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

[patrickq1]

Due to Ws i now have 2 properties sitting empty with over 24 months rent oweing between them since walker singleton took over them.

looking at the appointed carers of your properties were on the face of things non negotiable and furthermore you should have a serious claim to begin with on the basis of negligence holding both companies negligent in this case they are liable for the full rentals this was a non negotiable contract you were not party to it and it is to your detriment and why should you suffer the loss....

Action in this instance is to begin a lawsuit for loos of potential rentals due to their innability to ?whatever you should now be on your front foot instead of being on the back foot attack their weakneses they are not a competent company to deal with so their appointment should be questioned and then you can bring forward ME as your material witnesses as to why they negotiated such a contract with this company and why were you not party to this new form of contract i see it as they have relinquished the old agreement in favour of a new non negotiable agreement....go for it either sue or counterclaim the damages you have encountered...dont sit on the fence

[pigland]

Diddled, and all

 

Totally agree with the advice..... however I'm looking more towards Small claims and CPR rules? Also looking to drum up new people to join in the class action against MEX, WS and the other incompetent LPA's.

 

Make yourself known if you wish to join in, by all means PM if preferred!

 

PL

[Meerkat One]

Hi Marley 1

You have nothing to lose by taking back possession of your properties. WS main aim is allow your properties to fall into disrepaire etc then they will advise MEX on an exit strategy of selling. My view on it would be that they have been negligent in not ensuring the properties are let. They have a duty of care - it is there in the Law of Property Act.

 

If it was me I would be entering the properties and getting tenants in. The only problem you would have is that if WS get to know what you have done they will then attempt to hassle the tenants but if they haven't bothered up until now then will they know? Don't forget you are still the legal owner of the properties.

 

Have you Subject Accessed WS? Has Nutrade been involved at all?

 

regards

Meerkat One

[Meerkat One]

The other aspect of their tactics is to continually increase your arrears. I think in an earlier post you said the arrears had grown. This will be through charges etc. You need to make a complaint to MEX claiming back some of the charges which are considered unfair - the rejected Direct Debit charge has been reduced now so you can back claim. MEX appear to lose all the invoices they pay and WS also are unable to come up with any either but somehow you are being charged large amounts for......? No one knows, probably steve molloys holidays for all we know. Insist on copies of these invoices. MEX must have received them in order to make payments on your behalf.

 

Meerkat One

[marley 1]

hi does any one know if i would be breaking the law if i changed the locks and relet my properties WS were suppose to change the locks when I INFORMED THEM that the tenants had left but going by the service they have provided in the past i very much doubt that has happend mind you if the truth be known that has been their plan from day one to get my keys also do they have to go to court to sell my houses and if so should they inform me surly that must have to inform me of exactly what is happening and not just sell them can any one help please im so not clued up on things likes this and they knew it and took advantage im not good at all with letter writing so im finding this very scary marley1

[chillinlong]

Hi Marley1

 

As said by Meerkat, get into your properties and establish everything you need to know as you would without WS being involved. It is not illegal as you are protecting your rights and preventing the properties from going into further arrears and disrepair.

 

When you go and view ALL YOUR PROPERTIES DO AN INVENTORY OF EACH ONE TO ESTABLISH ALL THE THINGS THEY HAVE DONE AND NOT DONE. Including pictures for every property inside and outside.

 

Get them all cleaned, repaired etc and then on the market with your agents. I personally have had to do this then once amanged I hand them over to WS to collect rents. the other choice is you could collect the rents and then pay WS but I think it is a little more hassle expected this way whereas this way it would seem more co-operative.

 

If they were trying to sell your property they have to have a reason why, if it is rented and in good repair then they would not have a justifiable excuse to sell in this market. They can only sell if they have a liability on their hands and can prove this. But you need to pre empt this if you like.

 

I personally have been keeping them up to date via correspondences so that they have no excuse to break into my places and change locks etc as this is what they do and leave doors open for them to be vandalised.

