Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 19/03/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I don't have specific experience of any sort of permit scheme but I do of taking on a council highways department. It got as far as a court on The Strand in London and I won. To be fair they caved halfway through the second day, as we returned from lunch my counsel was approached by theirs with the magic words 'could I have a moment of your time'. I count it as a win, it cost them a ridiculous amount of money It got that far because stupid little people working for councils honestly believe they can say what they want, do what they want, tell outright lies, go to extraordinary lengths to intimidate the people they are paid to serve. They aren't used to people standing up to them and they get away with it 99.9% of time. As others have said, you need to check your status carefully and then hit them. Get legal advice - not from some small town solicitor but from a big firm. I was lucky, someone pointed me to the right people. Don't be intimidated, don't believe a single word of what you're told by any council employee. They are the equivalent of every miserable call centre monkey you've ever dealt with. The brightest minds aren't attracted to council jobs after all.
  2. 2 points
    Permitbay - I haven't commented so far, as I don't know where you stand. But reading the above I really think you are in the wrong place to get sound advice. If I were you I would get some advice from a qualified lawyer. I don't know the ins and outs of this, except to point out that you cannot legally obstruct the highway, or (I believe) any public right of way.
  3. 2 points
    I think the OP just needs to be reassured here. Never Happen The bailiff does not even have any powers at this point, and after such a time he would have to apply to the court under CPR83, to have a warrant issued, which after 13 years they would be V unlikely to issue.
  4. 1 point
    If a “conference call” method isn’t available for Android : Get yourself an iPhone (provided your network allows native conference calling) I use “tape-a-call” ; high quality recordings without using the phone’s speaker (or a separate recorder with a microphone). I paid a one-off fee to upgrade from the free “Lite” version to the fully featured one.
  5. 1 point
    Hi all I am pleased to let you know I've heard no more. Its eight weeks since my reply was delivered, although it took the idiot a week to go collect it from the post office as was not home. Meaning 7 weeks since its been read. I want to say a big thanks to all who helped on this. I made a donation a couple of weeks ago, which I would have regardless, as it is sites like this which make the difference. Many thanks E!
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
    I'd be minded to put it in an envelope, send it back to them with an A4 piece of paper with a big laughing emoji right in the middle of it
  8. 1 point
    I would think that the wording of the original agreement will be crucial and whether it says anything about what happens if you withdraw your consent. After 15 years do you or any of your neighbours still have a copy?
  9. 1 point
    If you get as far as engaging a lawyer dont forget to throw in the biased ballot including people who have no interest in the land (doesnt matter thay are near neighbours). Now there may well be an easement for the road to allow all and sundry to pass along it but that wont affect your property as long as that right of way/throughfare is maintained. There was a case some years ago when all of the mews of Sth Kensington were adopted by the council. people had plant pots outside their houses for decades and all of a sudden they were being issued with parking tickets. DYL's were painted round people's doormats etc so what seemed like a good idea by the council to prevent clogging the narrow streets by interlopers didn nothing but aggravate the people who lived there. I woudl speak to all of your neighbours who actually have a curtillage on this road and see what they want before you spend money. Also look at the background of Dawood v Camden as that decision effectively allows councils to clobber people on their own land where the boundary is not clearly defined (and that statement is generous to what was actuallly said). Also dont forget, the council has unlimited funds (your money!) to fight yo and no liability for any individual regardless of how unreasonable or unlawful their behaviour
  10. 1 point
    Yes, both name would appear, unless one of them gives authority to act. So, if there was no flood, why did simply business insurance inspect the damage on 31 December 2018? What happened that made the LL open a claim?
  11. 1 point
    I would hate to think of the conditions of his Stamens then.
  12. 1 point
    I have to say, if anyone stepped over my small partition and trampled my plants, I would have him by the Hollyhocks.
