Jump to content

ShortlyTdwarf

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ShortlyTdwarf

  1. As a landlord myself (and i think a very good one) I find the things being done by your agent to be disgusting, and to a degree illegal. The amount of items in the flat are really irrelevant. The first thing to look at here is your tenancy. Does it state furnished or unfurnished? if it states unfurnished, then the inventory should not contain any furniture at all except that which is normally expected (ie cooker, fridge, carpets, blinds, etc) However, that said, any inventory should really be done by an inventory clerk. Inventory clerks are the independent persons who will go through your property with a tooth comb and note everything. If the landlord prepares an inventory himself and the tenant disagrees with the inventory he /she may refuse to sign it. You need an signature on the inventory to prove that it is valid. An inventory clerk is a professional person who is qualified in that particular field. In your particular case, since there has been no signature on your inventory by either yourself or the agent/landlord then the inventory is invalid. In this case I would recommend contacting your agents and telling them that their inventory is invalid and you will be removing any items that have been left in the property by the previous tenant on [give a date, but be realistic] and that if they wish to keep these items they will need to collect them prior to that date. Give them a reasonable amount of time to arrange this, say 14 calendar days(be specific, calendar or working). If they do respond then post their response on here, I'll subscribe to the thread to keep an eye out. This may be a starting point to open a new dialogue with them. The issue you raised about charging them for storage is one that has not, to my knowledge, been tried. But, with no valid inventory it is feasable, IN THEORY! But you would have to prove ownership of the items first, and that could prove exceedingly hard, if not impossible. As for the withholding of rent, this is probably not in your best interest as they have served you with a reposession notice. Although you can get them there too. Under the guidance, if they are attempting reposession due to rent arrears, if you make up the difference well in advance of the court date they can't continue. Guidance states "Two months (8 weeks) rent arrears exist both at the time of serving notice and on the day of the court hearing." This is a MANDATORY condition of the notice and proceedings in court.
  2. Almost right, but not quite. 1 The resident parent will get all the money unless they are on benefits. In that case everything after the first £10 of the CSA payment is classed as Income for the assessment of benefit and your benefit is reduced by this amount. So you do actually get it all, but you get less benefit. it's not kept by the CSA. 2 The only income taken into account for CSA payments is that of the non-resident parent. On this you are right.
  3. yes, send the cease and desist letter still. And I would add a paragraph stating that they must remove your name from their statements as they have no right to chase you for a debt that is not yours and that you have no obligation to provide them with the name and address of the driver, even if you could without a reasonable doubt say who the driver was at the time. Only the police have the right to request the details of the driver of a vehicle from the registered keeper. If you want to post what you are sending before you send someone will have a look at it for you.
  4. Oh, I definitely agree. I am in a wheelchair because some stupid taxi driver in a rush thought he knew better than the law and tried to overtake on a bend with double lines in the middle of the road. Irrelevant of the fact that the zigzags in question are there legally or not, when it comes to road safety too many people think they know best. If the zigzags are there, whether legally or not, don't park there. It's no excuse to park first and then try and get out of the fine for doing so by trying to find a loophole. If someone isn't prepared to pay the fine for getting caught out, then don't break the law and put other people's lives at risk.
  5. Not necessarily. Since the cheque has bounced and you haven't actually paid them there are still means to get them to back off. Firstly, read Bernie's other sticky on this here regarding what to do if you've already contacted them and then start your own thread posting up the letters/notices you've received so far with personal details removed. Someone will soon advise you as to the best course of action.
  6. My advice would be to pay up and don't park illegally next time. If you take the risk of parking in contravention of the law then you must be prepared to face the consequences when you get caught.
  7. Robin? a very apt name in the circumstances. Did you change your surname by deedpoll? Arent you related to the rik mayall character on the tv called Alan B'Stard?
  8. Looks nothing like a real newsnight clip, aside from the fact that the quality is so poor, bbc haven't done video podcasts since last july, but this was supposedly made in november? Go read the t&c's. lots of ways for them to refuse to give you credits for referrals and then not give you your gift. Like the man said, you get nowt for nowt.
