https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?296513-296513&p=3317951#post3317951 I am just considering this and contemplating taking court action against unregulated property manger who took a secret commission

I have today received a CCJ claim from the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre, for a credit card that was held with HSBC a few years ago. The last statement I can find for the account is 2009, although the assignment to the DCA was later than that date. Having read through the forums for some advice (which is very handy and I'm very grateful for) I'm going to write to them tomorrow with a CPR31.14 requesting the agreement, default notice and the assignment. From people's past experiences, what are the chances of them providing this information? And do they have to provide the originals, or just legible copies of the originals? And am I correct in thinking the fee to enclose is £1? If they do provide the info as requested, and I have no other defence, I can't afford to pay them the amount they're requesting. I could offer to pay them a token amount every month or I could borrow a lump sum and make them an offer of a full and final settlement, although it would be much less than they're asking for. Either way would I still end up with a CCJ? Many thanks.

Hi everyone, My case is turning quite complex and I would appreciate any support anyone has for me. I will try and lay everything out as clearly as possible... 1) Viewed a property on the 21st of October, and noticed some issues with the property (cracks on the outside walls), we asked the estate agent who said it was just “common shrinkage”. As the current tenants were in with furniture / laundry around we didn’t see the full extent of this. 2) The following week we decided to make an offer on the property, and stated that “this offer is contingent on the following: …”. Our contingencies included: a professional clean, painting over some obvious large internal cracks, resealing mould in bathroom and cleaning the garden. The landlord confirmed in writing to do the contingencies before our move in date. We also asked for an inventory, and received a list of items, before going ahead with putting in our deposit etc. 3) Upon moving out of my rented flat and into the property 6 weeks later (25th of November), we discovered that 1) no work that our offer was contingent on had been completed and 2) Two 12L dehumidifiers had been placed into the bedrooms (RRP: £139.99), alongside 9x mould absorbency gels dotted around the flat, indicating that there was a mould / damp problem in the flat (neither the dehumidifiers or gels were in the flat advertisement, nor were they present when viewing). 4) I have severe Asthma and a mould allergy, and my boyfriend has also been to hospital with a mould allergy in the past, so obviously had we known there was an issue we would not have made any offer on the flat. 5) We immediately got in touch with the estate agent in writing, who stated the dehumidifiers were there upon viewing (not the case). The dehumidifiers were also not included in the inventory we received (although that included kettle/toaster and other small appliances). Irrespective of that none of the work the landlord said they would do was done. In addition, I immediately begun suffering from my allergies in the flat due to mould / damp (asthma, hives etc). 6) Once we were in the flat without the previous tenants’ belongings, we began to see many more issues in there that were concealed by the previous tenants furniture and items on walls (e.g. cracks in internal walls that were concealed) as well as many probable hazards with the flat (e.g. excessive cold, windows not shutting properly, suspected subsidence and suspected penetrative damp / mould). 7) We got in contact with the estate agent the evening we moved in. The estate agent denied all of the above and stated that the dehumidifiers were there upon viewing (they weren’t). There was some back and forth over the next 24hrs but the consensus from the estate agent and landlord was that nothing was wrong with the flat and that we were not misled. We asked to know what would happen with the flat and the estate agent told us that landlord “believed and understood the property was in a fine state of repair from the outset”. 8) After moving in on the Saturday the 25th Nov, and getting nowhere with the estate agent/landlord we decided for our health (mine especially – I had gone through a full inhaler and multiple antihistamines in the 24 hours I had been there) to leave the flat as we realised we had been sold a lie, it was clear the landlord wasn’t going to do anything and we could not stay due to our health. 9) We moved our belongings into storage at the earliest opportunity (Monday the 28th Nov) and went to stay with family so we didn’t have to live there and struggle health wise. We also received an email from the estate agent that the landlord was going to re-let the property with a different estate agent and that we would get 24h notice before any viewings take place. That email was the last we heard from either the landlord or the estate agent. 10) 5 days later we went back to the property and realised we had been locked out (they had used a lock to which we were not provided a key) so could not gain access to the property even if we did want to remain in the contract. 11) We also realised the landlord had been negligent on a number of other things: Hadn’t given us prescribed information on the deposit, had put the deposit in the wrong scheme (i.e. not the one they put in our AST), we had no gas safety certificate, and there was further misrepresentation (said there was a fridge freezer and chest freezer, there was neither). 12) We tried to contact them and were ignored. Finally, we sent a pre-action protocol letter outlining our claim and restating that we were open to negotiate rescission of the contract and our monies paid back. This was ignored. 13) 14 days later we filed a court claim against the landlord which included all the money we paid and damages (around 7k) and also the fines for them not giving us the proper prescribed information (£6.6k) so our case is currently in the fast track (we found out after this may not be the best thing). 14) The landlord is now defending and counterclaiming (we are waiting for the details of their defence and counterclaim in the post but assuming this is for loss of rent up to the new tenant move in date, irrespective of the illegal eviction). 15) One last point is that the MCOL apparently made a clerical error and accidentally discontinued our claim on the 17th of Jan without telling us, and we spent the last week or so reinstating it. I am now unsure of what our next steps should be so any advice on what you think we should do would be hugely appreciated. Thank you all!

