Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Below is my proposed letter of claim to Yodel. I would welcome comment.   Dear Yodel, Claimant x: claim for breach of contract loss of package xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I am making a claim against you claim against for breach of contract relating to your loss of a package valued at £150.00. I refer to two webchats that I have had with your organisation following which I was advised that Yodel were not prepared to recompense me for my loss. This letter is being sent to in accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct and Protocols (the Pre-action PD) contained in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). In particular, I refer you to paragraphs 13 to 16 of the Pre-action PD concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failing to comply with its provisions. Ignoring this letter may lead to our my commencing proceedings against you and may increase your liability for costs. Circumstances leading to my claim against Yodel On 14 June 2024, I made a sale on eBay of a set of 3 Kirkland Signature golf wedges (‘the goods’) at a price of £150.00 plus £6.00 postage. I received payment from the purchaser via eBay and on 15 June I purchased postage from eBay’s Packlink. Packlink arranged the delivery of the package to the purchaser with Yodel. Having packaged the goods in wrapping paper, I delivered them on 15 June to the Shell petrol station on ……..and a tracking number of  xxx was given. Tracking showed that the package made it to your Leeds Depot on 15 June but thereafter the package went missing. The Purchaser had been advised that they were ready for collection at her local depot in Preston but they could not be located in Preston. I personally attended your Leeds depot where your helpful staff confirmed that the package had been scanned into that depot and was also scanned going onto one of your trailers (7DL 1436) bound for Preston but that thereafter the package was not scanned again and could not be located either in Leeds or Preston. Due to non-receipt of the goods, I was required to refund the buyer her £156.00. I have sought compensation via Packlink but they are only prepared to pay ‘basic compensation’ of £25.00. Through your webchat I have sought to make a claim against Yodel but have simply been referred back to Packlink suggesting that I do not have any rights against Yodel. You are referred to the The Contract (Rights of Third Parties Act) 1999 upon which I rely and which give me the right to sue on the contract just as if I was a directly contracting partner. I was a discernible beneficiary of the contract entered into by you with Packlink to deliver the package on my behalf. As the sender of the parcel I was somebody who was intended to benefit under the parcel delivery contract. In breach of contract, you failed to exercise reasonable care and skill to deliver the package to the purchaser but instead have lost the package. Given the scanning history of the package, it is likely to have been misappropriated whilst in your custody – a failure to take reasonable care to avoid such misappropriation.   My Claim against Yodel I wish to claim the sum of £150.00 being the value of the goods lost by Yodel   Relevant documents I enclose copies of the following documents that are relevant to this matter: 1.    A screenshot of the eBay sale of the goods and the tracking notes.   Alternative dispute resolution I am prepared to consider ADR.   I  look forward to receiving confirmation that accept liability for these matters, together with a full settlement of my claim, within [21] days of the date of this letter, namely by [DATE].] [In the absence of a full response by that date, I will issue and serve proceedings without further notice. Yours faithfully,    
    • I didn't know I had to go to the US. Were you there recently, TOR? I'm not sure you've been to London recently either. We know some 'average Americans' and I've asked what they think about things today, as it happens.
    • The scammers were posing as young women online to trick people into sending sexually explicit material.View the full article
    • To even ask that question you clearly haven’t visited anywhere in the USA recently The cesspit that is SanFrancisco Venice beach that no one in their right mind would visit  The open drug taking, crime, zombies everywhere (reminds me of Khans London) The Texan border towns flooded with illegals (The sole responsibility of Harris) And that’s before we get onto world matters  One sniff of Harris in the White House  and China will be into Taiwan Endless tax dollars being thrown at Zelenskyy for what reason? To keep killing Ukrainians? The average American hates it  The barmy Biden/Harris rush to net zero  Perhaps as President Trump can knock that lunacy on the head worldwide 
    • Their fees can go up with different stages of enforcement. They will almost certainly have charged the creditor the first stage (compliance) of £90 including VAT. This will be added to your bill though. Then they are allowed to visit with a view to entering into an agreement with you. They may charge £190 plus VAT for this plus 7.5% of anything over the first £1000. A second visit would trigger an additional fee of £495 plus VAT. Finally, they can visit with a view to removing goods for sale. They can charge £525 plus VAT for this visit plus 7.5% of anything over the first £1000. Not sure if these figures match with anything you have. You would need to ask which fees have been added. You shouldn’t have to pay the VAT. Hopefully, it isn’t a major issue given you won’t be dealing with the bailiffs.
  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 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

Help! Question about Nanna's gas leak


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5991 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

Hi All,

 

My Nanna has had a gas leak for God knows how long. The only reason she found out was because my Auntie came to visit and smelt it. She doesn't own the property. It is rented off the Trafford Housing Trust.

