Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • T911, Nick, thanks, I got there in the end! Without boring you with the details, it is precisely the most ridiculous cases that end up being lost - because the Cagger knows the other party's case is rubbish so doesn't do the necessary work on their own case. G24 are well aware of double dipping.  They have either done it deliberately or else have cameras which can't handle multiple visits to the car park which G24 happily leave malfunctioning so the £££££ keep rolling in. Sadly most people aren't like you.  I've just read various reviews for the Retail Park on TripAdvisor and Parkopedia.  Virtually all of them are complaining about these unfair charges for daring to spend time & money shopping in a shopping centre.  Yet no-one is refusing to pay.  They moan but think they have been fined and cough up. G24 are unlikely to do court, but it's not impossible with two tickets. Try to get evidence that you were elsewhere at these times. Often retail parks will intervene, but I've Googled & Googled and cannot find an e-mail address for the place.  Could the manager of one of your favourite shops give you a contact e-mail address for the company that run the retail park? Right at the moment I'm supposed to be teaching someone who runs two shops at the local shopping centre, but I'm not as he has had to go to a meeting with the company that runs the shopping centre, so I know for a fact that these business relationships exist!!!
    • Afternoon DX, The files were in date order. How would I put them into an acceptable format? I'm not that pc literate.  
    • I think you need to tell us what actually happened. Your original post gives the impression that you were taken to court for a speeding offence. But you go on to say that you received no paperwork. So you could not have been summonsed for a speeding offence because the police had no evidence that you (or anybody else) was driving (and it seems you were not anyway). You were probably summonsed (or more likely received a Single Justice Procedure Notice) for "failing to provide the driver's details." You would not normally be banned for this offence if you were convicted - it carries six points. So did you have any earlier points which meant you were liable to a "totting up" ban?  If you were originally convicted (as it seems you might have been) how was that conviction set aside? Did you perform a Statutory Declaration? There is simply too much missing for any meaningful help to be given. It seems as if there may have been an error by the DVLA but before you consider suing those idiots until the cows come home, you need to explain exactly what has happened.  
    • Point 4 and 10 duplicate Point 5 and 8 duplicate  Try to keep to one para with regards the agreement...various paras duplicating the same. Statement of truth is out of date refer to the claimants statement    
  • 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
      • 161 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 cancelling cheque for bond


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5895 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

Hope someone can help cos feeling very :-x

 

Basically I received a cheque for my bond then before I cashed it the landlord cancelled it saying the flat was not in the state it should have been. I sent a letter asking for proof and they have sent an invoice for damp proofing (the bathroom was damp but thats not up to me to pay for is it?), regrouting shower tiling, painting and hoovering. They also sent me pics of apparent damage. My question is can they send me a cheque, which means they are obviously happy with the state of the flat, then later cancel it and keep it all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Daisy,

you did the right thing in asking for proof, however they can't just send you an invoice by return. They need to prove the state it WAS in, and then the state it IS in upon your leaving.

Bathrooms always get damaged, and if it is reasonable wear and tear, and you can prove that, then they have no right to cancel the chq.

Do you have a copy of the inspection report from when you moved in?

 

It could be that you were a good tenant who paid rent on time and so the landlord was willing to issue a cheque immediately, though once you were out they may have noticed the extent of the damage to the bathroom. It normally takes about 2 weeks (working days) for a refund. He probably has the right to stop the chq, but expecting you to pay for re-grouting? he needs to prove you damaged the grouting first!

 

If the damage is obviously past reasonable wear and tear, he can charge you for it, but if you believe this is due to poor ventilation etc, then you may have an argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can sue on the cheque without regard to the reason it was issued - there is no defence. However, the landlord can counterclaim for damages. For all practical purposes this now means that the landlord has to prove the damage, rather than you proving there was no damage. Give him seven days to pay and then sue through the small claims procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. I stupidly dont have the inventory anymore but the bathroom was damp before I moved in but I have no proof of that. I shall send a LBA and then go to money claim online to sue for the amount on the first cheque.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. I stupidly dont have the inventory anymore. I shall send a LBA and then go to money claim online to sue for the amount on the first cheque. I just hope I dont end up out of pocket! But to charge me for damp proofing just takes the mickey especially when I was there the bedroom wall was damp from the bathroom. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks very much! Just one more thing - I didnt try to cash the cheque as the landlord left me a message before I did to say the cheque was going to be cancelled so shall I still add numbers 2 and 3? Also can I add on the court costs i.e the £50 it will cost to go on money claim online? Sorry for all the questions! :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one more thing - I didnt try to cash the cheque as the landlord left me a message before I did to say the cheque was going to be cancelled

 

That's a tricky one! The notice of intention to stop the cheque may be sufficient, but I do not think you want to be arguing the point in court. Unless someone else can come up with a good reason for you not to, I think it would be advisable to pay the cheque in and wait for notification by your bank that it has not been paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would the court not ask why I had tried to bank a cheque when I had already been given notice that it had been cancelled though?

 

I cannot think why the court should ask that, but I am not a litigator.

 

Whenever anyone says "sue on the cheque" it is when the cheque has bounced. If the cheque has not been presented it is, I would have thought, difficult to prove there has been default. The court application posted above is drafted on the basis that the cheque has been presented. Is an expressed intention to default sufficient? I do not know. I do not think you want to present that question to the judge.

 

Since the question has had no response on this forum (which is not surprising since it is a tricky question) I shall post it on another and then post the link here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Common sense would suggest that the worst that can happen is that the court would not award you your bank charges for the bounced cheque, and might reduce your compensation by the amount of the landlord's bank charges because you brought these losses on yourself. But IANAL.

 

Perhaps you should give another warning saying that for the reasons above you will bank the cheque in 7 days despite the landlord's warning and, if it is returned, commence action on the cheque without further notice. Include the draft particulars of claim to show that you're armed to the teeth and ready to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi As you said he phoned you what proof does he have that you got the message i would say i didnt get it in court thats why i banked the chq

a landlord can charge for damages but not for wear and tear

he cannot charge you for the damp proofing dont know about the grouting was it just black because of the damp

THE LANDLORD IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO KEEP THE HOUSE IN A GOOD STATE OF REPAIR

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi As you said he phoned you what proof does he have that you got the message i would say i didnt get it in court thats why i banked the chq

a landlord can charge for damages but not for wear and tear

he cannot charge you for the damp proofing dont know about the grouting was it just black because of the damp

THE LANDLORD IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO KEEP THE HOUSE IN A GOOD STATE OF REPAIR did you ever or did he know there was a problem with damp in the bathroom

if he did first thing court would want to know is why he int done nothing about it

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...