Hi This is my first post so please forgive me if its in the wrong place or irrelevant !! I have had a holiday and reason for complaint as it was not what it said it was... there are two issues that i have summarised below. The holiday company, forest holidays, dont want to know about my complaint and say they will defend any court action, so i would like to ask what do people think ? do i have a reasonable chance of winning a case against them? Details of claim - Part one of claim – Noise and disruption 1. The defendant made the following statements on the forest holidays website – “Our cabins at Sherwood Forest are dotted among the tall pine trees, blending harmoniously into the forest landscape. Sherwood Forest has our widest range of cabins, and whichever you choose, you will be rewarded with peaceful woodland views” 2. The claimant booked a holiday on September 4th 2016 with The claimant being induced by this representation of a PEACEFUL holiday, to enter into a contract. The claimant would otherwise not have entered into the contract—that is that the representation played a real and substantial part in the claimant's decision to enter into the contract. 3. Unknown to the claimant but with full Knowledge to the defendant at the time of booking, the forest live concerts were to take place for the entire duration of the claimants booking. These concerts are to take place in the same forest, on the same land, within 500 metres of the forest holidays cabins. 4. The concerts are big open air events that attract some 9000 + visitors over the duration of the holiday booking. There was continued loud sound checks throughout the duration of the stay and extreme decibel levels of live music in the evenings continuing beyond 11.00pm. The defendant knew that the holiday would not be Peaceful as in the representation at the time of booking. 5. The defendants silence, at the time of booking in September 2016, while knowing these concerts where to go ahead during the entire holiday period, gives rise to an actionable misrepresentation. 6. The forest holidays cabins are in the forestry commission Sherwood forest grounds. The concerts also take place in the forestry commissions Sherwood forest grounds. For forest holidays to say that the concerts are outside their area or control is misleading and untrue. The concerts are approx. 500 yards from the holiday accommodation. Although forest holidays may have no direct control over the concert dates, subsequent noise and disruption they do have control over the fact that they could have informed the claimant of this event prior to making a booking 7. By way of example forest holidays promote bike hire at their Sherwood forest facilities. Bike hire at Sherwood pines is actually not on the forest holidays site as they claim in this instance but is on the same site of the Sherwood forest live concerts, some 500 yards away from the cabins. Yet for the purposes of this claim the defendant states that part of the forest site is not the same part of the forest holidays area 8. The defendant claims they did not need to make the claimant aware of these concerts as it is outside of their control as stated in the terms and conditions. 9. The claimant claims that the noise and disruption was foreseeable and is so not outside of the control as detailed in the terms and conditions – “We are not responsible for anything which adversely affects your holiday which occur due to events which are outside of our control (i.e. that we could not, even with due care, have foreseen or avoided). Such circumstances include (amongst others) war, civil unrest, industrial action, terrorist activity, natural disaster, fire, adverse weather conditions, foot and mouth disease. We will endeavour to manage any problems caused as a result of such an event but shall not be liable to you for any losses caused by such event”. 10. The defendant made the claimant aware of these concerts on 6th June 2017 through an email which the claimant read. 11. The claimant was unable to cancel the holiday and receive a refund as the terms and conditions state ‘If we receive less than 12 weeks’ notice but not less than 2 weeks’ notice, you will be liable to pay the total cost of the holiday” and the claimant would have forfeited the value of the holiday 12. The claimant claims that the defendant had full knowledge of these concerts but did not report this to the claimant until after such a time that the claimant would have paid for the holiday in full and would forfeit the cost of the holiday should the claimant decide to cancel. 13. The claimant went ahead with the holiday after assurance from the defendant that there would be little or no disruption. 14. The claimant made a complaint of continued noise and disruption to the forest lodge holiday staff at the time of the holiday, they stated there was nothing they could do about this and dismissed the claimants complaint 15. The claimant went onto make a formal complaint to forest holidays head office by way of letter detailing the complaint and asking for a refund of the holiday 16. The defendant’s customer service representative then telephoned the claimant to discuss the complaint and get more details, the forest holidays customer service advisor said there would be a management meeting on what they could do and how to resolve the complaint 17. The defendant then responded by way of email, denying any liability and dismissed the claimant’s complaint in full. 18. The claimant refers to the following terms and conditions of the contract – 11. Responsibilities when on location Noisy or disruptive behaviour, especially after 10pm, wilful damage to the Location or cabins or other behaviour considered by our staff to be inappropriate may result in us asking you or a member of your party to leave the Location immediately. No refunds or compensation will be given in these instances, and we reserve the right to claim compensation for damages or inconvenience caused. 15. Liability – Please read this section as it is important that you understand to what you are agreeing 
 We are responsible to you for: (a) any loss or damage that you suffer as and which is foreseeable result of our breach of these Terms or our failure to use reasonable skill and care; or (b) death or personal injury caused by our negligence; or © fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation; or (d) any other matter for which it would be illegal or unlawful for us to exclude or attempt to exclude our liability. To respect the enjoyment of others, we ask that noise levels are kept to a minimum after 10:00pm 17 Other Information - Any photographs, descriptions or advertising we issue, and any descriptions or illustrations contained in our promotional material or on the website, are issued or published solely to provide you with an approximate idea of our Locations and the services. All due care and diligence is exercised in the production of such information, and information concerning our cabins and their facilities has been compiled as accurately as possible by our own staff and has been checked at the time of going to press Part 2 of claim – Bike theft. 1. The claimant had two bicycles stolen from the cabins whilst on holiday and claims the defendant knew about, but did not highlight or inform the claimant of the continued problem of bike theft in the forest. 2. The claimant claims that the accommodation provided bike storage was used but was inadequate to secure the bikes considering the defendant’s knowledge of the high risk of bike theft in the forest 3. The defendant claims that they informed the claimant that they should keep bikes inside the cabin, in the kitchen area of the accommodation 4. The claimant claims that storing muddy bikes inside a luxury cabin kitchen area is not suitable or fit for purpose. 5. The claimant claims that by storing muddy bikes inside the cabin kitchen risks damaging the kitchen floors, risks safety to children in the accommodation and risks breaching the terms and conditions should the bikes cause any damage to the property to which the claimant would be liable 6. The claimant claims that the defendant knew about the risks associated with the current outside bike storage but has failed to upgrade these to secure outside storage. 7. By continuing to provide the current outside bike storage the claimant claims that the defendant is, by way of action, promoting this storage to be adequate and is to be used for bike storage 8. The defendant claims that they highlighted the risks of bike storage to the claimant by way of prior arrival email and upon check in 9. The claimant does not recall receiving or reading the above mentioned email and was not informed in anyway at the time of check in 10. The defendant claims that adequate warning signage is placed around the cabin and forest area 11. The claimant has since looked for these warning signs but has been unable to locate them, photos of main areas and bike storage do not show any warning signs 12. The claimant claims that the defendant has become liable for the loss of these bikes due to negligence, failure to disclose or display knowledge of foreseeable high risk of bike theft 13. The claimant claims that the defendant is liable for the loss due to failure to supply fit for purpose storage facilities outside the cabin accommodation 14. The claimant states that the defendants claim that bikes should be stored in the luxury accommodation kitchen is not a solution and is not stated in the terms and conditions of contract. It gives rise to significant risk and injury to children staying in the cabin. Any help would be appreciated Thanks