  13. 1 point
    can The original firm has gone out of business so I'd guess your chance of any redress against them is zero. When a firm closes down voluntarily (eg the partners retire) they are supposed to ensure another firm takes over outstanding business. No doubt the new firm in this case will blame the old firm for any delays. If you think you have grounds for complaint - and if the amount of lost interest etc is worth it - you could complain to the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Agency). From what you say I'm doubtful whether that's worth the effort, but only you judge that. As Executors I think they have an obligation to pay all interest earned on your Uncle's Estate to the residual beneficiaries because Executors have a general fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries. But I couldn't point you to any specific bit of law that spells that out. These articles might be of interest. They confirm that the Executors have a legal duty to provide a copy of the Estate Accounts to the Residuary Beneficiaries. https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-sept-dec-2018/what-are-estate-accounts/ https://www.co-oplegalservices.co.uk/media-centre/articles-jan-apr-2017/can-a-beneficiary-of-a-will-see-the-estate-accounts/ Your best course of action, now that the solicitors have finally woken up and are getting on with it, is probably to co-operate with whatever they are asking and keep pushing them. There is no point in getting into legal dispute with the solicitors, which would be paid for out of what's left of the Estate, if the remaining Estate is worth next to nothing. The remaining assets would just disappear in legal fees.
  14. 1 point
    The council will always be adamant that they're right, even when they've been to court and lost. See the deeds and throw the book at them. If you have legal cover with your home insurance it might be worth letting a solicitor deal with the council. Commonly speaking no council can charge you to use your own land to park your car.
  15. 1 point
    Which is why I referred to the Legislation back in Post 11.
  16. 1 point
    If two thuggish looking individuals were seen climbing over a six foot fence into a garden where young children were playing whether legal or not, a passer by might dial 999 and the bailiffs would be having collars felt until all was sorted.
  17. 1 point
    If your land has only rights of pass and repass, tell them to jog off. Unless the deeds say something specific to parking, your land remain yours and you can park there without any permit.
  18. 1 point
    if the card was taken out where you presently live no ...no need but you prob confused them then by listing unnecessary old addresses
  19. 1 point
    silly autospell did you send a CTAX copy with the SAR?
  20. 1 point
    Did you send a crack copy with the request?
  21. 1 point
    as for repair etc, they mean if you accidentally break them you are liable. Now this is a bit of a problem in some respects as strict liability is not required, ie if you did something stupid and broke a sinkl then fair do's you pay but if you drop a pan and break a kitchen tile, the dropping of the pan isnt usually a forseeable event and tou arent normally responsible. as for maintenace of equipment like washing machines etc, again you are not responsible, their use is part of the tenancy and thus LL is responsible for their upkeep. You can sue LL if they dotn repair said item in good time. Now if you were to wash bricks in it then that is not normal use and the clause would apply but you dont need a clause to guard against straightforward negligence. The same goes for indemnifying any visitor, employee etc, that is what he need LL insurance for. All in all any clause that isnt legally enforceable such as thses render the whole contract void if you so prefer. Personally I would make LL move his washing machine out and you get your own Storage is then his problem This looks like a tweaked commercial repairing tenancy rather than one for a dwelling
  22. 1 point
    That just refers to the deposit? They're saying that the deposit is £700. They would need to protect it and to provide you with information relating to the nature of the deposit protection method. I don't know why he's quibbling over whether the contract is an AST or non assured. Isn't non assured more for people that are not going to be using the property as their primary residence? Surely if the term is 12 months the contract would become an AST after the fixed term anyway. They may be working under the false assumption that you would have less rights if it was non assured, and they could evict you at the drop of a hat. Honestly I don't know why some people start off a business transaction in terms of housing from an immediate dishonest standpoint... Thinking about it, he probably bought it off the internet as a non assured tenancy agreement and has zero legal understanding, so won't understand the difference.
  23. 1 point
    I'd probably have everything checked thoroughly before moving in and signing any agreement that states the above. I'd think most people would sign this agreement without reading it, and for all you know, there may be an ongoing issue with the plumbing. In the event you move out, they would shaft you for any repair costs. Or they at least would try. I'd probably seek clarity where this paragraph is concerned. It's quite vague, and I'd want to know what exactly they are assigning you responsibility for the repair of? It sounds to me like they're referring to any white goods that are located within the property, which belong to the landlord? But it could relate to something other. I'd say that if it relates to white goods, it wouldn't be your responsibility to maintain and repair them. There the two things that stick out to me, and they both look like having the potential to cause you heartache - Was there anything else in particular you were concerned about?
