if you do not agree with the deductions from your deposit at the end of the tenancy.

 

If you think your deposit has not been protected, please check with all 3 schemes and if it has not, any further action would have to be taken through the courts.

 

Similarly, if your deposit has not been protected within the specified 30 day timescales, this would have to be raised in court too.

 

In this particular instance, the deposit would not need to have been protected (as it was not covered by the original 2007 deposit legislation) until their was a 'major change' to the agreement, such as the landlord changing. At that point, as previously stated, the deposit should have been protected, the relevant documents issued to you and an addendum issued to the tenancy agreement to reflect the changes.

 

Hope this is useful to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh right, thanks. Well my tenancy has just changed significantly although they have issued no new contracts. The landlord who sublet to me has buggered off and the "superior landlord" has taken over. still no mention of deposit being protected

The financial system is collapsing, time to raise a glass to the end of the biggest pyramid scheme in history - The Debt Industry :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel the deposit should have been protected and it has not been, you may wish to check with all 3 schemes and then obtain written evidence that it is not protected. You may then wish to take this evidence to either the citizens advice bureau and/or shelter ("shelter(dot)org.uk") and speak with them about how to raise this issue in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...