Afternoon one and all. Hope you're all doing well? I was hoping that someone might be able to advice me of something just milling around my head. On the 7th of April, I found a car on Gumtree and entered into a conversation with the seller. After a while, my gut instinct was literally going ten to a dozen because the seller said that he wanted to sell the car to me using a third party, gullible as I am, I researched the said third party which was Reedy's Trading Group. I did quite a bit of research on Reedy's Trading Group and found many a website that verified that they were real. Even on their website and the back end they had Gumtree accredited within their SEO. I proceeded with the sale doing a bank transfer for £2779.00, Yes, I know, what a idiot. Turns out that Reedy's never existed, they had cloned all of these websites and created reviews. I got in contact with Gumtree to report the seller after reporting the fraud to Action Fraud for all the good its done. I work as a user experience designer and I wanted to ascertain exactly how Gumtree verify who is real and who isn't? I contacted Robert Hatterley who is the CEO of both Gumtree and Ebay UK and the only reply that I kept on getting was that how Gumtree are a classified add and they have a dedicated Fraud team... This is where I need the advice. 48 hours after the [problem], another company cropped up on Gumtree selling 15 cars, the name of the seller was Reedy Trade. I created a dummy account and these people sent through pretty much identical to how I was [problem]med before. I have reported this to Gumtree, 72 hours later, I checked and the seller is still there. If Gumtree is quoting itself saying that it prides itself on how it tackles Fraud and they have a dedicated team, yet in 48 hours I have managed to prove that the fraudsters are still trading on Gumtree, would I be able to claim damages back under the Misrepresentation Act of 1967? Because they are claiming that they are being vigilant, yet this isn't the case? Thanks in Advance Cole:|

Hi. I have heard good things about this forum and a friend of mine advised me to sign up to seek a bit of advice about my situation. I may waffle on a bit in this post and some things may seem irrelevant but its just because I'm trying to cover everything I have just been through in my police interview :/ At 8.30am I was knocked out of bed and promptly arrested/ I knew what it was all about and cooperated fully, even offering up my online bank details as I don't keep paper statements. Going back to January, I was in a right mess. I had had money stolen from me, I was in rent arrears, I owed a loan shark 580 quid. At this time and still to this day I am on disability benefits..so not a lot of income really. This guy was at my door constantly, I had borrowed £300 off him a few months back to feed my gambling addiction (stupid I know) and he never threatened me in as many words, but he is seriously intimidating and just kept saying if I didn't pay in a couple of days there would be serious consequences. I had no way of accessing that kind of money quickly, so I decided to pretty much steal it from someone else to save my own skin. I listed an item on ebay that I didnt own, and had someone pay for it by paypal (as I know paypal refund things that dont arrive and I would just end up with a negative paypal balance that I could pay off whenever ..they would be unlikely to come knocking on my door for it) so yeah, I got the money, paid the guy and that was going to be the end of it. The buyer got a refund from paypal within 5 days Then I noticed an item for sale near me on gumtree, for seriously cheap. I was still having financial troubles at this stage so I planned to sell this item for more, then buy it from the person on gumtree to send to the buyer..if that makes sense. Kind of reselling but the wrong way round. However, paypal started blocking funds, long story short this guy ended up paying me by bank transfer, however he didnt pay the full amount as he didnt have paypals protection. .he was going to pay the rest on receipt of the item, and I didnt have the extra 100 or so to put to it to actually buy the item. What I should have done at this point was come clean and refund him, but I instead..decided that he would find a way of getting refunded off the bank I spent the money. Mostly on gambling. The more money I gambled, the more I HAD to gamble, so I did this to another 2 people.. .this time listing the items solely with the aim of getting someone to offer to pay by anything bar paypal. The total fraud is around 2k. Around 600 or so altogether was spent on clothing and bills, the rest gambled away. I don't need people to tell me how stupid and dishonest I have been, I know this already. I got a call about a month ago from nationwide telling me that one guy was getting his cash back and it would be removed from my account, which was fine. It would leave my balance negative, but I have had unarranged overdrafts before and know banks tend to be ok about letting you pay small bits weekly/monthly. I waited for the calls about the other 2 people but they never came. today I got arrested on suspicion of fraud by false representation. Was in a cell for a bit then got my interview during which I gave all information I possibly could about the situation. I even disclosed one 'victim' of mine that the police did not know about. I have been bailed and have to go back in a month. My question is this really. .what charges can I expect to come from this? I accept I have done wrong, have offered to pay back and everything but I know I will still get some form of sentencing :/

Hi all, My partner signed up to a local gym recently with a friend, upon signing up they were told it was a 12 month contract with the first month free. They were also told they had 30 days to try the gym out and could cancel if they didn't like it. My partner and her friend attended the gym twice over the next 4days but it became apparent that the gym was far too busy at peak times and there was a large amount males that made my partner anxious and uncomfortable (she suffered from anxiety). My partners friend phoned up with 5days of signing up and was told she could not cancel but they did transfer her membership to another gym. When we phoned up to cancel under the grounds of misrepresentation and that my partner did not feel comfortable but they said she had signed a contract and we had no legal grounds to stand on. They did offer to move our membership but the gym was too far away , they also offered an induction session but after dispute and accusing the staff of miss representation my partner feels mor anxious than ever and cannot return for fear of anxiety attack. I haven emailed a number of times now and have offered to pay the gym any costs for signing and cancelling the membership along with a month for the 2days , an offer I think reasonable given the circumstances. My complaint has now moved from their membership department to their operations manager who has said he has looked into our complaint and our accusations are without evidence and our membership still stands. They have said if we cancel our direct debit they will immediately order the bailiffs in- something I really want to avoid as this will not help my partners anxiety !! What's even more frustrating is that this gym is a a trading name of a council funded charity ! (Run for the good of the community) What I really want to know is do we have a case here, can bailiffs be appointed when we are disputing the validity of the contract on the grounds of miss-selling. And can bailiffs even collect on a debit agreement if it is cancelled before the start date (February). Part of me is tempted to give in but this is£312 we do not have. Any advice will be much appreciated .

Hi all, I signed up for a 12 month membership at X4L in June. One of the benefits of an X4L membership was that you can use any X4L gym throughout the UK. This was important to me as I am moving to Manchester City Centre in September. Before signing up I expressly asked the employee whether a gym would be opening up in Manchester and he said, 'we are opening new gyms all the time and it is likely we will open a gym in Manchester by October'. I have since learned that they have no intention to open a gym up in Manchester City Centre. Does this amount to misrepresentation? My belief is that this statement by X4L was a misrepresentation that induced me into signing the contract. Had I known that they had no plans to open a Manchester gym I would obviously not have signed the contract - and this is why I specifically asked about it before signing. Your opinions would help massively. Thank you.