  9. Funnily enough, i can't see this to be true either. Especially since I've been running them ragged for nearly two years for a debt that I refuse to pay on principle, despite the fact that they DO have a valid credit agreement. More bloody trolls in here than in a library full of Billy goat gruff books.
  10. And sadly, too many private companies think they can rip people off with their illegal "Penalties" and their fake tickets. Sooner or later these private companies are going to be taken to task for their crimes, and they are going to be the ones to come a cropper. If it was up to me I'd shoot anyone trying to put a ticket on my car in a private car park. And I'm a damn good shot. So, Mr Craddock, you can take your trollish opinions and park them somewhere well out of sight of the sun.
  11. Pin1onu, I fully understand the need for some people to drop their kids off at school on their own way to work. I have done this myself, wasn't always in the wheelchair. But is there realy any excuse for someone to park right in front of the svhool where there is a clearly visible restriction on parking? No. It is just plain ignorance and laziness that they can't be arsed to park outside the restriction and walk their kids 30 feet to the gate. As for the fact that a TRO may not be in place for a restriction outside a school, I find it hard to believe that any LA would paint the lines before even an experimental order was issued. And since most schools have been around a long time, as have the zigzags, it is unlikely that a TRO wouldn't be in force. As for this debate, I wouldn't give the time of day for attempting to get out of the PCN by asking that way [edit]
  12. And do they send you second hand consoles bought cheap on amazon and ebay like the one in the photo? pmpl.
  13. Good point BB, hadn't thought about the cease and desist letter. it would definitely mean that they would have to put up or shut up. Must admit that I do have a tendency to string these people along for a while before finally giving them the heave ho. Much more fun, but then I have too much time on my hands. lol
  14. If they've ignored your first letter it's only because they hope you will feel intimidated and pay up. They have no hope of ever being able to enforce the payment of this in a court. I've revamped the template to be a little more individual. let's see if they give up quickly or are more persistant. send it with a copy of your first letter "for their ease of reference" and send by minimum recorded delivery. If you get a response post it up and we'll move to the next step. Dear Sirs, Re: Your letter dated [dd/mmmm/yyyy] Reference[#] I refer you to my letter dated [date], a copy of which has been enclosed for your ease of reference. I have in the aforementioned letter acknowledged the receipt of your captioned letter dated [date]. I also stated in that letter that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question, as you will have discovered by getting my details from DVLA, but that you must direct your efforts to enforce any penalty to the driver of the vehicle at the time and date of the alleged contravention. At this juncture there is nothing more that I can add to enable the satisfactory conclusion of this matter for you. Yours faithfully
  15. Whilst I agree that parking regulations without the relevant TRO are not enforceable, I feel I have to add to this post in that parking on the zigzags outside a school is something that should not be done by either parents or anyone else. Where I live a lot of the smaller village schools are on major HGV routes making it even more dangerous for the kids than in the middle of town. Notwithstanding the legal issues if there is a TRO in force, it causes considerable inconvenience for the other road users trying to get past a 50m line of parked vehicles whilst other traffic is trying to come the other way, causing tailbacks, and a lot of frustration. IMHO an accident waiting to happen. I personally have 2 kids of school age and one more starting after easter, and walk(well, they walk, I wheel) the half a mile to school and back twice a day. I constantly see lots of able-bodied mothers parking their cars on the zigzags because they are too lazy to walk a few metres to the school gates. If you get a ticket for parking in the zigzags, pay up and learn from the mistake by not parking there again. Don't try to wriggle out of it by asking if someone knows whether you have a chance of not paying it. The arguement about the legality of a TRO may be legally right, but it's morally wrong in this case.