 

Complaint to WS and MX once you have gathered all your info together.

[patrickq1]

hi does any one know if i would be breaking the law if i changed the locks and relet my properties

 

no you are not breaking the law you own the properties and if they wish to make an issue of it tell them to start court action this is the only way to deal with WS ..they can try and will use every dirty trick in the book and not in the book whatever they say DO NOT BELEIVE A SINGLE UTTERANCE ,

do not be afraid this is your lively hood and your are the one at the end of the day who would carry the can when it all goes tits up but this can only happen due to their unproffessional actions ,they deliberately try to frustrate the contracts that is if you ever get to see one,ps dont forget they are under instructions from MOVE OVER DARLING to get rid of all these mortgages come hell or high water they know that once you lose the properties and made abankrupt then you are most certainley in no posisition to argue and have lost all credibility...you are in control now you are aware of them obfuscating about anything that has nothing to do with anything ,their actions are deliberate,CHANGE THE LOCKS LET THEM KNOW WHO IS BOSS this is your business not theirs,if they want to do anything about it let them,you will fnd plenty of help on here dont forget to SUBJECT TO ACCESS ALL THE COMPANIES INVOLVED ...then sit back and await ther replies...40 days max

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

Get them all cleaned, repaired etc and then on the market with your agents. I personally have had to do this then once amanged I hand them over to WS to collect rents. the other choice is you could collect the rents and then pay WS but I think it is a little more hassle expected this way whereas this way it would seem more co-operative.

i would think twice about paying his incompetent lot anything make the payments direct to ME as far as WS are concerned they have been negligent and are untrustworthy as you have stated leaving properties in disrepair and doors left open is negligence and couldnt for the life of me understand why anyone would pay WS a cent in fact if damages are recorded make this an issue repair and bill WS if they do not pay then prosecute them for negligence and breach of trust,once you can establish this is the case then you will have no problems dealing with ME and if they do turn out to be akward themeselves then you are entiled to include them in the lawsuit as being party to WS and hve knowingly accepted the behaviour of WS as being acceptble despte serious complaints against WS...if it can be established that ME have not acted on the serious complaints then they wont have a leg to stand on...DO NOT TRUST WS WITH ANY MONIES NOR ACCEPT THEIR WORD

patricq1

[chillinlong]

Genius Patrick!

 

I love it, turn the tables on them. WS get 10% of every single rent and for absolutely nothing! I have only stuck with them to try and co operate with MX to which has been no success as they seem to be working with WS and importantly not us and they believe every word WS say.

[patrickq1]

also have a look at DOCTRINE OF ESSTOPPELL OR JUST ESTOPPELL this law should help you thread your way through themurky mire ut it will also stop all in their tracks,

[patrickq1]

use the estoppell against ME ad then concentrate on WS do you have any sort of contract are they obliged within the body of the contract to maintain the properties if not why not are they collecting cmmissions from ME if so are you aware of these commissions,do WS have any instructions from ME with regards to these properties,please dont forget the objective here is to force ME to start a proper relaitionship if they have a contract with WS then this can only exist with your consent,if absolute assignment took place; the only way that a firm can replace the old contract with a new one is via novation which is a different process to assignment

patrickq1

Edited April 29, 2010 by patrickq1

[Bombs Away]

HI all

 

Had lpas appointed overnight to 55 flats! no letter,explanation,warning nothing!

my question is in relation to previous posts -

1.How do i know if the lpa clause is in my contact?

ive been through it with a fine tooth comb and theres no mention!

so

2.if its not in there how can they be appointed or does it not need to be included for their apppointment.

3.can i continue to get into my buildings,liase with tennants regards repairs maintainace etc,are their any reprisals from the bank or the lpa?

4.can i continue to grant tennancies to tennants (and pay over monies to bank)

 

thanks

Bombs Away!8-)

[Bombs Away]

Hey

Chillin long-

Do i remember you from singing pig days?

i used to post under Gorilla in those days!