On the 12th of June we have rented through Estate Agency 3bdr house. Due to the pressure put on us we moved in much earlier than we planned - agent said that landlord want to move in asap. We agreed as it was very hard to find something else in our area. From the day after we moved in, there has been significant noise coming from the construction site located just in front of our garden. What we found out was that there will be 6 storey building... I'd like to mention that agent didn't say a single word what kind of hell we can expect and also, there was no sign of machinery in the day of viewing, pictures of the house on their website are misleading too. Engineering machines are working every weekday (within agreed hours of course: 8am till 6pm) and make our living here very difficult. I want to stress out that both myself and my partner work from home but the conditions make it not possible. We have an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement for 12 months period with break clause after the end of 6 months. There is no way that we will be able to stay in this noise. Kids are complaining for headaches and ear pain. Any chances that we can end it without losing our deposit (we're renting in London, so you can image the amount) and being sued? Thank you for any suggestion.

Hi, Some background info I defaulted on my current account in 2005. The bank didn't register the default until 2009, I had 4 years of late payment markers before the default. I contacted the bank in 2010 querying the default date then complained to the ICO. This took nearly 2 years of correspondence and the bank agreed to amend the default date to 2006 and so the account should have dropped off my Credit File in 2012. However even although they agreed to change the default date they didn't actually do it until a year later. It has just recently come off my Credit File. I'm just wondering if this could be considered as negligent misrepresentation? As they knowingly continued to report my personal data with the wrong default date and the account remained on my Credit File for a year longer than it should have. I am in Scotland and have been reading Mr Durkin's case. Thanks.

I run a small business that prints a free local newspaper which is funded by advertising. We were using a freelance salesperson to sell the advertising for us and they were paid commission only. We have now found out that the salesperson was quoting grossly inflated reader numbers to advertisers in order to get them to sign up for advertising. Basically, misleading them, or deceiving them into parting with their money. We recently parted company with this salesperson acrimoniously as there was a grievance, and now they are informing the advertisers that the figures they quoted to them were wrong and that we told them to quote them. Understandably, we now have lots of angry advertisers demanding refunds that we cannot afford to pay. Some are threatening court action. Basically, we are going to lose the business because of the unprofessional, spiteful actions of one individual who was saying whatever he wanted to ensure he made maximum commission. I'm guessing we could be looking at a Misrepresentation of Goods case, but we don't have the funds to pay out, nor can we afford to defend it in the courts. We cannot sue the salesperson as they have no money and no assets. I'm devastated as I was just trying to run an honest and respectable small business and now this malicious individual has come along and potentially destroyed it. If anyone has any advice, I would be extremely grateful.

Hello, I recently purchased a gas boiler that was brand new but old stock and heavily discounted from 7k - 1.5k On the face of it a great deal complete with warranty from a quality manufacturer, on offer from a supplier I use at least once a year, this time for my personal property. In a nutshell the boiler arrived minus gas shut off valve, minus controller, connection pipes and manuals, guarantees etc. The boiler was being installed and was required urgently due to a new arrival, this was made clear at the time of purchase and that time was of the essence.. It took numerous emails and calls and texts to get in dribs and drabs all the various components to enable the installation to be completed, This was a 300kg boiler (domestic complete with cylinder in a single package -in case you're wondering). Due to the missing parts the boiler took some time to install which increased costs not to mention the inconvenience of all the chasing of the parts and being without hot water and heating etc for the new arrival meant staying elsewhere. I claimed for costs from the supplier/manufacturer (two different entities) The manufacturer finally offered without prejudice another unit but to remove the first one and then to have to dispose of it and then install the second unit would have just increased costs further so this was rejected (what am I going to do with 2 boilers 300kg each 2m tall 70cm square?. My claim for costs is far less than the cost of the purchase about half. A claim has been made against the CC under sec75 for the cost of the boiler and costs, however they are stating that they are reliant on goodwill of the 3rd parties bank and the retailer to respond as they need me to provide proof of breach of contract or misrepresentation but have temporarily refunded the 1.5k only and wont entertain the consequential loss. They go on to say they are totally reliant on the goodwill because the goods are in my possession and there is no documentary evidence to prove the goods are faulty, therefore they can't guarantee the outcome. The unit was supplied faulty by virtue the parts required for it to operate were missing surely it was faulty, the correspondence covers this from both sides my raising the complaint and their accepting that parts were missing.. It seems clear to me there was a breach, the goods were not as described ie a new complete boiler, they were missing various components critical to the installation and commissioning of the appliance, without them the boiler could not be fully installed or operated. This is clear and accepted by the 3rd parties, that the missing parts and delays were unacceptable and the goods were not as described. The CC has had copies of TCs and all email correspondence some 30 pages of documents were sent and yet the CC is finding it difficult to establish documentary evidence of a breach has taken place. The boiler is currently installed 6 weeks after its arrival yet it is still missing the original manuals and warranty documents.. what are my options? I am aware that deductions can be made for any use of the appliance subsequently..

hello there. maybe you guys could at least put me into a right direction. my Employer has been running this Travel & Subsistence scheme which allows employees to claim the expenses and pay less tax, thereby saving money to the employee. However, the benefit split is very unfair 15% to the employee only and 85% to the employer. when we entered into the scheme all the employer told us is that we would be better off when on the scheme and it is true that we do earn a little bit more as the tax paid is much less but the employer never negotiated any fees and so as a consumer of such service in the Tax area i think the employer should be much more transparent. however, i later did further calculations. and it transpired that the employer saves a lot by paying much less of Employees National Insurance and less of Employers National Insurance , which means that we get 15 pounds but the employer takes 75 pounds , and this 70 pounds should have otherwise gone to the total pot of Employee's NIC which is connected to the employee's State Pension , Unemployment Benefits, other benefits and so on, in other words after a full and careful calculation the scheme is actually misleading and in reality is not beneficial at all !!! and is thus either a fraud or a gross negligent misrepresentation, deceit, theft whatever you want to call it. naturally it is very frustrating to enter into any disputes with your employer, but i am so ****ed off about it that i feel like i have no choice because this company has done a lot of nasty things, and they have been evading my questions about this scheme for like 4 years. now questions are: what do i do ? can i sue them? if yes can i also sue them for examplary damages as this practice is very widespread. am i a consumer of a service. this is sort of a Tax area and thus possibly i am a consumer of a Tax Consulting Service where a fee should have been negotiated. also , as an employee, it is an employee and Employement relationship and thus there must be an implied trust. so we sort of trusted that this scheme is genuinely good for us but in reality it is a rip off, it is like telling a granny that you will paint her a fence whilst you steal half of her fence. maybe someone can recommend a cheap but good lawyer or good legal aid lawyer. any advice would be very much appreciated. many thanks