  16. Dead right. If the carpark in question was subject of byelaws then you would have received an OFFICIAL FPN, followed by a summons for non-payment of the Fixed Penalty Notice to the Magistrate's Court. You can write to NCP if you want to to try and get this resolved. State that your are only the registered keeper and cannot be certain as to who was driving the car at the time, and they must direct their collection at the driver of the vehicle. Roxburghe have no powers to take you to court, and may consider your writing to them to be an admission, despite stating that you do not acknowledge the debt. NCP have to prove that the RK was the person driving the vehicle at the time, and without your input, cannot do so. IMHO the best bet would be to ignore the letter from Roxburge, as it is of little importance, and probably just for show. They will know they have no chance of recovery through legal means, and are just trying their usual scare tactics.
  17. Much too late now, as it happened a couple of years ago. Claimed it on my motability insurance, so didn't cost me anything. However, i suspect that his insurance company probably put his premiums up for the smashed windows, lights and damaged roof that occurred when I "accidentally" pressed the button that operates the hydraulic arm that removes my wheelchair from the roof box. pmpl
  18. I AM wheelchair bound, and have objected on more than one occasion to people who have parked in the last disabled space available when i am in need of it. Only on one occasion has the person moved their car. Most people just tell me to f*** off and walk away laughing. And one actually smashed my door mirror off for asking him to move. These people don't scare me, I was a soldier for 13 years, and have seen more than they could believe, but what good would a disabled person be in trying to get people like that to park somewhere else?
  19. Having photographic evidence of the parking offence they claim you have committed makes absolutely no difference. It does not show who the driver of the vehicle was on the date and time concerned, so it can only be used to prove that the contravention to their rules took place, not that you were the person driving at the time.
  20. Very true, but since most people adhere to the rules set out in council-run car parks it leads to the conclusion that the problem of abuse of disabled bays is not as prevalent in coucil-run car parks as it is in supermarket carparks. Therefore, assignment of the supermarket car park to the local authority would solve the problem to a large degree. However, this is still not a solution to the problem in the real world, only in theory, except in a few exceptional cases. As for parking attendants, they would be open to abuse from the park-anywhere-i-want brigade for telling them they can't park there. Would you like to do that job? Because I know i wouldn't.
  21. Ok, with all the argument going on here it appears that most of you are losing sight of the original problem here. Firstly, let me point out that I am disabled and use a wheelchair full time. I also have a 3yo son. This means that I get to use either disabled or parent and child spaces when I go shopping. But this is not the point. The whole idea of ASDA fining people who abuse a parking syatem that has no basis in law, and is only regulated by a private company employed by ASDA, is not one that, as a disabled person, I can accept. Although I do think that able bodied people should not use the spaces provided by stores for the disabled, there is no law that states that they are not allowed to and can be fined for doing so. As this is a private car park, parking regulations do not apply, except those initiated by the landowner. And as such, any fines imposed by the company can only be recovered if they can prove without doubt that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the person who actually parked in contravention to their parking rules. By parking in a private car park that has correct signage, a driver is agreeing to a contract according to that signage. But the registered keeper is not necessarily the driver, and this is a complete defence to this claim. if any of you read my last post on this issue, you will know by now that, whether ASDA use a PPI or not, they will enforce the fines by ultimately passing them on to the disreputable DCA's that cause so much misery to people. Much as I would like to see the disabled spaces only used by disabled people, speaking as a disabled person, I cannot condone the use of these DCA's to enforce illegal penalties, and therefore feel that ASDA is going about this the wrong way. As for towing vehicles to a different location, this raises many other issues, both legally and morally. If the person's vehicle is damaged in the towing it leaves the tow company and the store open to litigation for that damage. It is also an issue that, if the vehicle is removed without the required notice prior to being towed, it constitutes theft of the vehicle. And to remove it from the premises leaves the owner open to further penalties from government authority if the vehicle is not placed somewhere without parking restrictions. There is no simple solution to the problem of abuse in private car parks. Except that done by the local tesco near where i live. They donated their car park to the county council, with an agreement that parking would be free for 3 hours. Thereafter, normal council parking charges would apply. Hence the council now control the disabled bays and have the legal power to fine abusers of disabled and chld spaces. I can't, however, see ASDA doing this. Until such time as they can work out a morally appropriate way to deal with any abusers of their parking bays, I will be happy to advise anyone on the best course of action to avoid paying this illegal penalty, should they wish to do so.
