Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Landlord business rental Statutory Demand help please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5942 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have today been served with a Statutory Demand under section 268(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Debt for Liquidated Sum Payable Immediately

 

This relates to a guarantee I had given on the rent for a shop (now closed) leased in the name of a limited company I own.

 

I have been trying to assign the lease for some time now,

the Landlord’s solicitor has been slow in replying to all my requests to assign the lease

consequently I lost a deal which would have cleared the debt nearly in full in March,

 

another which would have cleared most of it and am on the verge of either completing or loosing another which will leave 2/3rds outstanding.

 

The landlord (private individual) has obtained a judgement for £10k and about £2k costs and has a charging order on my house

- we are hoping to exchange on early in the new year.

 

The charging order is a way down the pecking order of COs and wipes out my share of equity in the house,

although my OH will agree to using part of OHs equity to get the house sale through.

 

The Landlords solicitor was very slow in providing our own solicitor with the figures for the CO which put us behind on exchange and perhaps too on completion including satisfaction of part of his clients debt!

 

I now have 18 days to respond to this demand, my first comments on it are:

The address for response is the Royal Courts the Strand why has it not been issued in my local CC which is listed for bankruptcy matters and according the insolvency service web site is the right place?

 

The figures do not marry with the judgement figure, nor with the amounts demanded when we have been discussing assignment.

It looks like the figures are just a quickly thrown together tester as they total only 1/3rd of an alleged debt.

 

Since much of the amount claimed is secured on property I think this application (on form 6.1) is incorrect anyway –

according to the forms notes

“if the creditor holds any security the amount of the debt should be the sum the creditor is prepared to regard as unsecured for the purposes of this demand”

the creditors text mentions security but does not explain what of the debt is secured and what is unsecured!

 

According to the Insolvency Service web site

“A creditor who is owed more than £750 serves a 'statutory demand' for the money due and it is not paid or secured

(for example, by a guarantee to provide something else of the same value);

or a settlement is not agreed, within 21 days,

and the debtor has not applied for the statutory demand to be set aside”.

 

It seems to me that he already has security for this debt or at least an adjudged amount of it so the purpose of this particular application is negated!

 

it was ‘served’ by dropping through the door after 9am this morning,

according to the Insolvency Service web site

“The completed form must usually be served on the individual in person.

The creditor must have proof of service,”

 

I assume that the demand’s delivery was strategic this morning to allow me no practical time to deal with it,

eighteen days including today takes me to 8th January (unless someone knows how to get more time)

 

the solicitor selling my house has the figure the landlord has claimed against the charging order which would be satisfied on completion (hopefully mid to end Jan) they are closed until January 2nd

 

the solicitor trying to complete the assignment of the lease for the shop has the detail on this although I have a sort of statement of account not all of which I have guaranteed - they are closed until January 2nd

 

the landlord's solicitor is also claiming about £11k of costs,

£2k has been approved by the court but he has refused to give me a breakdown of the remaining £9k!

 

I have been to court to try to get the judgement set aside but lost (before I discovered my friends here),

could I dispute the debt which is unsecured?

 

This will allow the sale to go through to clear most of the debt,

the assignment to go through to clear another 1/3rd the debt and then all we are missing is another 1/3rd which perhaps bears some discussion.

 

the real problem is that the landlord has refused to speak to me rather than work this through as I have done with 2 other landlords which got the ‘best of a bad job’ for all concerned.

 

I had been considering launching a claim or complaint against the landlord and his solicitor for my consequential losses by their inaction and am wondering whether now is a good time to start it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying to assign the lease for some time now, the Landlord’s solicitor has been slow in replying to all my requests to assign the lease consequently I lost a deal which would have cleared the debt nearly in full in March,

 

Commercial leases normally contain a clause that the landlord may not unreasonably withhold consent blah blah blah.... If they took more than 14 days to grant consent/assignment I would say that is unreasonable. But since they already have a CCJ don't know how you would use this arguement against them.

 

Just a thought

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...