Hello, if this isn't the right place to ask this, please forgive a newbie and then (please) point me in the right direction. My husband and I purchased a mid-terraced property in 2010. We viewed the house itself, once, but at the time hubby was living in the area and scoped it out for traffic, noise etc. We knew the property was next to a barber's shop and across from a newsagent/grocer so expected there to be problems with people parking outside our house: we were right, so turned the parking space back into a fenced off front yard and put in some planters and got relative peace and now park round the corner. Inconvenient, but not unexpected, despite the vendor claiming parking wasn't an issue. Anyhow, we completed in March 2010, moved in, and everything was fine...until in the April/May of 2010, we discovered Japanese knotweed in the garden. We did what many people do: looked it up on the internet and then panicked for a bit, in the way that if you are looking up 'headache' on Google, after 10 minutes you'll be convinced you have a brain tumor . But then we checked out the Environment Agency guidance on treating the stuff; I also contacted the local council environment department, explained that it was just a few shoots, and got advice on how to treat it and just got on with living, thinking 'caveat emptor', I suppose. Forward three and a half years. Hubby gets a new job hundreds of miles away and we have to sell up and move. On the Sellers Information questionnaire is the question 'Is there knotweed on the property?'. I can't lie, so we tell the truth: yes there's knotweed, but we are following treatment advice from the council. Buyers solicitor asks: are we willing to get a professional survey and put a treatment plan into action? Begrudgingly (because the small growth is 20 odd metres from the house and seems to be responding to treatment) yes: in the time it takes us to find a reputable knotweed treatment company that are willing to do a reasonably priced survey and don't want thousands of pounds up front (about one week) buyer pulls out and, as a consequence, we lose the property we were hoping to buy in Hubby's place of work. Now, we recognise that it is our bad fortune that we bought our property 3 months before the HIP was replaced. The HIP did not ask about knotweed. In the meantime, however, new questions asking SPECIFICALLY about the evil plant are being asked and we find out that we will struggle to sell our house because of the existence of it on our land makes us a risk for mortgage providers. Which is more than a bit of a punch in the gut. Our knotweed survey finds a small growth on our property that springs from a larger crown growing in a disused part of the garden, next door, and points out that there is cut-back material from a stand that he estimates to be 5-8 years old that has been held at bay by the large fence erected by our vendors: our small growth, it appears, has come back from being cut down, membraned and turfed over and hidden behind a 6ft+ fence. What? WHAT? We would NEVER have purchased if we had known knotweed was on the property. We come from Jersey where knotweed and hottentot-fig have run rampant, so we know how awful invasive species of plant can be. I'm also pretty sure that we would never have gotten the small mortgage we had until we bought the remainder of the property, outright when my Father-in-law's inheritance came through. Even if we ignore the 'parking isn't a problem' thing, and the fact that we were made to believe that there was a rear right-of-way to the property which it turns out there probably isn't due to adverse possession of an unregistered communal pathway (having caused/reopened a dispute with our neighbour next-door-but-one), we now cannot sell our house. We are having to pay out thousands of pounds to treat something we were not made aware of and which our vendor seems to have deliberately concealed. Looking back at the questionaire she filled out before our purchase, her answer to the question about contamination says that she 'has not contaminated the land', but we cannot remove the knotweed from our property because all the ground within 7m of the stand is deemed polluted and we risk contaminating other ground with this awful, awful problem. Do we have a claim for misrepresentation? I would appreciate some guidance before we just give up and rent the house out forever. Sarah

I purchased a travel insurance policy from a UK online company- based on what they advertised on the internet-that stated 1.The policy would pay £2500 personal items,£400 valuables and £300 single item in its summary-(just suiting my needs). 2. The company is WHICH recommended( A big plus ) 3. I could find no adverse publicity about this company (another bonus) 4. I was assured verbally that the policy was a good product-when paying via the phone.(job done) Unfortunately a theft from my luggage while checked in at an airport security system has left me out of pocket. And because my bag was classed as unattended !! refuse to pay my claim. (So much for utmost good faith !!) So when looking into the policy wording and the product details I have discovered the following. 1. The policy I was sent and the policy their appointed loss adjusters use to settle claims lists only £1500 personal items,£300 valuables and £250 per item (which would not have covered my personal items). 2. The company is not on the WHICH recommended list at all - it mealy has its rates quoted by them. (And this had been the deciding Factor In purchasing the policy) 3. I still cant find any adverse publicity or consumer review for this very well established firm- to discourage any purchase of their product(which for me wasn't worth the paper it was written on) I feel that through misrepresentation of the above I was misled into purchasing the policy initially , that I would not otherwise have bought- (regardless of the document conditions) and have as a direct result found my self out of pocket. Does anyone feel there is case to answer or have any advice. I like'n it to a one armed bandit- we all complain when we lose our pennies - but if you knew the machine was fixed to start-would you still put your money in ?

I recently moved to Norwich to have some peace and quiet after a stressful job. Finding an affordable house to rent in the right area was difficult a the market is very competitive here. I found a perfect terraced house in my favourite area, applied and was successful. I noticed a notice in the kitchen window of my neighbour saying "loud, deaf musician lives here". As peace and quiet is my primary concern I asked the estate agent to contact the landlord about it before I paid my deposit. The message came back from the landlord to the estate agent that the notice had been there for years, it was just a joke and the landlord had never heard of any problems with the neighbour. The neighbour actually IS a loud, deaf musician, who tutors rock groups at home several evenings a week, plays his own music late into the night (3am) on occasion and practices the drums regularly. I have tried to come to some sort of amicable agreement with him but he has been abusive and uncooperative. He said that every tenant before me had a problem with the noise but none of them had managed to get him to change. The neighbour is not only noisy but I know him to be violent, take drugs and drink to excess. I cannot withstand the stress of living here but I am unsure what my rights are. Even if the landlord didn't know about the noise, surely he should have checked out the problem rather than just told me that there was no problem? My landlord took 6 months upfront rent (because I am self-employed) and I paid substantial fees to the estate agent (who I believe did not do due diligence). Can I get this all back?

