Jump to content

Esio Trot

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About Esio Trot

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I think most commentators on this topic have missed the key point here. The OP is talking about the letting agent. The key term here is AGENT, which is a powerful term in law. It means that the owner is completely and undeniably answerable to the actions of his agent. The agent is in effect the de facto landlord. Your tenancy agreement will reveal all: whose name appears as the lessor (landlord). If it is the owner, that is the person against whom action is taken; if the agents name appears, then he has sub-let the premises from the landlord, and then it is the agent who will be sued. If the owner is named as landlord, it is up to him or her to sue the agent for wrongdoing as a counter claim against yours to the owner.
  2. There is a piece of legislation called Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 that applies here. What this act says is that you can't just get rid of a tenants chattels, because if you do he could sue you for the value. You must give notice (put in the window of the property is usual) that you are going to dispose of the goods after 28 days. HOWEVER, you are entitled to charge storage for every day after you gained possession - which has to be at least £20 a day, and if there is a fair amount maybe as much as £40 or £50 a day. On that basis I would take a risk of getting rid of everything now. I used to run a lettings agency, and out of the couple of dozen notices under the above act we posted, we only had one tenant ask about their belongings. We said that they could have them, but for security they have been removed from the property and stored as per the act, but as 21 days had elapsed, they could have them once the £210 storage charge was paid. In between much profane swearing they said there was no [expletive] way they would pay storage. We said fine, they will be disposed of after 28 days, with anything of value sold to help meet the storage charges.
  3. You also need to check your title entry on HM Land Registry. Unless you have given the freeholder written instructions to use an alternative, the ground rent notice (even if otherwise correctly completed) is invalid. The address held by HM Land Registry is the legal service address.
  4. FENCE My understanding of English law is that there is no requirement for any landowner to fence his own property. The only caveat to that is if there is a covenant in the title deed where the current owner would have agreed to erect/maintain a fence. On that basis, she can moan all she likes, as legally she can't do anything. Thinking ahead though, avoid putting anything formally in writing. If you do, then there will be a need to disclose a neighbour dispute as part of the disclosures to prospective purchasers. Whenever I have seen this, as most people will have seen 'Neighbours from Hell' they normally will walk away. Nobody wants to move next door to somebody vexatious.
  5. Would it be worthwhile going for a wasted costs order? After all, it has cost you much emotionally as well as financially in defending their action.
  6. In the county court, service is not valid unless a letter is sent by first class mail. Would this also apply to council tax summonses?
  7. Interesting. So, once the number of summonses issued are know for each year, the next steps are: a) is to obtain a breakdown of the summons costs; and b) the number of staff employed dealing with arrears and summonses. From these facts, calculations can then be made to test the soundness of the breakdown, or whether the figures represent a fiction.
  8. In response to Revd Nicolson's successful Judicial Review, I have sent the following FOI request to my local council: In hindsight it would have been better to have also asked for the figures for NNDR too, but if needed I'll do another FOI for these too. There has been a previous FOI request, and the council provided these costs to justify the £120 charge (and it includes general costs, not just those 'reasonably incurred' in the issue of the summons and court hearing. However, the council graciously rounds the figure down to £120).
  9. As soon as you receive confirmation from the court, I suggest you submit a schedule of your costs and disbursements (copied to the other side) and ask for a wasted costs order!
  10. The above bit I've quoted is the most important thing to enquire about NOW. If they haven't paid, send a letter to court based on post #109 above asking for the case to be stuck out as the claimant will then have failed to adhere to the court's directions. If they have paid, you know they are serious and you will need to assemble and produce your defence before xx January 2015.
  11. Bearing in mind that the lodger no longer lives there and has left no forwarding address, if the lodger is the only one who could fill in the form I trust he asked the court official to suggest how this might be achieved !!!!!!!
  12. They might not necessarily get judgement. Should a court claim be issued by Parking Eye, then the OP has no option but to issue a counter-claim. But lets hope that this doesn't happen.
  13. Logical I suppose - after all babies lead to families doing huge amounts of laundering - though this is clothes laundering, not money laundering
  14. Case law had clarified some elements of this monstrously constructed piece of legislation since the OP won the case. Deposit protection legislation refers to 'tenant', once you leave the property, your tenancy is at an end and you are no longer a tenant. My understanding of the case is that as you are no longer a tenant, you cannot claim anything under the lack of deposit protection. Your options thus go back to the tenancy agreement you signed and the wording of this in relation to the deposit. The most important thing to work out is who was supposed to hold the deposit. Tell us this (preferably quoting the exact wording in the tenancy agreement) and we can advise further.
  15. That should, in my eyes, work in your favour then. It is up to the plaintiff to prove on the 'balance of probabilities' that both the car was at the place when the incident took place AND that the registered keeper was the driver to whom they have been corresponding.
×
×
  • Create New...