Bombs Away

[patrickq1]

these are your properties,No one has the right to encroach on your property without ie court order ,the law of estoppel will stop ME in their tracks if used correctly ,they have no rights to appoint any LPA without agreement from you otherwise they ME have become the property owners to do with whatever they like did you sign a contract allowing this to happen,even wih assignments they have to be agreed to without your signature then it can be classed as gross interferance and mal administration in the running of your business ,they are deliberately frustrating any contract you may have with them

your tennents are your tennents you have every right to collect these monies and bank with whoever you wish to bank with they have absolutely no say in how you run your business,if they think they have then let them take this to court and explain to a judge why they are interfering with your business, of course they may use the excuse that their are serious rent arrears but if you can show this was more or less due to their gross interferance ie appointing useless LPA who were and are very detrimental and damaging your business..

you need to go round every single tennent and give them a new payment plan instructing them how to pay direct debit or whatever and you bank in your own bank...change all the locks,make sure you photograph each and every appartment and record any misuse make a list of non repair work that should have been carried out but has nt been and you have lost rentals due to the LPA's non co operation..emply a small self emplyed builder yourself and get him to go round with you to each and every property ...if you leave the banking and finances to either ME or a LPA you are leaving yourself in a highly prcarious position ,take away the money side ofeverything from them then you will see the difference in attitudes because they know you are now finnancially moreastute and capable of challenging them

sack the LPA your would be better served with a small maintainance crew and more able to work with this arrangement ,after all why are you letting these people bully you when you are the one paying them at the end of the day even ME are under your control dont let them push you into a corner attack is the best form of defense ....

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

2 3 and four,is it your business or not.....you have every right to take over and run this business as you see fit,the appointment of the LPA was not in your agreement and neither should it be ,the only use i can see in an LPA is to screw you forgive my launguage but this is all they will do they want money for nothing,why can you not liase with the tennents its your property

get into the buildings and change the locks imediately you can grant any tennents you wish and as you see fit this is your company not theirs and if they think it is theirs ask them if they would like to offer you a price for each and every one of the properties,if not butt out of your business

any rentals missed then if you can then eventually come to an ammnicable settlement then alls well and good when they see you have taken control of what is rightfully yours they will trully back of and will do anything to keep this from going into a courtroom due to the fact that they have grossly interfered with your business and lost you considerable amounts of monies due to their appointments of these LPA's and you hold ME personally responsible for all losses ,i think you can see what i am saying here you have been badly advised and led up the garden path and because their is a downturn you are the one getting all the worries not them..its cost them nothing they get there percentages through the goverment seeing as MR DARLING has splitt the BB BTL division and has appointed a company with limited status and a mandate to get the money in fast...sorry this is not on MR DARLING

[patrickq1]

WS get 10% of every single rent and for absolutely nothing

then chilli its a claim for professional negligence in the gross mal administration against this lot for monies owed and damages to your prperties.....i can see a big claim going in,they might well have ignored you and refused to co operate but with a claim counterclaim i think you will get their attention..they might well have laughed at you and thought WE GOT A RIGHT MUG HERE ,jst who on earth do they think they are

these are your prperties and they are ruining your business and credibility so i would be totaling up every penny they have received and make claim for double this amount due to the hours and stationanary and all other expesnses it has cost you to try to get things straightened out without their co operation...