The story of this is as follows: Have been with AA home insurance for a number of years. Last claim was back in 2005/6. We get the renewal request and carry on with it automatically. We had noticed there was an additional claims excess which said that the amount we must pay for any claim is increased to £150. We accepted this. However, when we put in a claim they said it was £250 excess. They duly sent us a copy of the documents to confirm this. It is a good job that because of how the banks behave we now keep every bit of paperwork lol In our original renewal copy and our confirmation copy back in January they both state in the 'additional claims excess' to be increased to £150 not £250. The AA have now issued a default after we had cancelled (have a letter from them confirming cancellation) for the amount of £91. Threatening that if the money is not forthcoming they will terminate the agreement and we won't be covered ... we have cancelled it already lol Should I write a letter before action as I feel that we have been seriously misled and would not have bothered taking the insurance based on £250 excess (£150 we had a serious chat before agreeing it was ok) We certainly would not have agreed to £250. We would have just left it at cancelled but now because of them sending a default we will fight them and want to claim monies paid back. Can we raise a dispute also in regards to the default as they misrepresented the insurance policy and confirmed the policy cancelled? Do we report them to the FSA or just go straight to letter before action for misrepresentation or both? Any help or advice is appreciated thanks AS

Hi Guys, In May 2012 I saw an advert for a kit car in an online classified website which caught my eye. The car was advertised as being off the road on SORN (no tax or mot) for 2 years but kept in good working order, been recently serviced (DIY) and it just needed 3 things to pass an MOT. I called the seller to enquire further and made him aware that I am quite far away and can't come to view the car so he will have to tell me the history of the car and I will be relying on what he tells me to make any decisions as well as requiring further photographs of it. He said thats absolutely fine and we went over the history of the car and why it has been off the road for 2 years and his reasons for selling it. Everything in our correspondence sounded legit and reasonable. The facts about the car as he presented them; Car was built in 2000 and had been MOT'd upto 2009 when it was taken off the road to do some modifications. then he started a family and the modifications were started but not finished and now he doesn't have time for it. It has been looked after while off the road and various bits of maintenance have been done as well as the engine being started regularly and warmed up. He stated 3 specific things which needed to be done for the car to be ready for an MOT test all relatively minor. He stated he is an engineer and its been excellently looked after - I believed him. I decided to buy the car and organise it to be picked up and delivered to me. I telephoned him and stated that I am happy to offer him the asking price on the basis of everything he has told me and his answers to all my questions. I paid him a deposit while I organised for the car to be picked up and delivered to me. I then paid the balance the night before the car was due to be transported and the seller stated he would hand all documentation for the car and some spares to the transporter driver to give to me. When I got the car; 1. There were only 2 MOT certificates from 2000 & 2001 - I was told it was MOT'd upto and including 2009. 2. The 3 things which I was told are required for the MOT seemed as discussed. 3. On trying to start the car the battery was flat. 4. On trying to start the car with a fully charged battery it wouldn't. Further investigation revealed the fuel tank was bone dry and disconnected. The fuel line from the petrol tank to the main fuel supply line was missing. 5. The car has no horn fitted which is an MOT requirement. So that means there are 4 things required for the MOT. 6. Once I got the car started I found the water pump dribbles water (is on its way out) and water overflows from the radiator. 7. The fuel lines in the engine bay which connect the carburettors leak and dribble fuel which is unsafe and an MOT failure making the number of MOT points 5. 8. I cannot engage reverse gear. I contacted the seller; 1. Asking about the MOT's for 2002-2009 He said he thought there were all together and it must be the wife has filed them with the old registration document and if he finds time he will have a look for them. 2. Empty Petrol tank; He said he drained the petrol out prior to it being collected as he didn't know how long it would be standing for and all I need to do is reconnect the fuel line to the tank and fill it up. Following that email I sent him another stating I can't start the car and that the horn doesn't work and that I phoned VOSA and they stated they have no record of any MOT for this car since 2005 - when MOT's were computerised. After that email he stopped responding to me and doesn't answer the phone or respond to voicemails for 2 weeks I have been phoning him. My Issues are; 1. MOT history has been lied about. VOSA have no computer records of an MOT since 2005 where he told me the car passed MOT's upto 2009. 2. I still fail to see any reasoning why someone would drain the petrol out of the fuel tank. With the missing fuel tank connection it seems to me that this car has not been started for some time or he did not want me to be able to start the car straight away. Especially as the battery is also dead it contradicts his statement he started the car prior to it being collected. I haven't had his feedback on the points below as he is now ignoring me; 3. The leaking water pump & radiator is also a lie or cover up. If he had been starting the car regularly as he claimed then he would have known about the leaks. So he lied it had no leaks when I asked him. 4. The leaking engine bay fuel lines are another possible trigger why it was drained of fuel. 5. The missing horn & leaking fuel lines makes the number of MOT issues 5 not 3 as I was told. 6. I haven't yet investigated the reverse gear problem. Also the fact he has started ignoring me doesn't look good. So my problem is; 1. With how the car has turned out - I would not have offered him the asking amount - especially if the car hasn't bee MOT'd since 2002 and sitting in a garage for 9 years instead of the 2 years he told me. 2. I will have to spend an additional £150-£200 to rectify the issues I know about. If the gearbox turns out to be faulty and needs rebuilding/replacement that will be another £200-£300. In my last voicemail I did mention he has misrepresented the car to me and I will be taking the matter further. What are my 'realistic' available options now? Thanks.

I purchased a new car on a PCP finance deal through a broker 12 months ago and it has recently come to light that car was pre-registered under a company name and then the broker registered his company as the keeper of the car 9 months into the 4 year contract. Once I was aware of the situation I contacted both the broker and ING (the finance company) to find out why this had happened. The broker has now admitted (in writing) that it was his mistake and informs me he is trying to remedy his mistake with the DVLA. Unfortunately this has now been on-going for over three months and I am still not the registered owner. I am now in a situation where my car tax is due, as is my insurance yet I am unable to do so as i am not the registered owner. Does anyone know if I returned the vehicle to ING, whether I would receive a refund of my £5000 deposit?

