I am trying to help some friends who have been issued with an eviction Court summons for non payment of rent. This is not due to be heard at Court until April. I will try to describe the circumstances leading up to this situation. In December the flushing handle (which was made of plastic) of the toilet broke, normally it is a very small job which most people can repair, but not in this case as the cistern had been covered and tiled over with no access to the cistern. To cut a long story short it was a job for the Landlord to sort out. After many phone calls emails and texts the Landlord responded to the request to sort out the problem,a month later (without a toilet!) I must point out that this was only after rent was witheld, and this witholding of rent was the only factor in bringing the Landlord to life. There is another major fault with the flat which had already been pointed out previously to the Landlord and that was the front door does not lock properly ie it will open with a push and not lock making it impossible to go out not worring about burglars. A repair was scheduled and it was agreed verbally that no further rent would be paid until this fault was rectified. Even now at his late stage this repair has not yet been delt with. Does this give grounds for wrongful eviction, the lease is not due to expire until August. What if anything can I do? There is another point, my friend agreed to be a guarantor for the rent but he only signed on a piece of paper with no other signatures as a witness, is this valid? Also it is worded an I quote-TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I AGREE TO BE A GARUNTEUR FOR ETC. - is this valid? A letter from the Landlord was received on the 2 March 2008 giving ham 7 days notice to pay the rent arrears but a Court Summons was issued in the Court on the 4th March only 2 days later. Again is this legally binding? Any advise is welcome

With almost every claim we make against the Banks over 6 years they fight it and do everything possible in order not to pay it claiming its over the amount of time allowed by the limitation act. Suppose an unsecured loan or overdraft was taken out pre-2001 and not paid could the Banks still insist on it being repaid or would the 6 year limitation act work in our favour for once? Is there one rule for us and another for them?

Anyone know the answer?

THE BOSS HAS SPOKEN AND IT IS HER ACCOUNT AFTER ALL WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT THE OFFER AND THE ACCEPTANCE LETTER HAS ALREADY BEEN SENT She said that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and instead of a Court cas we have accepted the offer I still cannot understand why Natwest caved in so quickly but all I have to do now is wait for their cheque to arrive. Many thanks for all that have helped in this case and the last. John

Hello and thanks for the interest. Yes you are right, but when almost all of the charges were taken against my DSS benefits I had in fact threatened them with contractual interest and damages (see my LBA). Could it be that they realise this and are offering this amount hoping to avoid paying interest and damages? because I'm sure they haven't made this good offer out of the goodness of their hearts

I cant believe it NatWest have actually offered almost £7000 which is the exact figure of the charges. They havent offered to pay any interest but what should I do? Shall I hold out for the interest or take the money, I must admit £7000 would come in very handy at the moment but what should I do? Perhaps it was the thought of contravening the DSS laws which made them make such a large offer but who knows.

We claimants have been told many times that we cannot make a claim further back than 6 years. Well I am going to ask a question turning the game so to speak on its head(I hope). In 1997 my son in law took out an unsecured loan while he was a student(mature). He couldn't pay this loan and an overdraft he had and the accounts remained dormant for a long time. The Bank closed the accounts. He then moved. In 2004 Lloyds bank the caught up with him after more than 6 years had elapsed. My question is as the time was over 6 years can the Bank legally make him pay? after all a long period of time passes while we persue our debts against the Bank, and then they try and refuse to pay anything over 6 years old from the time we actually take them to Court asking for the limitations act to be imposed Any ideas anyone about the answer.

Just a quick but a very relevant question to a claim I am handling for my Son in law. We claimants have been told many times that we cannot make a claim further back than 6 years. Well I am going to ask a question turning the game so to speak on its head(I hope). In 1997 my son in law took out a loan while he was a student(mature). He couldn't pay this loan and an overdraft he had and the accounts remained dormant for a long time. He then moved. In 2004 Lloyds bank the caught up with him after more than 6 years had elapsed. My question is as the time was over 6 years can the Bank legally make him pay? after all a long period of time passes while we persue our debts against the Bank, and then they try and refuse to pay anything over 6 years old from the time we actually take them to Court asking for the limitations act to be imposed Any ideas anyone about the answer.

Dont worry the DSS allowances are all income tested, I had 2 strokes 3 years ago but prior to that arthritus stopped me working. All the monies I receive are covered by the Social Security act, I think I have all avenues covered. I can even take them to court and it wont cost me anything! Thanks again for your support

Hello Steven Thanks for the comment, it is something I have thought long and hard about but I have a small problem in as much as the only other monies paid in were given by my Son and only paid in to cover charges. On the other hand Natpest have already paid out £4600 to me for the same reason. I know this claim is for more but now I am much more confident about this claim, hence the claim for compounded interest at the Banks rate and also damages etc. One can only try these things and after all they can only say no.

I am making a second claim on my wife's account after I was successful in my last claim and NatWest paid up in February. I had most of the relevent paperwork and have started the ball rolling by hand delivering an LBA to my local branch and also a copy by special delivery to customer services dept in Borehamwood. Attached please see a copy of my LBA and any comments will be gratefully received, of course I will update as time goes by. Dear Sirs ACCOUNT NUMBER xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I am writing to you to ask you to refund the penalty charges which you have levied from my account since 23rd July 2004. As you will no doubt be aware, these have been deemed disproportionate and wholly unlawful. I calculate that the charges that have been applied amount to £xxxxxxxx plus interest at the rate of 8% totalling £xxxxxxxx making a total of £xxxxxxxxxx Please be aware that in the event that this case reaches the Court stage I will ask the judge to order interest to be paid at the Banks’ unauthorised rate of 29.6% making a total of interest alone of £xxxxxxxxand increasing at £4-99 daily. In addition to repayment of the above the following action is required: My account is funded almost entirely with state funded benefits which the bank must be aware are provided and owned by the Government solely for my living expenses. I will attach a copy of government legislation at the bottom of this letter. In 2003 a loan was also taken out, almost entirely to repay unlawful charges, I am requesting you to repay the interest on this loan. This caused me considerable distress. In addition to the sum of £xxxxxxxxxx it is my intention to ask the Court for damages, because my family and I have been caused considerable distress and inconvenience by your actions. This amount has yet to be quantified but should be included in your settlement figure If a settlement figure has not been agreed within 14 days of this letter it is my intension to submit a claim to the local county court Please find below a copy of the social security act of which you must be aware but chose to ignore Social Security Administration Act 1992 Miscellaneous Certain benefit to be inalienable ** 187- Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of, or charge on- (a)benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act; (b)any income-related benefit; or ©child benefit, and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of the beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors

Quote 'What happened to the the time when you could pay cash in at the branch anytime up to closing to meet any DD or cheques being presented that day.' Those times went away when Bankers stopped wearing bowler hats!

Did anyone know that a Bank knows the day BEFORE what transactions are going to occour the following day. Anyway the case of taking 5 days to clear a cheque is a myth as I can remember in my first job at Barclays back in 1964 it was possible even then in the days of snails post to clear a cheque overnight, and this was not 'specaling' it. So a cheque could be paid in on Monday and cleared on Tuesday and that was before computers

Bet you they 'forget 'to phone. Get your N1 ready.

Your LBA and spreadsheets etc seem to have originated fron the right places so you shoul be ok with them. Regarding the meeting you have, don't pin too much hope on a result, I am afraid that all you can do is make life uncomfortable for the manager. Make the meeting last as long as possible this should annoy him and remember to him you are the enemy and all he is tellimg you is what he has been told to by his peers. Anyway good luck and post here whatever the outcome John