Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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 
        • 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

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

Section 48: Notification by the landlord of address for service of notices.

Basically the law calls for the name and address of the landlord to be issued to the tenant for the purposes of serving notice by the tenant. The tenant must have an address in England and Wales for the landlord where they can serve notices.

For the purposes of Section 48 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 name and address of the landlord should be included in the tenancy agreement and it should be stated that this is in line with the relevant act etc.

As the courts see it, rent can not be demanded from a tenant unless they have an address and name to which they can pay the rent. Therefore, as a landlord you can not demand rent from the tenant if you have failed to issue them with notice of your address.

At the end of the day a landlord can not serve notice of possession on a tenant whom they have not given notice of their address to. i.e. the tenant says to the judge I did not know where to send the rent to! Without notice, the rent is not lawfully payable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now you are getting into a whole new realm of tenancy that is largely un-legislated for the purposes of an agreement.

 

A tenancy can be either written or verbal. To be able to make a verbal agreement stand up in court, the landlord would need to produce an independant witness to the agreement who can state any terms that the landlord and tenant agreed to in the original tenancy. This is a very hard road to travel for any landlord as it is usually one person's word against another's. It's always recommended for both tenant and landlord to get the agreement down in writing.

 

More detail would be useful in this case, to be able to advise more fully.

 

Is the letting with the property owner or via an agency?

Did they give you a stated amount of rent prior to you moving in?

Do you have any correspondence between yourself and the landlord?

Does this state any terms or amounts of rent?

 

Anything you can give will help in this case. If you e-mail any letters you have to me removing any personal details I will see what i can come up with.

 

Having said that, the rules on section 48 notices still apply, and they would be hard pushed to get rent via a court without it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, its a long one but i'll explain best i can.

 

A year ago i moved in to live with a friend of mine in my current property, shortly after we moved in the shop underneath our flat was sold by its owner, we were informed of this by the new owners of the shop, an estate agents ironically, anyway, they informed us that the flat was due to be included as part of the shop with no added charge, but because the flat was rented serperatley and had a different lease the letting agents that had taken over had no interest in the flat, months passed without so much as a squeak from either the old landlord or the new agents, i spoke with the estate agents and they said that the lease on the flat ran out in November so chances are we would not hear anything until then.

 

In september my flat mate, who was on the original tenancy, moved out and i stayed in the flat while i looked for somewhere else, eventually i decided to stay and see what came of the new landlords.

 

November passed and no contact, most of December passed and no contact until a letter appeared addressed to my old flat mate asking if he was still living in the property, i decided to inform the new landlord who i was and what had happened before i got a chance, on 31st Decemeber a gentleman came round on behalf of the landlord to see what was happening, i explained the situation to him, he took our details and went back to the letting agents saying he would inform us of their decision. I heard nothing until the end of January when we received a letter informing us that the agents were not happy but had decided we could stay in the property if we wished to, NO mention of rent, just that we needed to let them know or vacate the property! I went back to them and explained that before i commited to staying in the flat i wanted maintenence issues on the flat dealt with, a few letters went back and forth explaining what the problems were, eventually the gentleman came out to inspect and take pictures of the property, this was about 3 weeks ago, again, no mention of rent, it was more a case of getting a tenancy agreement signed and in place, which i refused to do until work had been agreed! In the mean time, we discovered that the wiring was illegal throughout the house and made them aware of this, knowing full well they could not issue a tenancy without a valid test certificate which they would not get, (this was confirmed by 2 contractors who visited the property). As of today the only verbal commitment i have "made" if you like is that "IF" they bring the flat up to standard i would consider paying them rent and stay in the property, however nothing other than that has been suggested, i have checked through letters and nothing they have sent has asked us to pay rent or mentioning that the tenancy was continuing from where they left off.

 

A few things...

 

I was never named on the original tenancy, i am, or have been technically "squatting"

 

I have responded to each letter within 5 days, yet its almost 3 months since they contacted us and nothing has been done.

 

I have never agreed to pay any rent, sign any tenancy agreement or made any verbal contract, that i am aware of, with regards to staying in the flat.

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, if you need any other info i will help, i will try and dig out the letters if you need them.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. A hugely complex course of events. However, fairly simple at the end of the day, despite the fact it took me three readings to digest it properly. lol

 

As you say, you are technically squatting. And as such they are not obliged to let you stay in the property. However, as they have offered you the property to let then getting you out now could prove vexing for them.

I can't believe that the new owners have not asked for rent in any way. It sounds pretty much like the details of the tenancy haven't been fully passed on to the new agents and that any documents were filed and forgotten about, with them coming to light at some clearout or change of filing system.

As far as a tenancy agreement goes, they would have to sort out the flat to a good standard and have electrical and gas checks done and any works sorted out before any agreement could be entered into on their part.Since they have never asked you for any rent, nor have you agreed to pay anything to them, then as far as I can see there is nothing stopping you from staying put until they either fix the problems and issue an agreement or have you evicted. It may be that they are dealing with the prospect of having taken on a property that is in need of extensive renovation and are considering whether it is worth doing or selling/leasing to a different agent. Or they could be having problems getting a quote for the work that they are happy with before doing the work itself. Either way, I wouldn't worry myself sick about it, though I would be inclined to make sure you have a contingency plan for somewhere else to go to if they decide to evict.

Going back to your original question, since you are not in any contract with them and they have not asked for rent, nor given you an agreement with the section 48 clause in it you are under no obligation to pay any back rent for any period that you have lived there, even once they issue and you sign an agreement. As stated in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, without a section 48 notice rent is not lawfully payable.

 

I hope this answers any questions you have had. If you need help at any stage just post here again. And good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...