Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have previously posted about a dispute my parents have had with LL who has had little to do with the property they have rented for the last 35 years.   Fast forward to today, LL has applied for fair rent which was registered and the LL has finally brought the property to a safe standard following involvement from the local council.   We have received a new bombshell.. that the LL has applied for a possesion order under a notice of seeking possesion of a secure tenancy (NOSP).   Under grounds 3, 4 and 10.   I googled and found below:   Ground 3 –  Deterioration in the condition of the property The tenant, or anyone else living in the property, must have caused deterioration in the condition of the property or common parts. If damage is caused by a lodger or subtenant of the tenant (without the tenant's consent), possession will not be granted if the tenant has taken reasonable steps to evict that person. Ground 4 –  Deterioration in furniture provided The tenant, or anyone else living in the property, must have caused deterioration in the condition of furniture provided by the landlord in the property or common parts. Where damage is caused by a lodger or subtenant of the tenant (without the tenant's consent), possession will not be granted if the tenant has taken reasonable steps to evict that person. Ground 10 – Demolition or major works Where the landlord intends either to demolish or reconstruct or do works to the property and needs possession in order to do so. The landlord must prove that it intends carrying out works and such work cannot reasonably be carried out without obtaining possession.[2] If the tenant agrees to vacate the premises temporarily while the works are carried out then there may be no need for possession. The displaced tenant will normally be entitled to compensation.[3] See Problems during repairs for information on compensation for loss of home.   My question is, following the fair rent register and an agreement that parents were covered under the 1977 rent act we were under the impression this is a regulated tenancy, not a secure tenancy?? or is there no difference?   Its a private rent, not through housing association and the property has just been deemed as safe under by the council.   We have also never been approached by the LL to say they felt that my parents have caused any damage or deterioration in the condition of the property. If anything, over the years it has vastly been improved by my parents. We raised safety issue to the council following repeated attempts for LL to repair the dangerous electrics and blocked drains.   If there is no difference in the tenancy types, what should our next step be? any thoughts?   More info if needed in my original thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421879-major-repairs-to-letting-of-a-sitting-tenant/?tab=comments#comment-5064284          
    • Keep in mind also that the companies in administration are currently at the moment putting plans in place to change reporting depending on IRR Claims etc / Criteria set out by the Administrators. 
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

tresspass notices being issued


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4456 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Long story cut short ....

 

New ppc round our area (portsmouth) seems to be taking over the world in last few months.

 

Parked in a retail park in pompy, got anearly christmas present inviting me to pay 75 quid to them. As per usual, ignored the notice etc (I'm not that stupid to pay it !)

 

They have got dvla details, and have written asking me to identify the driver (nice of them to try !)

 

Ignored, and one I haven't seen before came through this morning : trespass notice. ' Further to our letter of blah blah, you, as the registed keeper of blah blah vehicle, are being notified that the land managed by parktech, including parking areas, car parks, service roads is private land, and thus we may restrict entry to that land, on behalf and as agents of the landowners.

 

You are notified that as from the receipt of this letter, your invitation to enter land managed by us is withdrawn. As the owner of the vehicle specified above, it is your responsibility to inform all of the vehicles users that they are no longer permitted to enter parktech managed land.

 

We will keep on file the outstanding parking charge, and will take action against the vehicle, and its occupants if the vehicle is seen on parktech managed land. This may include an injunction, or removal of the vehicle and its occupants from the private land, using as much force as is necessary to effect the removal.

 

Do not ignore this notice.

 

 

 

Well - I know you can be banned from stores etc, or ant private land, but didn't realise that this tactic was in use !!!!. Think its just a scarry letter to try to say ' we know we can't make you pay, so we are trying to inconvienience you as much as possible, in a hope you decide to pay up '. Unless they get every parking space, road, in the area (never will happen!), then its an empty threat.

 

Anyone seen any of the other ppc's come up with this ?

 

Don't even think cps has stooped this low !!!!

All opinions & information are the personal view of the poster, and are not that of any organisation, company or employer. Any information disclosed by the poster is for personal use only. Permission to process this data under the Data Protection act is NOT GIVEN to any company, only personal readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow twice in one day Dorst comes up as applicable. this is fun ! use land registry to find the actual owner. write to them ! ask if the PPC is an agent of theirs. and write to the head office of ALL the retailers there telling them that this PPC is attempting to prevent multiple customers from using their outlets. Include a copy of the PPC letter and CC; the letters to the retailers to the Head of Customer Services and the Head of Legal Services. also as a separate thing find out the rates being paid for the car park :) looks like it should be a business rate, if its not then someone needs to pay up. try here Rating Lists on the Internet - Homepage and their letter is rubbish. hey are trying to deny entry to a specific vehicle not a person. complete crap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are notified that as from the receipt of this letter, your invitation to enter land managed by us is withdrawn. As the owner of the vehicle specified above, it is your responsibility to inform all of the vehicles users that they are no longer permitted to enter parktech managed land.

 

We will keep on file the outstanding parking charge, and will take action against the vehicle, and its occupants if the vehicle is seen on parktech managed land. This may include an injunction, or removal of the vehicle and its occupants from the private land, using as much force as is necessary to effect the removal.

 

How can they ban you from ALL Parktech managed land as presumably they were acting for the landowner on the first carpark?

 

Therefore if you were in Mr Smith's car park to get the first ticket, how can they clamp you in the 2nd car park where they are acting for Mr Jones when it is nothing to do with him and he may well object strongly to them harassing one of his customers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It did make me chuckle all morning after reading it.

 

Its almost like a child - you won't give me any money, so I won't let you park in any of my car parks.

 

Funny thing is, one of my friends is the store manager of one of the shops in the retail park - I was visiting him !. He's got about 40 tickets so far, ignored every one, and nothings happened yet. He's waiting for them to clamp...

 

Its one of those sneaky operations - write the ticket in the car, slap in on the screen, take photo, and then run back to car, and hide until next sucker comes along.

 

Writing letters now, will let everyone know how many replies I get, and how long this 'banning' lasts for....

All opinions & information are the personal view of the poster, and are not that of any organisation, company or employer. Any information disclosed by the poster is for personal use only. Permission to process this data under the Data Protection act is NOT GIVEN to any company, only personal readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of an interesting situation that could arise if a company were to take my vehicle.

 

It is a van, and occasionally, there are shotguns, and ammunition, in the back.

 

All quite legal, a locked vehicle is deemed to provide the required security - and I have the necessary permit to allow me to be in possession of the guns..

 

However, if someone were to remove the van and the contents, they would then, [presumably], be in possession, without the necessary.....

 

An arrestable offence, I guess....

 

Sameagle.

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, if someone were to remove the van and the contents, they would then, [presumably], be in possession, without the necessary.....

 

I think you should keep the shotguns in the van at all times,, just in case. :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

that would not be legal either. or wise. would just be guilding the lily anyway - criminal act regardless of the contents of the van. the ARU turning up would be fun though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...