[marley 1]

i would like to say a big thank you to everyone for their advice i slept alnite last nite for the first time in two years iv locksmiths going in first thing in the morning . I would like to just add i have never ever signed anything to give these cowboys permission for anything even the mortgage was took out with GMAC i would never have willing gone with ME as id heard bad things about them but didnt take much notice at the time i know feel positive for the first time in ages my plan is to get the houses that are empty up and running and pay the mortgage by standing order direct to ME then im looking to sue the WS and ME for everything they have put me through in the last two years instead of helping or advising me they have took away my income allowed tenants to live in my houses for nothing who laugh at me when i see them in the street and they have told my personal buisness to anyone who will listen iv just found out another tenant hasnt been paying for months and have only just been served a section 8 another one il be billed for but theres a old saying if you give them enough rope they will hang themselves i can make a very long list of things these companies have failed at and i cant wait to make them answere for it im thinking of going to see my local MP iv also emailed watchdog and am awaiting a reply the more people who know about them the better i think thanks again a more positive marley1

[marley 1]

can someone explain who what is the estopple please

[patrickq1]

i would like to say a big thank you to everyone for their advice i slept alnite last nite for the first time in two years iv locksmiths going in first thing in the morning . I would like to just add i have never ever signed anything to give these cowboys permission for anything even the mortgage was took out with GMAC i would never have willing gone with ME as id heard bad things about them but didnt take much notice at the time i know feel positive for the first time in ages my plan is to get the houses that are empty up and running and pay the mortgage by standing order direct to ME then im looking to sue the WS and ME for everything they have put me through in the last two years instead of helping or advising me they have took away my income allowed tenants to live in my houses for nothing who laugh at me when i see them in the street and they have told my personal buisness to anyone who will listen iv just found out another tenant hasnt been paying for months and have only just been served a section 8 another one il be billed for but theres a old saying if you give them enough rope they will hang themselves i can make a very long list of things these companies have failed at and i cant wait to make them answere for it im thinking of going to see my local MP iv also emailed watchdog and am awaiting a reply the more people who know about them the better i think thanks again a more positive marley1

 

 

well done M1 it is time to get stuck in and do everything for yourself now not for their benifit but for yours...a Simple idea also if you have enough properties hire a small works crew on a retainer that they will do all your maintainance work for a nominal fee,builders all over are scrabling for work,dont let the wool be pulled over your eyes anymore this is your livelyhood we are talking about..ps also make sure the builders you employ are bona fide builders and registered....also make sure you photograph and video all maintainance wor to be carried out this way you have definitive records and exposes WS and ME as being incapable and also deliberately trying to sabotage your livelyhood for no apparrent reason apart from grabbing money back for mr darling....

[patrickq1]

Equitable Estoppel

 

equitable estoppel, sometimes known as estoppel in pais, protects one party from being harmed by another party's voluntary conduct. Voluntary conduct may be an action, silence, Acquiescence, or concealment of material facts. One example of equitable estoppel due to a party's acquiescence is found in Lambertini v. Lambertini, 655 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1995). In the late 1950s, Olga, who was married to another man, and Frank Lambertini met and began living together in Argentina. Olga and Frank hired an attorney in Buenos Aires, who purported to Divorce Olga from her first husband and marry her to Frank pursuant to Mexican law. The Lambertinis began what they thought was a married life together, and soon produced two children. In 1968, they moved to the United States and became Florida residents.

In 1992, Olga sought a divorce from Frank. She petitioned the Florida court for sole possession of the marital home and temporary Alimony, which the court granted. Frank sought a rehearing, arguing that the Mexican marriage was not a valid legal marriage and was therefore void. Though Frank won with this argument in the trial court, the appellate court reversed, holding that Frank was equitably estopped from arguing that the Mexican marriage was invalid. According to the appellate court, Frank and Olga had held themselves out as a married couple for more than 30 years, lived together, raised two children, and owned property jointly. Both Frank and Olga apparently believed all along that the Mexican marriage was legal, and it was only when Olga filed for divorce that Frank discovered and chose to rely on its invalidity. The appellate court granted Olga her divorce, the house, and the temporary alimony. Frank's acquiescence for three decades—holding himself out as being married to Olga—prevented him from denying the marriage's existence.

