Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

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


chillinlong
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3134 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

I was in our local council office yesterday discussing council tax and asked about repossessed properties in the hands of a receiver, local answer (London Borough of Sutton) is if you are NOT the legal owner of the property and do not live there you are NOT liable for council tax on it, the Receivers are liable... seems to be a bit of an issue anyway but the guy I spoke to was very helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The other question was if a property was repossessed, has no personal items of yours in it and no gas, electric and water due to being turned off at time of repossession is it classed as 'habitable and liable for council tax'. The answer was a categorical no - apparently you are only liable for council tax on a repossessed property up to the point your personal possessions are removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council tax exemption seems to rely on the individual councils.

In my experience some councils accept that once a receiver is appointed there is no point in chasing the owner for the council tax, others have been far harder about this and despite meeting with council staff and proving that the properties are in the hands of the receivers they (correctly) insist that the law states unless a property has actually been repossessed (which ours haven't) then we are liable for all council tax payments until such time as the receiver decides to sell.

We now have CCJ's against us for non payment of council tax on the properties 'managed' by the receivers which could result in us being sent to prison.

Just another nail in the coffin of buy to let landlords.

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is a question that has been asked and i am presuming that you are still responsible for the council tax, due to your name being still on the register at the land registry , but it is arguable that the receiver is responsible and he should make every endeavour to make sure the bill is paid , if not why not so the responsibility would need clarification with MX

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

Just because your name is still on the Land Registry it does not mean you are the legal owner/occupier of the property, it is the OCCUPIER in many cases who is responsible for Council Tax, not for the legal owner (although some councils persist in persuing the legal owner for the tax).

 

The property I had reposessed some years ago was sold about 8 months later, and my name was still on the Land Registry, as I was able to prove that by the repossession terms I had no liability for the property and had no access to the property the council gave in.

 

Again it is another little nail in OUR coffins....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SG , had some spare time today and tried to find a definitive

answer to this but there is nothing concrete, seems it must

vary council to council and receivers.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is, our properties have not been repossessed, they are only managed (laughable I know) on our behalf by the receivers and because of this we are still legally responsible for the council tax.

MX themselves have investigated this for us (bless'em) along with our solicitor and as the legal owners we are allowed the 6 months exemption, if the property is empty, but after that the bill does come due to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the receivers made any efforts to mitigate the costs by letting the

properties so revenue is incoming, if not there is I believe some wrong doing here,

I am not an expert in any way in this area, but I think the realisation of income

and assets to discharge the bankruptcy in good faith.

 

I hope someone with more expertise than I will be able to help more.

Brig.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a repossession order is granted to the mortgage company, the owner is not liable for council tax once he has moved out in compliance with the order.

 

But if an LPA Receiver is appointed, no repossession order is made. The owner therefore remains liable for the council tax.

 

An owner is allowed 6 months exemption if a property is unoccupied; but after that the council tax is payable by him.

 

Where a property is let to tenants by the LPA Receiver, the tenants - as occupier - will be liable for the tax.

Note

 

This is a self-help forum in which users share their experiences. Assistance is offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgement; obtain advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

This posting gives general guidance only. It is not an authoritative statement of the law. Consult a Solicitor for specific advice before deciding on any course of action.

 

 

Further information:

 

Assured and Shorthold tenancies - A guide for tenants

 

Renting and Leasehold - Advice from Shelter

 

 

All posts are opinion only

 

 

If you've found my suggestions useful, please click on my star and add a comment

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the LPA has taken over management of the property Ed, might there be an argument that they should ensure that all the landlords bills are dealt with - including council tax if applicable?

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

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

Hi, I just found the same answer it a priority debt and should be administered

by the receiver or trustee.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the LPA has taken over management of the property Ed, might there be an argument that they should ensure that all the landlords bills are dealt with - including council tax if applicable?

 

 

This presumably has a bearing on the central theme of this thread, which is - at its simplest - the fact that we don't know what the powers and duties of an LPA Receiver are.

 

Certainly, the Receiver is appointed to manage the property.

 

But it is too sweeping to say that the Receiver owes a duty to the freehold owner. It seems to be the case that the Receiver is acting solely in the interests of the mortgage lender, and thus appears to have no duty to the borrower/owner.

 

It is also too sweeping to say that the Receiver owes a duty to pay council tax, merely by reason of it being an outgoing. If the property is let to tenants by the Receiver, for example, the council tax liability appears to fall on the shorthold tenant, as occupier.