  24. 1 point
    so you respond to Gladdys and copy letter to parking co as they have to pay for Will and John's cock ups. Dear sirs, I am in receipt of your latter dated the 15th inst and note that despite being solicitors you do not seem to know that the POFA doesn't apply to Scotland. This surprises me since you also run the IPC and presumably are expected to have some knowledge of the law before you spout forth to your members on such matters. just to make things clear, there is no liability to your client whatsoever and any claim will be robustly defended and a full costs recovery order sought as your conduct would palpably unreasonable by trying to exert a liability that you know doesn't exist. To save you wasting more ink, I deny being the driver at the time and you cannot make assumptions or claims as to who was driving as you have fallen at that hurdle on many occasions before. It may not stop them trying their luck but it will make it hard to persaude a judge they werent being unreasonable in trying to flog a dead horse and you the stand a good change of getting a decent amoutn for your time spent on this matter as costs. The idea of sending a copy to the parking co is so that they actually see it and can then decide whether this dog bites rather than just relying on Will and John's word that you wont
  25. 1 point
    Greetings all, joined a while ago posting now, peace all, Jeremy
  26. 1 point
    Thread moved to the appropriate forum ..please continue to post here to your thread. Regards Andy
  27. 1 point
    point 4, add " and I put it to strict proof for the claimant to show to who was driving at the time". drop point 5 and say this instead. " the claimant has failed to produce any evidence of a contract with the landowner via a PR 31.14 request that assigns them the right to enter into contract with the public or to make civil claims in their own name. The defendant does not believe they have locus standi in this matter and so requests summary dismissal of the claim in its entirety"
  28. 1 point
    see any claimform thread here this is what you should have been doing in your downtimes ..research on whats next
  29. 1 point
    Wow this LL seems an absolute chancer. Does he seriously think that all of that is Tenant responsibility? A lot of that is a joke such as 18, 32 and 33 it goes on. So did you take any photos on check in and/or check out yourself? Did the landlord provide you with a check in report or inventory when you first moved in? I doubt it if the deposit isn't even protected.
  30. 1 point
    you dig bigger holes to put in a fence post or washing line so dont fret over such things
  31. 1 point
    This is not an area that I am at all familiar with – but you can be absolutely certain that if he is threatening you with an action for £14,000 then it is a complete bluff. It is well outside the small claims limit and in the circumstances that you described there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that he would take the risk of suing you and losing. Having said that – you have to wait for people with more experience in this area to come along and advise you.
  32. 1 point
    Can you post up the letter (redact any personal details) of the damages he is claiming for? Did you take any photos of the property when you left? But yes you could counter-sue for not protecting your deposit, I'm sure the penalty is up to 3x your deposit? I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
  33. 1 point
    What about the deeds? Is there something regarding right of pass and repass?
  34. 1 point
    Suggested changes in red rtopcharred210319.docx
  35. 1 point
    Yes will do, if you dont mind I will post up the letter before I send it for you to check. Thanks again
  36. 1 point
    Did you say that this is your land (shared ownership i suppose)? The council has painted parking bays and started a resident permit scheme 15 years ago, correct? If this is the case, dig out your deeds and see what easements and passing rights are listed there. This could be one of the cases that are better dealt with by a specialised solicitor. Check your house insurance for free legal cover.
  37. 1 point
    Its no good being sorry and referring them to a link to start all over. You work there, go get someone to fulfil your legal requirements. He could even start small claims against E-on and win.
  38. 1 point
    Okay. I hope you are going to send off those requests first thing tomorrow. Follow the instructions given by site team member: DX but do this on about 6 April and if you haven't had a response to the CPR 31.14 then when you defend, you will simply say that the claim is denied. That you are not indebted as alleged, that the claim can contains no details which allow you to formulate a defence and your request per CPR 31.14 for details of the documents referred to in the claim has not been complied with.
  39. 1 point
    Yup, I agree with you about Parcel2Go. This is why they need to be challenged again and again in the County Court. So far, as far as I can recall, we have never lost against them.
  40. 1 point
    get these done now.. pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform. . register as an individual note the long gateway number given then log in . select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. . then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked. click thru to the end confirm and exit MCOL. . get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . type your name ONLY no need to sign anything . you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]
  41. 1 point
    The poo is now hitting the fan. It's 40 years of the Tory civil war on Europe erupting into one final battle.
