Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  Irrespective he'd asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.  Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since. I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
    • Torys seem to think its worth while - cheap muckspreading while they get away with ACTUALLY doing it? More the aspect of ensuring that when these tactics are used without justification - make sure your people aren't doing it more and worse or their crap spread on the waters ... - mind you, the Tories would have to maybe even ease off on their using taxpayer and donor money to fund their preferred lifestyles wouldn't they? Maybe even do the jobs they are paid for?  
  • 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

help needed


ladymanc
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5140 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

can anyone explain to me what the implications

of moving in with someone not as a couple

but as a carer to look after

a friend who is disabled who is getting I.S, DLA care middle rate,

and high rate mobility and living in a 1 bed council property.

any advice would be helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A one bed property, so you will be sharing the same room?

can anyone explain to me what the implications

of moving in with someone not as a couple

but as a carer to look after

a friend who is disabled who is getting I.S, DLA care middle rate,

and high rate mobility and living in a 1 bed council property.

any advice would be helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya zara, no we won't be sharing same room,

i will be using the bed settee in the living room,

my enquiry is about how it will affect both myself

and friend as reguards as money. thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely sure here, but I think you would be classed as co-habiting or similar. Plus, if your friend is only deemed to need middle rate care componant DLA, then he/she doesnt need 24 hour round the clock supervision or help - again, I think that would undo any argument you might have there? Don't forget, too that the award of any carers allowance is made on the basis only that you "need" whatever level of care is awarded - it doesnt matter if you actually receive it... I think you might benefit from having a word with CAB / DIAL, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a formal legal definition of "living together as husband and wife" or "living together as civil partners" - if a doubt arises, the matter will be referred to a decision maker who will consider many factors. This long guide is designed to help these DMs reach a decision.

 

There's a certain "if it quacks like a duck" aspect to these decisions - most of us, DMs included, would say that while we might not be able to precisely define in legal terms what constitutes a relationship, we know one when we see one. In your case, based on what you've said, I certainly don't see a relationship.

 

Of course, if you were sharing bills, bank accounts, joint credit cards or that sort of thing, things would start to look different. Have a look through that guide. It's long, but it is written in something resembling plain English :D

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can anyone explain to me what the implications

of moving in with someone not as a couple

but as a carer to look after

a friend who is disabled who is getting I.S, DLA care middle rate,

and high rate mobility and living in a 1 bed council property.

any advice would be helpful.

 

For your friends IS,

they would lose the severe disability premium if they have it, and they would have to complete a living together form and a decision would have to be made on that.

 

Are you on benefits, they may be effected as well.

 

Your friend would have to inform the local authority as well, if you work this would really effect her housing benefit and the income support claim, if you are found to be living together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your friend would have to inform the local authority as well, if you work this would really effect her housing benefit and the income support claim, if you are found to be living together.

 

 

 

just to clarify, 1. im on jsa, 2 he's on I.S, and getting severe disabilty also he gets housing benefit and council tax benefit, we don't share bills, bank details

etc as we are not a couple. im just helping him out with his care etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

just to clarify, 1. im on jsa, 2 he's on I.S, and getting severe disabilty also he gets housing benefit and council tax benefit, we don't share bills, bank details

etc as we are not a couple. im just helping him out with his care etc

 

 

Unfortunately even though you are not a couple, a living together would have to be done on both your claims and a decision made.

 

 

He would lose the severe disability premium as there is someone living in the household with him, I am presuming you are over eighteen and not in receipt of DLA yourself.

You would still need to inform the LA

Link to post
Share on other sites

These days its not about if there is an emotional and/or physical relationship between you. Its about if you "share a common household". The guide posted on antone's post shows you how the decision makers make the decision. They will look at how much time you spend together, if you spend anytime socialising together, who pays for what and if finances are pooled. If they decide you are living in a shared household either you would have to join his claim on IS or you would have to claim JSA for him, (i assume neither of you have dependant children) in which case you would both have to have a work focused interview where you would ask for him to be exempted from seeking work due to his incapacity.

Advice given is my opinion only, I am not a legal or financial expert (far from it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...