 

She rang Transco, who came out and told her the reading was high. They isolated the fire. The leak was behind the fire. The fire was fitted before my Nanna moved in.

 

My question is who is liable and will the gas bill be really high? Say in the 100's of pounds range? Transco said the reason she wouldn't have smelt it as she would have been used to the smell? I'm a little concerned as she doesn't have the heating on anymore. She is worried that she won't be able to pay the bill. She is only on a small state pension. But it's freezing in her house and I don't want anything to happen to her, from being cold.

 

Thanks

Anni

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I forgot to mention, that a Service engineer came out to look at it. My Nanna said they were from Esure? She also received a letter on 13th Feb from National Grid saying that the engineer has come out and put a do no use sticker on the fire. But they didn't. Also, reminding her that she needs to get it fixed or she could be breaking the law. I'm assuming that they think she magic money out of her a**?

 

Anni

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive just spoken to my Nanna and the fire was fitted when the tenancy was in my Great Grandad's name (her Dad) and she moved in to look after him. She had to write (on behalf of my Grandad, as he is blind) to the Housing Trust for permission to put the fire in. Then when he moved into a home and subsequently died. The tenancy was put into my Nanna's name. Does this change it at all?

 

Anni

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi annifridsl04 the gas escape you refer to will NOT cost you anything more than pennies.

 

Another reason why the gas may not have been picked up on is where the leak was, it may have been venting up the chimney/flue.

 

It is not a criminal offence when you havent had the appliance fixed but it is a criminal offence if you knowingly allow the fire to be used as the responsible person.

 

When tenancy changes the councils\housing would remove such an appliance and replace with standard issue appliances but as your Nanna was already there I couldnt confirm but would think they would leave it as.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, ALL gas appliances need to be regularly inspected, at least every two years. Since the fire wasn't supplied as standard equipment to the property, it is the tenants responsibility to ensure it is working correctly. It will be up to her to arrange a Corgi registered plumber to inspect the fire, identify the leak and make good. Once done, the fire (or its replacement) can then get back to the serious job of heating the room!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If its a council owned house it is there resposebilty to do a gas safety check ever year even if they dont own the appliance

I know cuz when i rented a house and the gas guy came to do a gas safety check he even had to check the cooker and that was owned by me he told me dont make a diff who owns it has its gas it has to be checked because all PIPEWORK belongs to the landlord and that could be leaking to the cooker so i would get onto the council

another thing is gas companies have a trust set up to help people who cannot afford there bills so dont worry if its high they will help you out

its on this site somewhere about it

regards chris

 

 

here is the sticky Utilities Trust Fund take a look

Please Tip My Scales if Info was Use full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually at least once a year buzby and a landlords certificate should be provided for this.

 

I was talking in general - folk who own their own property are under no such obligation, but to prevent issues like these, regular inspection (at a minimum of two years apart) is recommended. Naturally, an annual or more frequent inspection by a competent person is to be preferred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask when did your Auntie notice the leak, and when did the service engineer attend? Was the letter from Nat. Grid received on 13 Feb a result of the emergency call out? or was the leak noticed after this date?

 

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you all...thanks for your help!

 

She noticed it on the Sunday 17th Feb and my Nanna reported it on the Tuesday, they came out that day. The fire has been installed about 6 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby..............minimum of two years? Are you aware in the uk that we average 50 deaths per year from CM Poisioning, most of these will be due to appliances which fail to be checked or serviced annually.

 

Actually safety checks need done AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR but dont trust me read below.

 

 

Ok Reg 36/52, duties of landlords are as follows.

