Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Standard form being sent to large numbers of claimants. Just answer as the form asks.  No need to  go into any detail, unless the forms asks for specific details of how health impacts on daily activities. If you are worried contact Citizens Advice as they are experts with PIP, as they are trained to understand what evidence is required for assessments.
    • Resume payments with the debt collectors? You say not to pay dca though do you not? 
    • yes they mostly would be enforceable, but that wasnt the point. even if they get a CCJ the very worst they could have done is get a restriction k which is useless to them. doesnt hurt anything. the CCJ would remain on file for 6yrs yes, but then gone same as a DN. the rest k charge does not show at all. and even so, the idea was to get your debts issued a default notice ASAP, them RESUME payments.. the advise is NOT conflicting, just you don't read things properly or understand.  oh well. dx
    • This is the dilemma I had then and still have it. The bit that stopped me was the post 2015 comments about them being enforceable now in most instances which I feel hasn’t been answered unless I am missing something. the bonus I guess is not all credit agreements now will be chasing me so less people chasing me down so to speak. this is the problem as there is conflicting messaging out there it is hard to plan a strategic way forward 
    • In 2017 my wife was given PIP and I finally, officially, became her carer. In 2019 she was reviewed and we were told it would be done by phone to make it easier for her as she has mobility issues and anxiety. The review was very simple, Has anything changed? No, ok, we'll stay as you are then. In 2022 a second review, this time by phone again but with an awkward given at the end for 5 years. Today, we got a new review letter (I know wait lists are bad, but I dont think the wait will take til 2027 for a decision). We're a bit confused because it's a letter, not a phone call as before. The form is just questions that ask "has anything changed" Now, since 2017, nothing has changed except we had our home adapted via disability grant. This was noted in the phone calls. So we should really write that nothing has changed in the last 2 years. The adaptations have been mentioned in both previous phone reviews, but not in writing so I guess we should bring it up. But we feel that they want us to explain everything as if it were a new claim again... And are worried if we miss something in the original claim or the phone calls she will risk losing part of the award (a 2 point swing could be really bad) It does just say "has anything changed?" But in dealing with ESA prior to getting PIP, answering the question asked "has your condition worsened or improved" at a review process with a simple "no, I'm still the same" somehow led to ESA ending and needing appeal. So just want a bit of guidance. How much detail is needed? Is minimal ok? Or should we be blunt with the fact nothing has changed, and bullet point the things she struggles with in each section?   I know the obvious thing is to just explain it all,but over 10 years the sheer amount of times the poor woman has had ESA or PIP stopped/refused just because something was missed out in their report, or they felt it meant a new claim should be made, or that they judged her healthy because we missed a tiny thing in our forms. During COVID it finally seemed like it was all just going to be smooth, especially with the phone reviews and the 5 year reward, but here we are. We just want to make sure we have the least chance to trip ourselves up, but making sure we have what is expected if you get me? I wish I still had a copy of the forms from 2017, because I could just verbatim copy them and add in about the adaptation, but (ironically) we lost our photocopies we kept of them when the house was being adapted
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Ground Rent Demand - New 'Landlord'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5394 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

After finding my feet and still learning to walk wrt consumer debt issues. I am no longer going to roll over or bury my head – I intend to challenge and query all ‘debt’ related issues. Apologies for the length of this initial posting but I have a multitude of queries flying around my head. Presently, I am faced with the following:

Firstly, I must clarify that I am not averse to paying what is owed or owing to those with a legitimate interest. However, I just want to be aware of my rights and any issues that may arise in respect of the matter and that any ‘Landlord’ does things properly.

A brief synopsis - Several neighbouring households and myself have recently been contacted by a Company claiming to have sometime this year bought from the Duchy of Lancaster the head leasehold interest in our properties from a defunct company whose dissolved assets were seized by the Crown.

I have tried to find details – i.e. when the ‘dissolution’ occurred of this now defunct company via Companies House, the London Gazette and Insolvency Service. But presently, I have been unable to locate anything. It’s possible that it may have been a firm of solicitors and hence a LLP. Is there anywhere else that can be searched and/or contacted?

Would the Land Registry have/had any responsibilities wrt notifications?

The yearly ground rent is less than a fiver per property – peppercorn rent? I cannot at present locate all of the paperwork relating to the house – especially the stuff concerning the lease wrt to payments, covenants, etc!

As I understand it now, if you have a long lease (currently some 800+ years to run) there is no requirement to pay ground rent until such time as it is formally demanded? As per s166 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, 2002.

Even when ground rent is requested the demand in order to be valid should be in a required/prescribed format? Are there regs that cover this? From my perusing the demand where my name is typed on a sticky label stuck to the typed demand; I see that no time limit/due date has been stipulated for receipt of payment on their correspondence sent.