Hello all, I ordered a new car which displayed faults and poor build quality upon collection and then I discovered a gross misrepresentation. I rejected the car within 5 days (the faults) then a further 6 (misrepresentation). THREE & A HALF YEARS LATER the car still sits on my drive - the dealer does not want to know and contemtuously ignores me. The Financial Omb. proves to be useless as it makes up its own law and the Sale of Goods/ Misrepresentation Act apparently means nothing - you need to have a case under the SOGA- but then its like judging a beautiful baby competition on the basis of the size of its mother-in-laws feet! A lawyer whom I consulted asked me why I did not "just return the car"? Can anyone tell me how I would have done this without a court order compelling them to take it back? When I took it to them they simply did not want to know and if I had have left it on the street and posted the keys through their letterbox It would still be mine - I would have been responsible for any fines/accidents etc. re the car and would have abondoned my evidence. Additionally, I have heard that the courts do not like used of the "right of self help"! When I bought the car I had not saved the extra £15000 to take the dealer to court so I am now having to not only hire cars etc. but save to pay the lawyer.... Can someone please comment because this attempt to squeeze this consumer is getting me down! Sorry cannot now edit title - Should be Right of Self Help

We all know that it is compulsory to have third party insurance for any motor vehicle you have on the road - and I do mean “on the road” whether being driven or not - and you will be vigorously prosecuted by the police if you don’t have it. We also all know that the police cars all have direct access to a national database which tells them immediately whether a particular vehicle is under cover at that instant of time. * Furthermore, we all think we know that companies that offer motor insurance are fine upstanding honest and fair examples of capitalism at its best. Well, forget that. Recent events have shown me that they can be on a par with banks - lying, conniving, greedy, and incompetent. * Fewer people are aware of what happens if an accident is caused by a driver who is not insured. How can the person who has suffered loss claim recompense? Just after World War 2, the Government of the day pressured the insurance companies into setting up a special company - the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) - to pay the due compensation which would be funded by a charge on the insurance companies proportionate to their premium income. The thinking behind this was that if the driver at fault had been insured then one or other of the insurers would be paying out, so a joint fund would be fair to everyone. It is now compulsory for the motor insuring companies to contribute and the victims of hit and run drivers are also covered. Apparently the cost of MIB to UK motor policyholders is £30 per annum each and every one. * What is even less well known is that MIB do not simply pay out compensation, they also take action against the uninsured driver to recover what has been paid out. That sounds reasonable on the face of it, and if done in a practical, straightforward, and honest way, who could complain? AH! but that's a big IF. Read on to see how I discovered the reality of how this organisation works. No, I was not driving without insurance, BUT …... When my daughter first passed her driving test and bought a small second hand Mazda Micra at the age of 18, we discovered that it was cheaper to insure it under my name with her as a named driver, than for her to be the main insured. The cheapest quote we found on internet comparison sites was from Quinn. That was in January 2009. In the August I happened to be driving the car when it was smashed into by another driver swerving to avoid a lunatic who pulled out in front of him. Fortunately no-one was injured and the lunatic's insurers paid up for the damage – the Micra being a write-off. We had a “free” hire car for a time for which Quinn issued a cover note. This company, based in Eire and now in liquidation, turned out to be an outfit to avoid. Of course it would be wrong to say that it was a front for the IRA; it just sounded and acted like it; strident female voices with a thick Irish brogue going at the speed and reasonableness of a machine-gun. They wanted more money for covering the hire car, they wanted more if my daughter drove it. But it was her car written off and she was already on the policy. No matter – more money. After some weeks my daughter bought a Clio and informed Quinn to change the insurance again. They issued a temporary cover note – and wanted more money. Why temporary? We wanted a permanent one for the Clio. They argued about the car being registered to my daughter but insured by me. OK the other way around, but they didn't like it this way. Why? “It's a rule we just made up.” Then on 12th November 2009 they issued a new permanent cover note – on the Mazda Micra which had by now been written off and SORNed. I later learned that it is illegal to insure a car under SORN. I rang and told them that this was no good, they couldn't insure a non-existent car, and I told them to re-instate the Clio. Just six days later my daughter was involved in a minor accident. The details are complicated and would take up too much space here. Suffice it to say the her car suffered very minor damage but the other had a badly crumpled front end and bonnet and was a write off. The police were called and decided two important things: that they could not apportion blame and (having consulted the database) that my daughter was insured. I rang Quinn later that morning and they again claimed that the Clio was not insured but the non-existent Micra was. They then reinstated the Clio but would not admit to a mistake. Four months later – February 2010 - my daughter was contacted by MIB (ah, got to them at last, now the plot thickens) who wanted to send their man to see her. So we welcomed him in and asked why he was involved. My daughter dictated a long statement explaining a) that she was insured, Quinn had made an error they would not admit; and b) she was not responsible for the accident anyway. The other driver claimed that my daughter had driven into her side but the photographs we had proved that it was the other way around. The MIB rep was sympathetic and understanding. He said he was “a middle man” in such disputes and that he needed my daughter to sign a form/agreement and he would take it with the statement and we would hear no more about it. I read the form/agreement and realised that it was ambiguous because in effect it gave MIB authority to act for or against the signatory. “Don't worry about that,” he assured us, “The position here is quite clear, but without your authority to act, we can't sort it out for you. Let us handle it and it will go away.” If he had been selling double glazing or something, I would have been dubious of such an assurance in the face of what was written, but this fellow was from a government instigated organisation, a national body essentially controlled by statute. Surely he wouldn't be lying through his teeth and conning us? ! Oh yes he was ! Some months later, when we thought it had “all gone away” we received a letter from the MIB's solicitors demanding nearly £6,000 (actually the first letter may have indicated less than that but the figure escalated over time, now being over £6,000). They had, without further contact with us decided that my daughter was not insured and was responsible for the accident, flying in the face of police decisions taken on the spot. They had proceeded to pay £300 to write off the other car, nearly £3,000 for whiplash injuries which I don't believe for a second, and close to another £3,000 for legal costs. These are rip-off merchants with the same ethics as banks – never give a sucker an even break! The propaganda says “the MIB recognise that the innocent victim has rights of full legal redress once fault is proven. This assumes that the MIB's own claims criteria are met “ but obviously they don't believe in bothering to prove fault and their claims criteria are as described above. There followed a lengthy correspondence in which I proved that the other driver had misreported the accident and she was responsible. They had a letter from Quinn claiming that the policy had “lapsed” on November 12th and I proved that this was a lie, but it is far easier to take on an impecunious student than a crooked insurance company, so earlier this year they issued county court proceedings for summary judgement. My daughter had to hire a solicitor to enter a defence and apply for Legal Aid, but before we had a decision on that and with only three working days notice, we had to go to court on October 3rd 2011 with a hastily hired and briefed young barrister. The barrister for MIB just took the line that my daughter had signed the form/agreement which gave them authority to do as they damn well please (he didn't actually use that term but it amounted to that) and so she had no basis for a defence of any merit – which is what has to be proven to avoid an actual trial and obtain a summary judgment. He used the letter from Quinn and the other driver's claim about the accident, without mentioning that both had been proven untruthful, and suggested that the police would not have been bothered to prosecute an uninsured driver (!! a laugh a minute this guy!) He also claimed that the MIB rep had offered my daughter the chance to get legal advice before signing the agreement. Fortunately our barrister had absorbed enough info to parry him and show that there were a number of issues that had to be addressed before any definite decision could be made. She pointed out amongst other things that the Witness Statement mentioning the suggestion of legal advice was signed by someone who was not present, so how could she know? [in fact, no such suggestion was ever made] She told the court, as I had previously told MIB, that we intended to force Quinn in as co-defendants so that they could be challenged on their refusal to take responsibility. The judge wasn't hoodwinked either and she asked in detail about the statement that the MIB rep took before declaring that there were issues for a trial and even said that there was a possibility of misrepresentation. So now we have to drag the Receiver for Quinn into the case and prepare for a trial. My own expectation is that Quinn and MIB will eventually come to some agreement. If Quinn had not been so stupid and oppressive in the first place they would have had to pay nothing, now they will pay at least half of the claim, maybe all of it. The morals of this story are: Never trust an insurance company Never give them even a paper-thin chance of dodging their obligations Never trust the Motor Insurance Bureau Never sign an agreement without legal advice Never mind what verbal assurances are given, it's what written down that matters