There are several specific types of equitable estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a contract law doctrine. It occurs when a party reasonably relies on the promise of another party, and because of the reliance is injured or damaged. For example, suppose a restaurant agrees to pay a bakery to make 50 pies. The bakery has only two employees. It takes them two days to make the pies, and they are unable to bake or sell anything else during that time. Then, the restaurant decides not to buy the pies, leaving the bakery with many more pies than it can sell and a loss of profit from the time spent baking them. A court will likely apply the Promissory Estoppel doctrine and require the restaurant to fulfill its promise and pay for the pies.

An estoppel certificate is a written declaration signed by a party who attests, for the benefit of another party, to the accuracy of certain facts described in the declaration. The estoppel certificate prevents the party who signs it from later challenging the validity of those facts. This type of document is perhaps most common in the context of mortgages, or home loans. If one bank seeks to purchase mortgages owned by another bank, the purchasing bank may request the borrowers, or homeowners, to sign an estoppel certificate establishing (1) that the mortgage is valid, (2) the amount of principal and interest due as of the date of the certificate, and (3) that no defenses exist that would affect the value of the mortgage. After signing this certificate, the borrower cannot dispute those facts.

Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse.

The court applied the doctrine of laches in People v. Heirens, 648 N.E.2d 260 (Ill. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1995). William Heirens pleaded guilty, in 1946, to three murders, for which he received three consecutive life terms in prison. Heirens sought court relief numerous times in the ensuing years. In 1989, 43 years after his conviction, Heirens filed his second postconviction petition seeking, among other things, relief from his prison sentence due to ineffective counsel and the denial of due process at the time of his arrest. The court found that all the witnesses and attorneys involved in Heirens's case had since died. Laches precluded Heirens from bringing his action because, according to the court, it would be "difficult to imagine a case where the facts are more remote and where the state might be more prejudiced by the passage of time."

Legal Estoppel

 

Legal estoppel consists of estoppel by deed and estoppel by record. Under the doctrine of estoppel by deed, a party to a property deed is precluded from asserting, as against another party to the deed, any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted in the deed. For example, suppose a father conveys a plot of land to his son by deed. Unbeknownst to the son, the father actually does not own the plot of land at the time of the conveyance; the father acquires title to the property only after the conveyance. Technically, the son is not the legal owner of the property because his father did not own and did not have the right to transfer the real estate at the time of the conveyance. But under the doctrine of estoppel by deed, the court may "make good" the imperfection of the poorly timed conveyance by finding the son to be the rightful owner of the plot of land (Zayka v. Giambro, 32 Mass. App. Ct. 748, 594 N.E.2d 894 [1992]).

The doctrine of estoppel by record precludes a party from denying the issues adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction (Collateral Estoppel) or any matter spelled out in a judicial record (judicial estoppel).

Collateral estoppel, sometimes known as estoppel by judgment, prevents the re-argument of a factual or legal issue that has already been determined by a valid judgment in a prior case involving the same parties. For example, suppose Ms. Jones, who owns a business next to Mr. Smith's, sues Mr. Smith for damage to her property caused by the digging of a hole. Mr. Smith defends by arguing that the hole is on his land. After considering all the evidence, the court determines that Mr. Smith owns the land. Later that year, after a late night at work, Mr. Smith cuts across the back lot, falls into the hole, and is injured. He then sues Ms. Jones for negligent maintenance of her property. In this situation, the court will apply collateral estoppel, preventing Mr. Smith from re-litigating an issue that was already decided between the same parties in the prior proceeding.

The related doctrine of judicial estoppel binds a party to his or her judicial declarations, such as allegations contained in a lawsuit complaint or testimony given under oath at a previous trial. Judicial estoppel protects courts from litigants' using opposing theories in the attempt to prevail twice. For instance, a tenant trying to avoid liability to a property owner may not, in the tenant's Bankruptcy case, successfully represent to a court that the property agreement is a lease and then later, when the property owner sues for nonpayment of rent, declare that the agreement is a mortgage rather than a lease (Port Authority v. Harstad, 531 N.W.2d 496 [Minn. Ct. App. 1995]).