This Company who only acquired the head lease this year, yet are demanding 6 years arrears of ground rent? Which statute other than s19 of the Limitation Act would enable this? Or can they only claim back as far as 2005? What I am trying to understand if this was previously property of the Crown and formerly under the auspices of the now defunct company how can this new company claim for ground rent when their ‘ownership’ only commenced this year!

If the ‘leasehold’ became property of the Crown presumably this would have been as a result of Escheat or Bona Vacantia?

Had it been subsequently disclaimed by the Duchy? In which case we have never received or heard anything as an ‘interested party’.

Could the argument of if the freeholder does sell without letting you know, you can force the new freeholder to sell to you, at the price paid for the property? Or similar.

If anyone is able to offer advice then that would be most appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Kry10

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi..Ive been running into problems with ground rent and service charges myself and have looked into it other the last few years.

 

Would the Land Registry have/had any responsibilities wrt notifications?

 

It coyuldnt hurt to write to the LR anyway, it answered some queries I had, you can order the info online (£3 I think), when I did it it mentioned a deed of variation to the lease which I needed (my landlord had FALSELY been claiming that this deed had increased the ground rent, when it hadnt) so I shall be claiming money back for the last 6 years, this deed from the LR cost a further £10.

 

The yearly ground rent is less than a fiver per property – peppercorn rent? I cannot at present locate all of the paperwork relating to the house – especially the stuff concerning the lease wrt to payments, covenants, etc!

 

As I understand it now, if you have a long lease (currently some 800+ years to run) there is no requirement to pay ground rent until such time as it is formally demanded? As per s166 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, 2002.

 

This came into effect 28th Feb 2005, so the years 2005 (if after Feb), 2006,2007,2008,2009 there must be a valid demand, if not no money is payable.

 

Even when ground rent is requested the demand in order to be valid should be in a required/prescribed format? Are there regs that cover this? From my perusing the demand where my name is typed on a sticky label stuck to the typed demand; I see that no time limit/due date has been stipulated for receipt of payment on their correspondence sent.

 

I was looking into this yesterday and found the attached pdf.

 

This Company who only acquired the head lease this year, yet are demanding 6 years arrears of ground rent? Which statute other than s19 of the Limitation Act would enable this?Or can they only claim back as far as 2005? What I am trying to understand if this was previously property of the Crown and formerly under the auspices of the now defunct company how can this new company claim for ground rent when their ‘ownership’ only commenced this year!

 

HHm..Not sure about this (Try the forum at landlordzone for detailed advice), per my answer above they can only claim for the years 2005 - 2009 IF a valid demand was sent.

 

If the ‘leasehold’ became property of the Crown presumably this would have been as a result of Escheat or Bona Vacantia?

 

Had it been subsequently disclaimed by the Duchy? In which case we have never received or heard anything as an ‘interested party’.

 

Could the argument of if the freeholder does sell without letting you know, you can force the new freeholder to sell to you, at the price paid for the property? Or similar.

 

You must be given first refusal to by the freehold when it is sold.

 

If anyone is able to offer advice then that would be most appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Kry10

 

Hope this helps.

 

Andy

Notice To Accompany Ground Rent Demand.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

A brief synopsis - Several neighbouring households and myself have recently been contacted by a Company claiming to have sometime this year bought from the Duchy of Lancaster the head leasehold interest in our properties from a defunct company whose dissolved assets were seized by the Crown.

 

"Siezed" is perhaps not quite the right word!

 

I have tried to find details – i.e. when the ‘dissolution’ occurred of this now defunct company via Companies House, the London Gazette and Insolvency Service. But presently, I have been unable to locate anything. It’s possible that it may have been a firm of solicitors and hence a LLP. Is there anywhere else that can be searched and/or contacted?

 

The history of the company is not really relevant. What is important is who owns the property now. You can find this out by logging in here: https://www.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search

 

Would the Land Registry have/had any responsibilities wrt notifications?

 

No.

The yearly ground rent is less than a fiver per property – peppercorn rent? I cannot at present locate all of the paperwork relating to the house – especially the stuff concerning the lease wrt to payments, covenants, etc!

 

"Peppercorn" is often used to refer to a very low or nominal rent. When first imposed though five pounds may not have been so "nominal" as it is today. In any event, what it is called is not really important.

 

As I understand it now, if you have a long lease (currently some 800+ years to run) there is no requirement to pay ground rent until such time as it is formally demanded? As per s166 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, 2002.

 

Correct.

 

Even when ground rent is requested the demand in order to be valid should be in a required/prescribed format? Are there regs that cover this? From my perusing the demand where my name is typed on a sticky label stuck to the typed demand; I see that no time limit/due date has been stipulated for receipt of payment on their correspondence sent.

