Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. I've had a disagreement with my landlord over penetrative damp coming through a plug socket. Other than this issue there is little else I'm too bothered about with my tenancy. Please take a look at the below images. (If a mod couldn't edit the link to work after checking it that'd be great) hxxp://imgur.com/a/LAma8 I notified my landlord of this after discovering it in my new tenancy (who had already been notified by other tenants previously). I explained I felt it was a serious electrocution hazard and probably a fire hazard. My landlord put it in writing that due to good weather he was busy doing repairs on other houses that had broken fences/gutters. I disagreed with this and felt that despite this being ignored for sometime the presence of a young child meant this should be an emergency repair. Broken fences and gutters can't electrocute people, his priorities are wrong here right? Anyway, after 3 weeks of dilly dallying I eventually put my foot down and said if it were not addressed I would be calling the council. Someone came the next day but I was out (common area in shared house, allowed access without warning I think). All that has occurred is the faceplate being replaced with a flat one without plugs. My landlord tells me the electrician has stated that this is now safe and is ignoring my communication. I have a feeling he's telling me porkies and that this is in fact still dangerous and/or a fire hazard. What should I be doing in this situation? He has told me as a result of the back and forth of me trying to get him to do SOMETHING (prior to the council threat) that I am the worst tenant he has had of 100s in his 17 years as a landlord. I feel like I've been pretty reasonable and just wanted action on a dangerous hazard. I still feel like it's a fire hazard and further action should occur. What should I do here? What are my options? What do the experienced here think? If opinion is against me then fair enough, I'll put my hands up and admit fault and lack of reasonableness. I however feel like this should have been resolved in the kind of timescale that an owner-occupier would have prioritised it, and with a small child regularly in the house I feel like that's a hazard worthy of immediate repair. Yes? No? Right? Wrong? Thoughts. Thank you very much all.
  2. Delayed on getting everything edited to remove personal info, quite a lot to run through as it includes all of our correspondence back and forth while I tried to be cooperative with them. Will definitely send an email first prior to posting up here. The fact that it's a one off is odd. I do change passwords fairly regularly however. If someone uses phishing to acquire accounts to do this kind of thing with they may have many accounts and a password change may have occurred between one use of the account and another attempted use. I can only speculate on the usage of the attacker though, I've had at least one login I know of occur though that will be in google's logs somewhere as I was directly warned by google's automated systems that it was flagged as a suspicious login (from Hungary or something). It doesn't coincide with any of the dates of this review though and I never found out what that login may have done, I put that one down to attempted bank fraud and did a full security sweep of changing passwords to anything and everything, but it could have just been an automated bot that was testing for successful logins and an actual person never got round to using the account prior to my changes. Steam, yes the witness statement does state why they want access. To determine the source of the posting. Is arguing that access won't provide the source of the posting a viable defence then as it provides no access to google's logs and suggesting that I simply provide my permission to have google's logs reasonable?
  3. Will I be doing anything I shouldn't be doing by posting up documentation? I can't find anything that suggests I would be, but I'm trying to be as risk averse as possible as this has been quite stressful. I can probably get it all together for tomorrow, will need to hijack a scanner. Prior to that, the brief details are as follows. The review (since removed by myself at the request of the claimant) was "****** [lawyer name], pays for fake reviews, loses 80% of his cases, not a happy camper." As stated before, I didn't make it, know of this American lawyer or his firm (based in America) until the claim against me. It was made from my google account on his google review page. My issue with the relevancy of accessing my google account is that there's nothing relevant about having vast access to information outside seeking who made the review in the first place. All that can be discerned from access to my account is that it was in fact made by the account, there's no more information than that. I've been completely cooperative with giving permission to other things they wanted access to that didn't really affect personal privacy concerns on quite personal matters, as you might expect from it being a personal account. In short, what they need is permission to ask google for information relevant to the origin the post came from, their logs, those aren't accessible for me, they would clearly show the origin wasn't my location though, that's if they even still have them because the guy took nearly a full year between the review being posted and actually making the claim which I find quite odd. That's the long and short of it really. For the defamation claim they're arguing I was paid for it or that it was a malicious "prank". As for costs, I'm aware if I lose I'll be collared for the legal costs, he's already racked it up to the £10-20k range to my knowledge, possibly higher now, it's completely disproportionate to a meaningless review on a presumably hardly visited review page in my opinion. I'll get the documents sorted for reading for tomorrow.
  4. He filed and a telephone hearing was set for the specific disclosure request. I have yet to put in my defence for this hearing. If what you're suggesting is that there was an opportunity to file documents to oppose the application for disclosure before a hearing was set I wasn't aware of that, I didn't receive a notification that an application for disclosure had been made, only threats from the claimant's representatives that they were going to make the application, not that it had been made (until receiving the hearing date). They are represented by a British solicitors, Pitmans. I understand this is quite complicated and that the best way forward would of course be representation, that however is outside of my means. As noted before there is no legal aid for defamation cases and I can not afford representation. The absolute best I can do is to seek help from others experienced with the system. You guys helped my dad out enormously with a troublesome situation he was in many months ago, for his privacy I won't disclose details but he was enormously grateful as the help and advice he received here won him his case entirely. I'm really hoping you fine people will take pity on me and won't just dismiss my thread because it's a complicated scenario. I really don't have anywhere else to turn and welcome any suggestions, possibilities, help and advice.
  5. Hi guys, I've got a defamation claim against me. The circumstances are unusual, I didn't make the review but it was made with my account. I do not know how this occurred, my speculation is that it was the result of some sort of account breach, though the claim was started very close to a year after the review was made and I am unable to get any evidence that suggests such. I have no links to the claimant, didn't know who they were prior to the claim and did not know about the defamatory review. Due to the time between it being made and me becoming aware of it I've been able to dig up no evidence to defend the fact that I didn't write it. There's plenty of potential scope for someone doing something malicious like this though, I head and moderate as part of teams some extremely large communities on reddit that get millions of users per month, it's quite possible some angsty teenager decided to lash out as a result of moderator actions, but of course, I have no proof. The claimant suggests I was paid to do this, and cites certain negative aspects of the SEO industry and "reputation management" as being why I may have done it. I've attempted to cooperate in every way I feel reasonable, but they're having none of it. I gave them permission to look at bank records to show that's not the case, as well as information that would give them access to my SEO work in order to try and show them otherwise and attempt a reasonable conclusion. One thing I do not want to give them complete unmitigated access to is my google account (which the review was made from) due to the fact the account has such an enormous amount of deeply personal and completely irrelevant information on it. I've tried being reasonable with them, I've asked them to narrow down precisely what they want from the account in order for me to cooperate without giving them anything that's completely irrelevant, the account has been used for a very long time and due to google's nature is connected to an enormous number of services, not to mention tens of thousands of emails. I have a telephone hearing on the 20th of January for disclosure, they're seeking complete access to my google account and my computers. What options do I have available? I am unable to get legal aid. Defamation cases are not covered. The CAB have been useless. I really need some expert help, the claimant (an american lawyer) has made it quite clear he will pursue the case for the sake of damage to his reputation, he's already spent thousands and knows full well I'm unemployed and broke, hoping that it will go away because it really isn't worth anything to him isn't going to happen. This claim was started shortly before there were changes in defamation law, he has no need to prove any damages actually occurred as a result and this is being held under older laws I believe.
  • Create New...