  22. Just to add fuel to the fire on this one, in answer to a question posed to ASDA head office as to how they intended to enforce these "fines" the reply i got was: Thanks for getting in touch and letting me know your thoughts on our decision to fine our customers who incorrectly use our specialist parking bays. Our customers told us that they wanted us to improve the way we look after our specialist parking bays and we've listened. The wider spaces are a necessity for our disabled customers and parents with young children. The extra room means that our disabled customers can easily get in and out of their car and into a wheelchair if they use one, and parents can easily get baby carriers and their children in and out easier and without damaging the car parked next to them. Over the years we've tried lots of different ways to make sure only customers with genuine needs use the disabled and parent and child spaces. Last year we chose a few stores in the Liverpool area and trialled fining customers when they misused the spaces. During this trial we saw the number of free specialist spaces increase by 60% and 4 out of 5 of the customers we surveyed thought we should roll out the scheme across all our stores. The results of this trial and the feedback we were given has convinced us this is the right thing to do. It's not our intention to catch out unsuspecting customers so we've put up signs all around these parking spaces to let our customers know what we're doing. Neither is it a money making opportunity for us as any money raised will go to the baby charity Tommy's and Motability, the national disability charity. We know that there may be a small number of people who don't agree with us on this, but we really do feel that we have to do something to protect these spaces and help make shopping at ASDA as stress free and easy as possible for everyone. Kind Regards Lucy Robinson ASDA Service Team Not a word about what was asked of them, and certainly not a good reply even if I had been "letting her know my thoughts on their decision to fine", which i hadn't. So I mailed her back and told her that her reply wasn't in any way an answer to the question asked, as to how Asda intended to enforce these fines, and that the customers had a right to know what Asda policy was in regards to enforcement. And guess what??? Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, this is ASDA policy and if fines are not paid it will be passed onto a debt collector's agency, I'm sorry you are unhappy with this and I have now passed on your comments to the relevant department here at ASDA House. Thanks again and if there is anything else I can help you with please don't hesitate to contact me. Kind Regards Lucy Robinson ASDA Service Team Yep, you guessed it. They're going to use those disreputable DCA's we all hate so much. Think I may have to take a trip to my local Asda and conveniently forget to put me badge on display when I park. pmpl (yes I am disabled, and permanently in a wheelchair, but as much as I hate those people who abuse disabled bays when I need to park to do me shopping, I hate the DCA's a lot more.)
  23. Which are coming sooner than you think. Check the link below. ID cards to go to airport workers first
  24. Hi, With regards to the metering, I'm not sure how legal the position of your landlord is, but I would complain about it, and if the fuse does go in the middle of the night, then ring the landlord and tell him and ask him to come and deal with it. Regarding the electrics in the bathroom, he really needs to come and sort it out pronto. This is a direct breach of the Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 and very dangerous. The part below sets out regs for this: Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 These regulations came into force on January 9th 1995 and are applicable to all electrical equipment with voltages between 50 and 1000 if alternating current or between voltages of 75 and 1500 if direct current. In order to comply a Landlord must ensure that all the electrical equipment in his property is safe. It must therefore comply with the Consumer Protection Act 1987 but must also comply with the above regulations. Therefore in order to minimise risk the Landlord must ensure the safety of all animals and the property as well as those humans who either live in the property or may enter upon the premises. Safety includes minimising the risk of injury as well as death. The Landlord must: 1. Ensure there are written instructions for all electrical equipment in the property. 2. A safety check should be carried out by a qualified electrician (NIC), preferably annually or when the tenancy changes. 3. Provide the agent and tenant with written proof of the safety check prior to the tenancy commencing. PENALTIES: Should the electrical equipment not comply with the Regulations and an incident occurs the penalties are: 3 months and/or £5000 fine if there is risk of fire and/or an animal is injured 6 months and/or £5000 fine if a human is injured or killed. And, finally, no he is not allowed to keep furniture there as the tenancy is unfurnished, unless your daughter agreed to let him when she signed the tenancy. Hope this helps.
×
×
  • Create New...