 

The prescribed form is set out in the schedule to The Landlord and Tenant (Notice of Rent) (England) Regulations 2004 which can be found here: The Landlord and Tenant (Notice of Rent) (England) Regulations 2004

 

This Company who only acquired the head lease this year, yet are demanding 6 years arrears of ground rent? Which statute other than s19 of the Limitation Act would enable this?Or can they only claim back as far as 2005? What I am trying to understand if this was previously property of the Crown and formerly under the auspices of the now defunct company how can this new company claim for ground rent when their ‘ownership’ only commenced this year!

 

Section 141 of the Law of Property Act 1925 allows a "new" landlord to collect rent rent owing to an "old" landlord.

 

If the ‘leasehold’ became property of the Crown presumably this would have been as a result of Escheat or Bona Vacantia?

 

Escheat.

 

Had it been subsequently disclaimed by the Duchy? In which case we have never received or heard anything as an ‘interested party’.

 

It cannot have been disclaimed as otherwise the Duchy could not have sold it.

 

Could the argument of if the freeholder does sell without letting you know, you can force the new freeholder to sell to you, at the price paid for the property? Or similar.

 

If the property is a house, no; if a flat, possibly.

 

*

You are of course quite right to check that the sum being demanded is payable. However, subject to satisfying yourself that the person making the demand is indeed the landlord or has the landlord's authority to collect the rent, being entirely practical and given the amount outstanding it is not really worth going to the time and trouble of complaining if the new landlord has not strictly complied with the statutory requirements; they will eventually get it right and the amount will be become due in any event. For the record though, no rent is due until the landlord has (a) notified you of an address in England and Wales at which notices in proceedings may be served and (b) made a demand in due form. Note: "due" is not the same as "payable"; once the requirements have been met back rent is payable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having perused SI .3096 2004 and associated explanatory memorandum - I would be grateful to receive a “2nd opinion” from those more erudite than myself in such property related matters. This is just to ascertain if the contents of the GR demand sent would be deemed as valid and any other ‘issues’ such as 'old' legislation contained within that appear obvious to those in the know - before I respond to the ‘Landlord’ accordingly. Have tried to scan the documents but they don’t appear to well – so I’ve typed it out.

 

1st page

My address ‘Landlord’s’ address

 

Ground Rent Demand

 

 

Re: My property

 

@ £ less than a fiver

 

Year to / Due on / Amount

 

2004 / 2004 / £ less than a fiver

2005 / 2005 / £ less than a fiver

2006 / 2006 / £ less than a fiver

2007 / 2007 / £ less than a fiver

2008 / 2008 / £ less than a fiver

2009 / 2009 / £ less than a fiver

 

Please pay cheque or postal order to ‘Landlord’ include SAE for receipt

 

 

Bottom of page company registration details

 

 

2nd page

 

Landlord’s details

 

Notice to affected leaseholders

 

 

By a transfer dated this year this company purchased the Head leasehold interest in all of those properties above from the Duchy of Lancaster.

 

Our vendor became seized of the assets of the dissolved company whose last registered office was in .

 

You hold an underlease for 800+ years from various dates during the 1900s (refer to counterpart lease for precise date applicable to your house).

 

We are advised that the GR has not been demanded for numerous years and now enclose our GR demand for the maximum arrears permitted at Law being 6 yrs rent. Any leaseholder that has not held their lease for 6 years is bound by law to pay 6 years arrears and their solicitor’s and/or conveyancer’s when acting in their purchase will have no doubt acted correctly in requiring the seller to pay 6 yrs undemanded rent in order that when the demand came there had advance reimbursement.

 

A copy of Page 2 of our title number as registered at HM Land Registry is enclosed. A full version may be viewed at this office or online via the Land Registry’s website.

 

Signature of company director

 

 

 

3rd page

 

Title number

 

B. Proprietorship Register

 

Title good leasehold

 

  • Company details
  • price paid

C. Charges Register

 

Schedule of notices of leases

 

Property details

 

End of Register

 

 

 

The date of lease and term, differs from the dates on the GR demand – i.e. the GR demand states end of month but the lease date is middle of month – does this have any bearing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The demand as you have typed it does not appear to comply with the statutory form.

 

I agree, it doesnt appear to follow the form set out in the pdf i attached in my first post, it must show the date the rent is payable according to the lease, etc and various other info.

 

If and when a valid demand does arrive then all the rent for the missing years 2005 - 2009 suddenly becomes payable, BUT as you have yet to recieve one the money is still not owing, you could just ignore them but would look better if you wrote to them pointing out their demand doesnt comply with LH & CH Reform Act 2002 Section 166, if it was me I wouldnt tell them why it doesnt comply though.

 

My landlord has neglected to sent me any rent demand since 2006 so maybe some landlords are ignorant to this part of the law.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies - will send a short and sweet response and see what happens. As I've said previously I'm not against paying I just want things to be right.

 

Thanks again

 

Kry10

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...