I purchased the TS200 trading system from Lee Sandford, who also runs his own financial Trading College. I was induced into the purchase by unsubstantited claims made in four sales videos. It was represented that you needed no previous knowledge to profit from using the System and even a child could use it. My experience was that the System required some prior knowledge of financial trading and my results did not match the claims made in the promotional videos. I paid £2,999 for the progrmme by debit card. I asked for a refund within 30 days of purchase on the basis that the programme did not meet the claims in the sales/promotional videos. This was declined by the Company. I sent two recorded delivery letters to the Head office of Lee Sandford requesting as refund under the grounds of Misrepresentation. I have received no replies. My only option would appear to submit a small claim to the County Court. Is this correct? If I did decide to make a claim, what is the likelihood of it being successful?

Several months ago, I visited the Orange shop on Princes Street in Edinburgh to discuss an upgrade to my Orange contract. I am visually impaired and, as such, require an accessible phone. I was assured by one of the staff that the Motorola DEXT would be suitable for my needs. I was informed it has TTS (Text to Speech) installed. After much effort on my part it became clear that the DEXT is not, in fact, accessible and is completely unsuitable. It does not include any TTS system. I attempted to raise this matter with the shop, and was told there was nothing they could do to help. They were very dismissive. After emailing customer services I got a phone call and was told to go back to the manager of the shop and that they cannot help me. They said their hands are tied and they could not assist me. I went into an Orange shop in Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow recently. They tried their best. They contacted the shop in Edinburgh. The member of staff in Edinburgh at first claimed he could not remember me, and then insisted he told me to contact Customer Services for advice. I then contacted Customer Services again by phone. They were rude, to the point that I was in tears, and insisted there was nothing they could do. It has become clear that I was misled regarding this phone, presumably in an effort to get me to renew my contract. Nobody in Orange is now prepared to do anything about this. I regard this as mis-selling. This is the second time Orange has erred with an upgrade. On the previous occasion I rang Customer Services upgrades department and explained I needed a phone running either a Symbian or Windows Mobile operating system. They told me the LG Viewty was accessible and on Windows Mobile. When I received the phone it was quite clear this was not true. I returned the phone and eventually upgraded to an SPV-650 which, when speech was eventually installed, ran very slowly and actually worked, after a fashion, despite regular firmware crashes. I am currently having to use a phone that I purchased privately, as the DEXT is unusable. Personally, I don't believe a word of what is said in the sticky notice in this forum by Orange Customer Service. They certainly haven't done their best to resolve the issue. In point of fact, I would say they have done nothing to resolve the issue. I would advise people thinking of taking out a contract with Orange to think again. At least some of their staff are willing to mislead to get you to renew a contract, and Customer Services seem to exist only to deal with technical problems, not to handle mis-selling by their shop staff.

Hello everyone I hope someone can give me some advice on how to resolve a dispute we are having with our landlord and estate agent. Mid-July my girlfriend and I signed an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement to rent a one bedroom flat with sole use of an external store room/study (outside flat but still in building) and sole use of a terrace. Since then everything has started to go wrong. The landlord came in the day after we signed the tenancy and removed the keys for the store room/study, post box and terrace. We returned to the property a few days later and found these keys missing so asked the estate agent to enquire as to where they had got to. The estate agent acquired the terrace keys and brought them round to the flat about a week later. About a week after this the estate agent came round again to remove some furniture that had been left in the flat, even though we let it unfurnished, so we asked about the remaining keys. They became very shirty and said that they were not even managing the property and they were doing us a favour in removing the furniture. Once we managed to calm them down they said that the landlord had posted the post box key to us! This was obviously a problem and we asked about the store room key, to which they did not give us an answer. This is a problem because the landlord has stated that she does not want to let us use the store room, even though it was advertised for our sole use and the estate agent has confirmed this in writing. Eventually the landlord conceded that we can share it with her but this is not what we agreed and now she is storing her belongings in there and will only let us have a key if we agree to her terms and go and get a copy cut (at our expense) from another estate agent she is trying to sell the property with. We rented the property under the assumption that we would have sole use of the store room as there is inadequate storage space within the flat. Additionally neither the estate agent nor the landlord is accepting responsibility for managing the property and we have contacted them stating that we no longer wish to live there and have tried to negotiate terminating the contract. They have flat out refused to negotiate and now want to take us to court. So: Do we have grounds to terminate contract due to misrepresentation and insufficient keys being provided? Are we obliged to get our own keys cut at our expense? Can the estate agent take us to court when the rent is paid directly to the landlord's bank account? Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated whether it is in our favour or not. Thanks in advance