Fair point OP! I'm not aware of any case law (but I wouldnt be as I'm not an expert!), but I would imagine that there wouldnt be - as a reasonable period would almost certainly depend upon the individual circumstances of each case.

Fair point OP! I'm not aware of any case law (but I wouldnt be as I'm not an expert!), but I would imagine that there wouldnt be - as a reasonable period would almost certainly depend upon the individual circumstances of each case.

I'm not an expert in such matters, but I would imagine that the courts main focus would be future affordibility, as well as the potential hardship an eviction may cause. As such, the offer of employment is key, as are the figures showing arrears can be paid off in 3 years (using income and expenditure details). A lot of the rest is (IMHO only) somewhat irrelevant - by all means, include the reasons for the arrears but I doubt they will make a great deal of difference. To answer your specific questions: 1) I would write to them and ask if they will agree a payment plan to keep this out of court. 2) They are of no relevance unless they set a legal precedent, and in this example there is no precedent to be set - it is simply the opinion of the judge basically. 3) As I mention, the offer of employment is key, and may be your saving grace here. However, I stress - this is my personal opinion, and this is somewhat outside of my remit so I would await further responses.

I'm not an expert in such matters, but I would imagine that the courts main focus would be future affordibility, as well as the potential hardship an eviction may cause. As such, the offer of employment is key, as are the figures showing arrears can be paid off in 3 years (using income and expenditure details). A lot of the rest is (IMHO only) somewhat irrelevant - by all means, include the reasons for the arrears but I doubt they will make a great deal of difference. To answer your specific questions: 1) I would write to them and ask if they will agree a payment plan to keep this out of court. 2) They are of no relevance unless they set a legal precedent, and in this example there is no precedent to be set - it is simply the opinion of the judge basically. 3) As I mention, the offer of employment is key, and may be your saving grace here. However, I stress - this is my personal opinion, and this is somewhat outside of my remit so I would await further responses.

If they just send it back to the tenant in some respects all the better - this will strengthen your case.

Hi guys, Going to repost here as the other forum doesnt seem to get any visitors... Will try and keep it as brief as possible. Back in July ordered some bathroom items. Was advised by my plumber that some were not any good. Tried to cancel that part of order, but too late - no problem, was told to reject delivery. Delivery came (20th August) and was told I couldnt reject delivery - took items in, called Homebase straight away, and they said they would collect. Chased for collection right up until the 24th of September - not one contact for collection. Finally on the 24th was advised to return items to a store and they would process refund centrally - did so. Tried to process refund on the 25th September - never reached my account. They tried again on the 1st of October, again never reached my account. What are my next steps here? I just keep getting told to give it 5-7 working days (for the third time). They failed DSR regs by not refunding within 30 working days I believe. Trading Standards? Will credit card co do a chargeback on this basis? Is there any point in suing them (dont want to do this unless I have to!)?

Anyone?

You have advised them exactly the right thing, and they are absolutely wrong to withhold the deposit for exactly the reason you state. I would raise a dispute with the scheme to try and enforce release of deposit.

Just for clarity. I cannot advise on the complaint itself, but certainly as long as the bills are in YOUR name, the agent is entirely wrong to withhold the deposit on this basis. Is the deposit protected in a scheme?

Buzby, an overreaction to a basic statement. I was not saying anything with regards to whether this money is lawfully due or not. I was taking issue with: a) the OP basically jumping to the wrong conclusion that non addition to the credit file means money isnt legally due. b) the glee with which the OP jumps to regarding potentially writing off money that, MORALLY SPEAKING, is owed. However, now we are on topic, I will address your comments. I'm fairly sure that if you had gone in and signed for the contract and stated "thanks for the contract, is it OK if I dont pay what I owe down the line" the answer would have been a resounding NO also. It works both ways. They havent wrote it off. They have sold it on. Big difference. They have weighed up the pros and cons of pursuing the debt personally, and decided on a cost benefit analysis that it is better for them to simply get rid of the bad debt. Not "fiddling" just good business. The incentive to pay should be that morally you owe the money!!!! Of course it benefits the consumer. If every single debt passed to a DCA remains unpaid, DCAs and bad debt being passed on would be a thing of the past. As such, the companies involved may receive ZERO back as opposed to the partial sum (i.e. the sold on amount). Therefore, higher prices for everyone else as the companies look to maintain their profit margin. In any event, I never said the debt was owed to the DCA. It is owed to 3UK. But it is patently OWED.

I would now sue the agent for the money through small claims court. The tenant has no right to make what is effectively a vexatious claim after this period of time.

Well I cant see that you can "get away without paying it" - its not statute barred at this point. Moreover this forum isnt about debt avoidance, but about writing off unlawful debts.

It depends if the terms and conditions of the contract state anything regarding increasing the membership during the contract. My gym (another large chain) has these terms in, allowing them to increase by up to 10% over the contract term.

Again, cant speak for Ocado, but Tesco certainly did - we had to follow a different process for any foreign body/serious quality complaint, and the items were stored seperately for collection (as opposed to most returns which were just binned).

(As an aside, I probably wouldnt have bothered with a solicitor for this).

You obviously need to find out details of the defence, and also find out what specifically is being defended (S8 or S21). To my mind, with an S21 under accelerated procedure, there can be no defence.

Were you driving the car directly from the garage to an MOT station (pre booked MOT)?

Totally perplexed. Why did you bother to put in a Section 8 notice when a Section 21 was already validly served and relevant notice period had passed???

Agree with G&M - the "offence" alleged is false, as you did not invalidly park any vehicle with the number plate listed Moreover, I'm guessing the reason G&M states this is because without the valid reg number, they cannot possibly trace you.

I cant speak for Ocado, but certainly when I worked for Tesco any foreign body in food was looked into strenuously. I wouldnt have too much fear about it not being investigated properly.

To be fair to him buzby, the issue certainly appears on my phone as well (same phone and bumper). I cant explain why the silicone has done it, but it somehow has. Although I appreciate your point regarding it still working fine, bear in mind that any form of cosmetic damage to these goods seriously decreases their value. However, I do agree to leave it and move on - more because of lack of redress than it not being an issue though. (Also, I've already managed to scratch mine elsewhere, so doesnt bother me as much!!)

If you terminated the contract early, you would be liable for any charges that were their actual financial loss. In such a situation, this would be equal to the line rental/monthly contractual fee due for the period of the contract remaining. I assume that the £900 in question relates to this?

As it may reveal a seperate address for the owner.

In that case, I would write a letter before action followed by court proceedings using the address on the electoral roll. You will be able to enforce using her bank details.

Do you have her bank details?