Estoppel by record is frequently confused with the related doctrine of Res Judicata (a matter adjudged), which bars re-litigation of the same Cause of Action between the same parties once there has been a judgment. For example, if Mr. Chen sues Ms. Lopez for breach of contract and the court returns a decision, Ms. Lopez cannot later sue Mr. Chen for breach of the same contract. Ms. Lopez has the right to appeal the first decision, but she cannot bring a new lawsuit that raises the same claim.

Further readings

 

Coale, David S. 1999. "A New Framework for Judicial Estoppel." Review of Litigation 18 (winter): 1–25.

Cooke, Elizabeth. 2000. The Modern Law of Estoppal. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

Lundquist, John W. 1997. "'They Knew What We Were Doing': The Evolution of the Criminal Estoppel Defense." William Mitchell Law Review 23 (winter): 843–77.

Shapiro, David L. 2001. Civil Procedure: Preclusion in Civil Actions. New York: Foundation Press.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

estoppel n. a bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person from asserting a fact or a right, or prevents one from denying a fact. Such a hindrance is due to a person's actions, conduct, statements, admissions, failure to act, or judgment against the person in an identical legal case. Estoppel includes being barred by false representation or concealment (equitable estoppel), failure to take legal action until the other party is prejudiced by the delay (estoppel by laches), and a court ruling against the party on the same matter in a different case (collateral estoppel). (See: collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, estop, laches)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

estoppel noun ban, bar, bar to an allegation, barrier, barring, blockage, disallowance, forbiddance, hindrance, impediment, inhibition, legal restraint, obstruction, preclusion by act, preclusion by conduct, prohibition, restraint, restriction

Associated concepts: agency by estoppel, collateral estoppel, equitable estoppel, estoppel by concealment, estoppel by conduct, estoppel by deed, estoppel by judgment, estoppel by laches, estoppel by matter in pais, estoppel by matter of accord, estoppel by recital, estoppel by record, estoppel by silence, estoppel by suppression, estoppel by verdict, estoppel letter, judicial estoppel, partnership by estoppel, ratification, stare decisis, waiver

Foreign phrases: Nemo contra factum suum venire potest.No man can contradict his own act or deed. Un ne doit prise advantage de son tort demesne. One ought not to take advantage of his own wrong.

See also: bar, check, halt, impediment, obstacle, obstruction, prohibition

Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

ESTOPPEL, pleading. An estoppel is a preclusion, in law, which prevents a man from alleging or denying a fact, in consequence o his own previous act, allegation or denial of a contrary tenor. Steph. Pl. 239. Lord Coke says, "an estoppel is, when a man is concluded by his own act or acceptance, to say the truth." Co. Litt. 352, a. And Blackstone defines "an estoppel to be a special plea in bar, which happens where a man has done some act, or executed some deed, which estops or precludes him from averring any thing to the contrary. 3 Cora. 308. Estoppels are odious in law; 1 Serg. & R. 444; they are not admitted in equity against the truth. Id. 442. Nor can jurors be estopped from saying the truth, because they are sworn to do so, although they are estopped from finding against the admission of the parties in their pleadings. 2 Rep. 4; Salk. 276; B. N. P. 298; 2 Barn. & Ald. 662; Angel on Water Courses, 228-9. See Co. Litt. 352, a, b, 351, a. notes.

2. An estoppel may, arise either from matter of record; from the deed of the party; or from matter in Pays; that is, matter of fact.

3. Thus, any confession or admission made in pleading, in a court of record, whether it be express, or implied from pleading over without a traverse, will forever preclude the party from afterwards contesting the same fact in any subsequent suit with his adversary. Com. Dig. Estoppel, A 1. This is an estoppel by matter of record.