 

And whatever else the Receiver is, he never becomes an occupier.

 

So there does not appear to be an absolute liability, but at best only a conditional one, and the Receiver doesn't meet the conditions, on the face of it: he never becomes either the owner or the occupier.

 

So it simply isn't clear that the Receiver has any liability.

Note

 

This is a self-help forum in which users share their experiences. Assistance is offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgement; obtain advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

This posting gives general guidance only. It is not an authoritative statement of the law. Consult a Solicitor for specific advice before deciding on any course of action.

 

 

Further information:

 

Assured and Shorthold tenancies - A guide for tenants

 

Renting and Leasehold - Advice from Shelter

 

 

All posts are opinion only

 

 

If you've found my suggestions useful, please click on my star and add a comment

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, thus if the bankrupt has no funds to

pay the tax their situation can be made worse with

a liability order and consequent costs.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, thus if the bankrupt has no funds to pay the tax their situation can be made worse with a liability order and consequent costs.

 

 

Well, that's not quite what I meant by 'receiver'.

 

A receiver can be appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925), simply to receive rent income on behalf of a mortgage lender, as a means of by-passing the freehold owner - to whom the tenants would otherwise be paying the rent.

 

This is not the same as a receiver in bankruptcy. An LPA receiver can be appointed under a mortgage to manage a residential property if the mortgage lender sees fit, even though the property owner is not insolvent/bankrupt.

Note

 

This is a self-help forum in which users share their experiences. Assistance is offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgement; obtain advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

This posting gives general guidance only. It is not an authoritative statement of the law. Consult a Solicitor for specific advice before deciding on any course of action.

 

 

Further information:

 

Assured and Shorthold tenancies - A guide for tenants

 

Renting and Leasehold - Advice from Shelter

 

 

All posts are opinion only

 

 

If you've found my suggestions useful, please click on my star and add a comment

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you it is not my area of expertise:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that most of us on this site (ourselves included) have not been made bankrupt, the lender has employed the services of LPA receivers to 'manage' the properties on our behalf, we are in law still the legal owners with all the responsibility that goes with ownership including resposibility to pay council tax if property is vacant.

We are entitled to a 6 month exemption period but seeing that some of our properties have now been under the control of the receiver and empty of tenants for nearly 3 years, the council have been chasing us and have obtained CCJ's against us for non payment of council tax.

And yes, I have had meetings with the council and have been to the court hearings only to be told that 'the law is the law and we are legally required to pay the bills'.

What sticks most in my throat regarding the conduct of the receivers and MX is that we have written evidence that there is colusion between the receiver and the lender.

The receiver has employed companies from Scotland to do work on our properties in the South of England, the costs added for travel arrangements were huge.

We have been billed for replacing guttering on a bay window that has never had guttering and doesn't need guttering.

We have been billed £600 for a new washer/dryer but a second hand appliance was installed instead, there are many other examples of 'creative' accounting.

We know of investors coming in to buy our properties and 'bunging' the estate agents to make sure they can be bought for the right price.

Some of the initial paperwork issued by the receivers was dated before the lender instructed them and some of it even has the wrong names on. We sought the advice of a public access barrister regarding this but was told that it didn't really matter as the receiver could say it was just a mistake and then rectify the paperwork later.

I can understand the councils trying to get money out of us as it is legally our responsibility but it does seem a tad unfair that the receivers and the companies they employ can get away with this kind of behaviour.

Maybe they are all owned by 'News International'

MM

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an awful story,you have my sympathy.

There must be a regulatory body that you can

complain to, the LPA appear to be milking your situation

by fraud all the work and travel expenses + the CT.

 

Some one must be responsible.

 

I'll bump the thread to see if anyone has ideas on this.

 

BUMP

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mungos Mum for clarifying regarding the council tax. That's what I thought.

 

Ed999, I thought that somebody on this thread would be better positioned to have the answer as most of us are in the hands of the LPA's.

 

Back to the subject of the LPA's - any news from anybody?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
We are entitled to a 6 month exemption period but seeing that some of our properties have now been under the control of the receiver and empty of tenants for nearly 3 years, the council have been chasing us and have obtained CCJ's against us for non payment of council tax.

 

 

As I have pointed out earlier in this thread, an LPA Receiver is in law potentially liable to the owner in negligence.