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
    Slamming is an industry practice whereby a telecoms supplier pretends to have your authority to take over your account. The problem is that we don't really know what the claim is about. This is why you are sending an SAR and also eight CPR 31.14. If the claim is because – as you have originally thought – it is because you moved home and so therefore your contract with restarted, then we have to ask ourselves why did it only happen in one case and yet in the second case it didn't appear to happen. This inconsistent approach is helpful to you because it suggests that there is no contractual term which allows them to do that. Secondly, looking at the terms and conditions, I don't see anything there which says unequivocally that this is what will happen. They say that they will cancel your contract if you move and they say that they "may" start a new contract – but there is nothing firm. In any event, it seems to me that if you were obliged to move home and they use that opportunity to cancel your contract and yet penalises you for an unused contractual portion and then go ahead and open another contract, then this is an unfair term. In fact I will also say that it is an unfair trading practice. On the other hand, if what has happened here is that you have been slammed then we would want to know about that because we would then have an issue with the company which slammed you and also with talk talk for letting your account go without your authority. Of course they would then say that they let the contract go because that is industry practice. This has been the standard excuse throughout the industry for ages. I find that an unacceptable excuse and I see that there is no reason why should we should simply say to them that that might be practice within the industry but it doesn't affect you as a customer because you are not part of the industry. That's all theory. We need to find out more. You should certainly find an acknowledgement with intention to defend. You can always change your mind later. Don't hang around. I think it's a shame that you even have to wait until tomorrow. It would have been nice to get the letters off today in today's post.
  44. 1 point
    Yes, so it turns out that we don't really know what has happened at all. If you have been slammed – then who was it? Did you actually end up in a contract with the new supplier? I'm not sure if it still goes on but a few years ago slamming happened a great deal. It seemed to have been accepted throughout the industry – even by the big players like British Telecom. There were industry agreements which simply meant that if they were approached by another supplier, then they honoured that suppliers instruction to close you down and to transfer your service without any authority from the customer. It was assumed that the new supplier had obtained this authority. In fact this wasn't the case. I don't know what happened but I can imagine that unscrupulous employees were selling off data to unscrupulous suppliers who would then use the slack systems and not worry about data breaches in order to get customers transferred from their existing suppliers. Of course, it is entirely possible that the cancellation occurred as a result of a move – but even that would be recently easy to defend against based on what I have seen in TalkTalk's terms and conditions. Although you have tried to lay out methodically – I'm afraid it's still not massively clear. Did you have one move or two moves? For some reason or other it occurs to me that you had two moves and that in one move they transferred without any difficulty and in the second move we have the issue cancellation – which may or may not have coincided with you being slammed. Who was the new supplier and did you use them? By the way, have you filed an acknowledgement of service? You should do this immediately
  45. 1 point
    1 witness to the facts ..thats you...no expert evidence.All defences are supported by a witness statement as evidence...your defence is just your initial response....your statement is the nitty gritty in your own words as to why you are defending the claim. Lowell or Lowells Solicitors if they are named seperateon the claim form.
  46. 1 point
    So did I! Especially the reference to JCT contracts. After a bit of digging though it was this thread I was thinking of, which is about something different (although coincidentally the same insurer's policy wording!) Without knowing in detail what the damage to your property was and how it arose I'm not sure I can add much more. Sedgwick, the Loss Adjusters acting for the insurer QBE, seem to be taking the position that the policy covers accidental damage the plumber caused to your own property but not for the costs of rectifying the faulty workmanship. Obviously I don't know what happened, what's damaged, what the plumber was doing, or what contract you had with the plumber so impossible to say whether that is correct. But on the face of it their position isn't obviously wrong or untenable. Debating whether the plumber was in breach of a statutory duty is pointless waste of time. Even if they were, breach of statutory duty is only covered by the policy to the extent the plumber was being prosecuted in court for a breach of statutory duty (ie the breach was a criminal offence). Then the policy would pay the plumber's legal fees to defend him in court. That's all. Nothing else. It wouldn't help you at all (as the plumber isn't being prosecuted)
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
    well apart from anything else, don't you think it is absolutely absurd not have the invoices for a job which either you are considering paying or else you're considering not paying?
  50. 1 point

  • Create New...