Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.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 
      • 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

Mortgage Express appoint LPA Recievers Walker Singleton to scare tenants off!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4076 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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Not always but I go directly because the Case Managers do not have a clue and Lending Complaints use this to delay. I always follow up correspondence with phone calls and ask the questions directly. The bottom line is that they want to dispose of their mortgage book and are now using any way they can. I have referred to FOS but MEX are claiming the time limit has expired but interestingly the FOS in his summing up of my complaint gave the MEX understanding of my complaint - which wasn't what I was complaining about! (if that makes sense?). My faith in the FOS is pretty low but as they are funded by the banking industry then probably not surprising.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice is don't give up on FOS.

I assume it was a caseworkers summing up, not an Ombudsmans.

In the last couple of years I lodged 2 complaints with Ombudsman, the caseworkers summing up was a load of tosh, but I persisted and argued that they had failed to address the relevant points, and challenged their understanding of the issues in question. Caseworkers roles seem to be to weed out cases of no merit, yet the caseworkers themselves don't always have the necessary competence to be able to properly deal with complaints.

One of the caseworkers alleged that a secured loan I was complaining about wasn't CCA regulated, even though they had in their posession a copy of the CCA regulated agreement.

My cases were then transferred to an Ombudsman who upheld both of my claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its mad this isnt it...

 

There is actually no organisation that protects consumers from being ruined by poor management of these LPA recievers and banks appointments for their exit strategy even though they are doing so at a huge loss to everybody involved well apart from the LPAs who make a nice profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, it really doesn't make sense does it? Putting houses up for sale in a depressed market which will sell at a loss. Tenants lose their homes. Rental properties are in demand because people are unable to buy with the dearth of mortgages and the amount of deposit that has to be found. What is happening is that the enormous property investors who buy bmv will own an enormous proportion of what would have been first time buyer properties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the fact that the bank are supposedly appointing property experts who can then ensure it does not lose money, but everything they do is to ensure it does lose money.

 

It is a huge injustice to consumers that needs to be addressed. They should have to follow a standard code of conduct that acts on best interests for all parties involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone contacted RICS?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be doing so this week. I am also writing to ARLA having spoken to my tenants this weekend who have received a Section 8 notice from WS. However this should only be issued if rent hasn't been paid and before the expiry of the tenancy. My tenants have paid their rent and have several months to go on the tenancy. It is sheer bullying tactics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, these people are bullies of the worst kind.

What makes it laughable is that they just have no idea of the law pertaining to tenancy agreements and sections 8 & 21. They pretend to know what they are doing to frighten away our tenants.

Would your tenants be brave enough to allow WS to carry on with the section 8 & let WS take them to court? It would make WS look very silly indeed in front of the judge!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think they would and I would be happy to accompany them. It shows that WS and MX have other motives as WS have a legal duty to act in the best interests of the landlord & borrower. In a depressed property market if a property is in good condition, has paying tenants then there can be no reason to sell at a loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do a lot of fascinating moves like this and it beggars belief, in the past I am telling them what to do with some of the tenants such as evict non paying tenants, and what do they do issue the longest route possible to get rid of the tenants via section 8 instead of 21 when the tenancy has expired. My solicitors advise the opposite of what WS do all the time.

 

To top it off the tenants tend to fight them on the section 8 at court because WS have never dealt with the repairs! They go the long winded routes and then it ends up proving to themselves that they have been the cause of the problems. Yet I tell them this and they say they are property experts however they only rely on their solicitors advice on how best to deal with tenants problems. Which is the route that makes most money for the solicitors and benefits WS and solicitors because WS can have an excuse to the bank and say property is in bad repair and arrears are mounting so we might aswell sell them before it gets worse.

 

They are very clever as to how they have set this up, they just want to sell one property so the arrears starts amounting up from the shortfalls and then lets them have the lot straight away to make more money for WS who are MX best friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chillinlong

 

As you say, they are the property experts!

Have you heard of the defination of 'expert?

 

X (ex) is an unknown quantity

SPURT (pert) is a drip under pressure.

 

I think that just about sums up their expertise.

 

MM x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi good boy gone mad

 

I'm really sorry to hear that you are also having problems with MEx and their receivers, as you can see there are plenty of us out there with similar problems.

How long ago did they appoint Templetons? Would I be correct in guessing it was around Sept-Dec 2008? It's just that was the time when most of us with the same problems had receivers appointed.

 

You do not have to pay £10 per account for a Subject access request, it is £10 per person. MEx told me it was £10 per account but after a quick call to Information commisioners office I found out the truth.

MEx also like to come back saying that they don't have to provide everything you require due to the Durant v FSA case, this is also untrue.

 

If you need any more help, or just want to let off a bit of steam then please don't hesitate to ask, we're all in the same boat and there's normally someone about to bounce ideas off on

 

Good luck

 

MM x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the same boat as many of you. ME appointed Templetons LPA who are totally and utterly incompetant.

 

BTW, apparently you have to pay £10 for a Subject access requestlink3.gif per account, rather than your entire portfolio. Is this charge neccessary?

 

Thats unlawful it's £10 per person not £10 per account. The only people permitted more are doctors in their case upto £50 for medical notes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi good boy gone mad

 

Welcome!! With your SAR make sure you ask for ALL letters, notes both written and digital and also any relevant telphone conversations that may be important to you. MEX have 40 days to respond.

 

Have Templetons sent you the correct documentation they are legally obliged to do when they are taking on your properties?

 

Kind regards,

 

Meerkat One

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again everyone,

 

Countrywide has made their appearance at the flat we rent - about 4 weeks *after* the debt has been paid in full by the landlord. They forced their way into the property, in the most inappropriate and bullying manner. They said the property has been repossessed (which it wasn't), and eventually left only to come back 10 minutes later to drop their '7 days notice'. They turned up again this week with a '48 hours notice'.

 

Following legal advice, I've reported both incidents to police as harassment, bullying and tresspassing on the property we rent without notice. The lawyer advised that until they can produce a court order we are under no obligation to respond to their letters or sign any contracts with them, and that we can safely continue to pay our rent to the landlord.

 

When police rang Countrywide they said they were indeed instructed as LPA Receivers but aren't anymore - as of yesterday. What a bloody coincidence!

 

I do hope not to hear from them again... :-x

Edited by ScaredTenant
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also having problems with Walker Singleton trying to do the same thing. They have sent repossession notices to the tenants claiming no rent had been paid for 18 months but also giving the incorrect monthly rental. Gave the tenant the wrong name of someone I have never heard of. The tenants have proof they have paid their rent. I imagine this information has come from Nutrade whose agents operate without a Consumer Credit licence and are clearly illegally misusing personal information and passing this information to other parties. Hmmmmm.... dangerous ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Walker Singleton were appointed to my portfolio in August of 2008. Where there were tenants they have not collected rent. where the properties are empty they have not found new tenants. The tenants that were paying were evicted, so are now empty properties.

I have just found out that I can not take action again Mortgage Express.

I would like to take action against Walker Singleton. Does anyone have any advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Blackpool Landlord

 

Have Walker Singleton ever sent you a statement of account? Did they provide you with a Deed of Appointment when instructed by MEX? WS have a duty of care to you and you should have been receiving regular statements and updates on their activities.

Can I ask why you are unable to take action against MEX?

 

Sorry for all the questions!!

 

Regards

 

Meerkat One

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4076 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...