 

It seems to me that a failure to let the property at all would potentially amount to negligence, even if that neglect continued for a far shorter duration than 3 years!

 

You ought to be investigating the possibility of suing in negligence.

 

I have explained what facts a Barrister would need from you, earlier in this thread; and you will need to collate far fewer facts than anyone else, if your property has never been let at all, since there will be no details of rent payments by the shorthold tenant.

 

 

Apologies if I have overlooked some detail of your circumstances: it was not possible for me to thoroughly review the previous 70 pages of this thread in the available time today.

Note

 

This is a self-help forum in which users share their experiences. Assistance is offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgement; obtain advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

This posting gives general guidance only. It is not an authoritative statement of the law. Consult a Solicitor for specific advice before deciding on any course of action.

 

 

Further information:

 

Assured and Shorthold tenancies - A guide for tenants

 

Renting and Leasehold - Advice from Shelter

 

 

All posts are opinion only

 

 

If you've found my suggestions useful, please click on my star and add a comment

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had the experience of LPA Receivers increasing my debt by instructing others to carry out work to my properties that didn't need doing. This includes such things as a new kitchen in one property and a new roof on another and many other examples. To try to get to grips with this as our debt increases everytime work is done, we did a Subject Access Request on the receiver. They supplied some documents but refused to release invoices and other financial details. I made a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office and have heard today that they have upheld our complaint and have informed the receivers that they are in breach of the Data Protection Act and that as they are legally our agents and that as we are ultimately responsible for any expenditure they incurr when doing work on our properties, that they must provide us with the financial details that we have requested. They have forty days to release the information. I hope this might help others in the same situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keates, could you clarify one point.

 

Are you posting about LPA Receivers in general, or is your experience specifically with Mortgage Express and Walker Singleton?

 

It perhaps makes no difference. But a small victory over ME or WS would doubtless boost morale on the thread. :)

Note

 

This is a self-help forum in which users share their experiences. Assistance is offered informally, without any assumption of liability. Use your own judgement; obtain advice from a qualified and insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

This posting gives general guidance only. It is not an authoritative statement of the law. Consult a Solicitor for specific advice before deciding on any course of action.

 

 

Further information:

 

Assured and Shorthold tenancies - A guide for tenants

 

Renting and Leasehold - Advice from Shelter

 

 

All posts are opinion only

 

 

If you've found my suggestions useful, please click on my star and add a comment

Link to post
Share on other sites

My LPA Recievers are two individuals who are employed by Michael Parkes Surveyors, a small local firm but I am confident that the decision made by the Commissioners Office is a decision on principal and would be applied to any LPA receiver. The actual wording of the Commissioners decision reads, The ICO considers that the witheld information is likely to relate to you as the receivers are legally acting on your beahlf as your 'agents' and that the invoices appear to detail items that you are personally, financially and legally responsible for'.

Since receiving the Commisioners decision this week, I have telephoned his office and had it confirmed that the decision relates to ALL financial details that the receiver holds on my properties eg rents collected and all costs that are being added to my accounts.

 

I hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hence the reason i stated many months ago Photographic/Video Evidence is what you need the minit they are appointed , you then have recourse for damges and deliberate and possible fraudulent and unlawful acts ,

well done keates , isnt it strange i asked the ICo last year about this and they could not make a decision , i geuss it is because of the new structure of the FSA and also all our persistent badgering for some clarity about the LPAs

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

Hi patrickq1, Did I meet you at the meeting in London in March with George Eustice MP? On the subject of the ICO's decision. It took the adjudicator a long time to make his decision as he had to refer it to the legal team. I guess I was fortunate to have some one who was determined to come up with a definitive decision. I have forwarded the ICO letter to George Eustice MP and he thanked me and said the ICO ruling was very interesting and would help his case. Proof that all we can do is keep on going until we crack it. We are hoping to have a decision very soon on the complaint we made to the Financial Ombudsman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you have a copy of the ruling that you have had then also send a copy to the FO this will ensure that they will more favour on its strengh and determination that the decision made is not a light statement it is an authoritive decision and that is in your favour and intrests, it also strenghens the legal arguement that this document and decision has merit in your rights to justice ,so like ED says you have enough condensed information and proof upto and including witness's that you will put forward...so start your clock and speed up your determinationin going for broke as the more time they have the more they can use your bad financial situation and the more you will be discredited as a bad debtor ? that is one of their aims you got to pull out all the stops in finding a good barristor

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3134 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.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...