Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you so much for your replies.   Yes, I have text messages from the tenant acknowledging all the visits made by the professionals (handyman + double glazing maintenance person + 4 different plumbers)   4th plumber visited the property 4 different times and on three of those occasions found the boiler turned off. The tenant claimed she didn't know anything about it and said it must have been the other tenant who did that.    I have an email from the plumber detailing each visit and he's happy to be contacted by the solicitors if need be.    The tenant claims she didn't have hot water for 10 weeks but the plumber says the hot water was always working. His letter says, with the tank having a 210L water content, it was obvious that demand was greater than supply capacity.  The plumber is convinced that there's never been anything wrong with the hot water. His opinion was further verified after his discussion with the tenant's grandfather (who was present during his last visit) and being informed that the tenant had showered at his property the night before (spent roughly 20 minutes in the shower). Just to be able to say we've done something, the plumber replaced the two working standard stats with high level stats to allow the tank to regenerate quicker. He says this is not ideal as the high level stats will cause the tank to scale at a much quicker rate and will ultimately cause the tank to fail and need replacing as the scale can not be removed. He's done this just so the water heats quicker even after 20 minute showers.  (The tenant says this has solved the problem and that they have water left after they take a shower)   Both tenants are named on the agreement. I'll ask the Estate agent about the signed documents from the original guarantors but I'm certain that we have them. Everything was done according to books.   There's literally no mention of a Vacating Sharer in the agreement. It's a 12 month fixed term contract with both names on it. We're on month 6 now.   I really don't want to keep this tenant for another 6 months but the estate agent is saying that we have no choice but to accept the "vacating sharer" agreement even though "she will have a guarantor as her references do not meet criteria"   Do I have a right to object or is the estate agent telling the truth?   Thanks again!        
    • I leave you guess how the second pair of the same boots have done, the sole and the upper have torn apart in two separate places on the same boot, about an inch in each instance, i was going to let this slide but two pair on the trot is too much.   Two pairs and we're barely half way through the season, and the astro boots only see half the games.
    • Donation made Now on to my ongoing tussle with BT/Lowell , read elsewhere   Rod
    • Make the most of using this website as we'll all be debtors prisons soon as we cant afford to live in Tory Britain 
    • Must be one or the other parking was free  so their evidence of the  written ticket ticket contradicts the reason for the Charge in their RobOclaim POC, hopefully EB will be in later with an opinion.
  • Our picks

interestrateripoff

New charges will be created to cover the loss of old fees

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3669 days.

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

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

Thank you

Recommended Posts

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/your-money/credit-and-debit-cards/25card.html?_r=1&ref=business

 

When Steve Franklin bought four plane tickets on Qantas last June, he faced an unexpected expense: a surcharge of 7.70 Australian dollars on each of the 136.70 dollar ($126) tickets — just for using his Visa credit card.

 

Mr. Franklin, who planned to fly his parents and his 7-year-old twin daughters from Sydney to Adelaide, knew that changes to credit card rules had affected the cost of using plastic, but the extra 5.6 percent seemed excessive.

 

The charges were the consequence of changes in credit card rules in Australia that were aimed, in part, at reducing the cost of hidden fees for using plastic. But the law, passed six years ago, also allowed merchants to tack on new charges, and many have done just that, in some cases with fees that exceed the old ones.

 

Now, as Congress debates how to rein in credit and debit card companies in the United States, Australia’s experience is being pointed to as an example of just how tricky that can be: for one thing, if regulators limit one fee or rate, banks are likely to find another way to keep revenue flowing.

 

As in Australia, the stakes are high in the United States. American merchants, like their counterparts Down Under, complain that the high fees they must pay credit card companies and banks to accept their cards force them to increase prices on everything they sell — even for people who pay with cash — to make up the difference. In the United States, the Government Accountability Office last week issued a report showing that consumers who did not use credit cards “may be made worse off by paying higher prices for goods and services, as merchants pass on their increasing card acceptance costs to their customers.”

 

The main consumer federation in Australia, Choice, says that while regulations here have had a few unintended consequences, they have created incentives for retailers and consumers alike to rely more on debit cards, which have much lower processing costs, instead of credit cards. “It drives me crazy, people buying chewing gum on a credit card,” said Christopher Zinn, a spokesman for Choice, an Australian consumer group. “We all pay for it.”

 

You'll never beat the evil bankers, they control the money.

 

Nothing more than parasites.


If DEBT is the problem REPAYMENT is the solution

 

Debt revenue doesn't equal tax revenue

 

I will pay for my own stupidity but not for the stupidity of others.

 

Remember, profits are privatised, losses are socialised.

That's the 21-century Free Market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...