4. As an instance of an estoppel by deed, may be mentioned the case of a bond reciting a certain fact. The party executing that bond, will be precluded from afterwards denying in any action brought upon that instrument, the fact, so recited. 5 Barn. & Ald. 682.

5. An example of an estoppel by matter in pays occurs when one man has accepted rent of another. He will be estopped from afterwards. denying, in any action, with that person, that he was, at the time of such acceptance, his tenant. Com. Dig. Estoppel, A 3 Co. Litt. 352, a.

6. This doctrine of law gives rise to a kind of pleading that is neither by way of traverse, nor confession. and avoidance: viz. a pleading, that, waiving any question of fact, relies merely on the estoppel, and, after stating the previous act, allegation, or denial, of the opposite party, prays judgment, if he shall be received or admitted to aver contrary to what he before did or said. This pleading is called pleading by way of estoppel. Steph. 240a

7. Every estoppel ought to be reciprocal, that is, to bind both parties: and this is the reason that regularly a stranger shall neither take advantage or be bound by an estoppel. It should be directly affirmative, and not by inference nor against an estoppel. Co. Lit. 352, a, b; 1 R. 442-3; 9 Serg. & R. 371, 430; 4 Yeates' 38 1 Serg. & R. 444; Corn. Dig. Estoppel, C 3 Johns. Cas. 101; 2 Johns. R. 382; 8 W. & S. 135; 2 Murph. 67; 4 Mont. 370. Privies in blood, privies in estate, and privies in law, are bound by, and may take advantage of estoppels. Co. Litt. 352; 2 Serg. & Rawle, 509; 6 Day, R. 88. See the following cases relating to estoppels by; Matter of record: 4 Mass. R. 625; 10 Mass. R. 155; Munf. R. 466; 3 East, R. 354; 2 Barn. & Ald. 362, 971; 17 Mass. R. 365; Gilm. R. 235; 5 Esp. R. 58; 1 Show. 47; 3 East, R. 346. Matter of writing: 12 Johns. R. 347; 5 Mass. R. 395; Id. 286; 6 Mass. R. 421; 3 John. Cas. 174; 5 John. R. 489; 2 Caines' R. 320; 3 Johns. R. 331; 14 Johns. R. 193; Id. 224; 17 Johns. R. 161; Willes, R. 9, 25; 6 Binn. R. 59; 1 Call, R. 429; 6 Munf. R. 120; 1 Esp. R. 89; Id. 159; Id. 217; 1 Mass. R. 219. Matter in pays: 4 Mass. R. 181; Id. 273 15 Mass. R. 18; 2 Bl. R. 1259; 1 T. R. 760, n.; 3 T. R. 14; 6 T. R. 62; 4 Munf. 124; 6 Esp. R. 20; 2 Ves. 236; 2 Camp. R. 844; 1 Stark. R. 192. And see, in general, 10 Vin. Abr. 420, tit. Estoppel; Bac. Abr. Pleas, 111; Com. Dig. Estoppel; Id. Pleader, S 5; Arch. Civ. Pl. 218; Doct. Pl. 255; Stark. Ev. pt. 2, p. 206, 302; pt. 4, p. 30; 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. 417-460. Vide Term.

[patrickq1]

already posted

[patrickq1]

have you received any bills from .Estates and Management’..

ME seem to be regularly sending out invoices apparently from this company ? will let you know on further investigation but i would advise no one pays out to this company and claims all monies paid out to them ...

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

Right to Manage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

see here and follow the guidelines for the right to manage hope it helps

patrickq1

[patrickq1]

also see here for a company to set it all up for you this person succesfuly prosecuted ME because of the mess they left him in....

Right To Manage, Lease Extension Guaranteed Service

[chillinlong]

Patrickq1

 

A massive thank you! I have a plan of action of exactly what I want to do and am getting geared to do things the way I want for a change and screw them for screwing me.

 

Marley1 as you can see you get brilliant advice here.

 

Gorilla, hey how are you? Speak soon!