 

(a) reg 36(3)(a) makes it clear that a safety check is required at intervals of not more than 12 months since the last check has been made (whether or not the check was made pursuant to the (new) Regulations or not), to ensure that the '12 month safety check clock' is kept running between the last check made under the 1994 regulations (as amended) and the first one made under GSIUR 98. Landlords should not be able to claim that any 'relevant appliance' in premises let to tenants after 31 October 1998, does not need to be subject to its next safety check until 12 months after the new lease commences, and;

(b) after 31 October 1998, whenever a lease is commenced, or terminated and renewed, whether with an existing or new tenant, reg 36(3)(b) requires landlords to ensure that a safety check has been carried out on any 'relevant appliance' within the 12 month period before any new lease commences, or within 12 months of any new appliance and associated flue having been installed in the premises to be leased, whichever is the later.

 

Or again, follow the link and see.

 

Get Your Appliances Safety Checked Every Year

 

 

Question

 

Which gas appliances within the rented accommodation should be checked?

Answer

 

The maintenance and safety check requirements generally apply to any gas fittings or flue installed in the "relevant premises" except: Any appliance owned by the tenant Flues/chimneys solely connected to an appliance owned by the tenant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the fire was fitted before she took over the tenancy then really they should have fitted a new fire? Is that right?

 

Thanks for all your help.

Anni.

 

I may be wrong about this, but if I was in your situation, I would argue that the fire should have become the Housing Trust's responsibility when the new tenancy started, regardless of whether they replaced or left the fire installed, as you have no control as to what previous tenants installed.

Ensure all gas equipment (including any appliance left by a previous tenant) is safe or otherwise removed before re-letting - quoted from HSE - Gas: Domestic Gas health and safety - The Law

 

I also found this on the Trafford Housing Trust webpage: In all cases, the full cost of the work will have to be paid by you and completion, the physical structure becomes the property of the Trust for all future repairs and maintenance. (Repairs and Improvements)

 

Therefore, I would hold the Housing Trust liable for reimbursing/paying cost of repairs or replacements, especially in the case of a vulnerable tenant like your Nanna, as they do have a duty of care.

 

I would send a nice letter to the trust explaining her vulnerability and the above points and see how they respond.

 

However, i would like to point out that these are my own arguments and how I go about it if I was in the same situation. like I said at the start of my post, I may be wrong. Hope this helps!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong about this, but if I was in your situation, I would argue that the fire should have become the Housing Trust's responsibility when the new tenancy started, regardless of whether they replaced or left the fire installed, as you have no control as to what previous tenants installed.

Ensure all gas equipment (including any appliance left by a previous tenant) is safe or otherwise removed before re-letting - quoted from HSE - Gas: Domestic Gas health and safety - The Law

 

I also found this on the Trafford Housing Trust webpage: In all cases, the full cost of the work will have to be paid by you and completion, the physical structure becomes the property of the Trust for all future repairs and maintenance. (Repairs and Improvements)

 

Therefore, I would hold the Housing Trust liable for reimbursing/paying cost of repairs or replacements, especially in the case of a vulnerable tenant like your Nanna, as they do have a duty of care.

 

I would send a nice letter to the trust explaining her vulnerability and the above points and see how they respond.

 

I would agree with the above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be wrong about this, but if I was in your situation, I would argue that the fire should have become the Housing Trust's responsibility when the new tenancy started, regardless of whether they replaced or left the fire installed, as you have no control as to what previous tenants installed.

Ensure all gas equipment (including any appliance left by a previous tenant) is safe or otherwise removed before re-letting - quoted from HSE - Gas: Domestic Gas health and safety - The Law

 

I also found this on the Trafford Housing Trust webpage: In all cases, the full cost of the work will have to be paid by you and completion, the physical structure becomes the property of the Trust for all future repairs and maintenance. (Repairs and Improvements)

 

Therefore, I would hold the Housing Trust liable for reimbursing/paying cost of repairs or replacements, especially in the case of a vulnerable tenant like your Nanna, as they do have a duty of care.

 

I would send a nice letter to the trust explaining her vulnerability and the above points and see how they respond.

 

However, i would like to point out that these are my own arguments and how I go about it if I was in the same situation. like I said at the start of my post, I may be wrong. Hope this helps!

 

That is fantastic!! I'll do just that.

 

Thanks you so much guys!

Anni

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...