Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Rent increase. Is this fair?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5090 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

We have ben in a rented property for 17 months. There are 3 identical houses all owned by the same landlord and managed by the same company. At the end of our first 12 months we had a letter saying that the rent was to be increased by £20 a month.

 

Today we find out from speaking to our next door neighbour that her rent has never increaed over the 3 years she has lived in the house and she is currently paying £20 less than us each month. The tennants on the other side have only been in the property for 8 months so thier rent is also still at the old rate. I know when we moved in the rent was fixed for 12months so wasnt too surprised when we got the increase letter at the end of the 12 month period. However Im annoyed that our other side neighbour has never had an increase. Im going to ring the agent on Monday but dont suppose I will get far with them.

Am I right to feel niggled?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it may be that the LL has only recently decided to increase the rent, and is raising the rent as and when contracts come to an end, whereas your neighbours are still in the middle of current contracts.

 

It may be that the LL has taken a view that he doesn't want to upset someone who has already stayed for 3 years, but for some reason is less concerned about upsetting you!

 

It may be that the houses aren't totally identical.

 

It maybe that the mortgage on your property needs to be renewed, but the current level of the rent does not adequately cover the mortgage.

 

Assuming the LL is following the correct procedure, he is entitled to charge what he thinks he can. If you feel the rent is too high, you have the right to move on or try and negotiate - but other than asking for a rent assessment (which probably won't help you, and will annoy the LL and may result in your eviction) there is little you can do to stop the rent going up if the LL decides not to negotiate.

 

If you want to negotiate, then also compare with houses other than those of your neighbours. It may be that your rent is fair but your neighbours' rent is cheap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve. I take all those comments on board. However in response to the points you make-

 

The houses are identical in every way.

There are 3 in a row all owned by the same landlord and rented out by the same company.

They were built 6 years ago and have been on permanent rental from new.

As far as the upsetting bit goes, I dont know why this would be as we have decorated ours, put new carpets down and improved the garden whilst the neighbour paying less rent next door, whilst not a bad person, lets her child crayon on the walls, has had them replace windows twice in the last 12 months because her ex has been round and put the window through and is- by her own addmission 3 months in arrears with her rent. She has survived one eviction notice by being bailed out by her brother.

Our rent has always been paid on time and the rental office has already told us that they wish they had all there houses occipied by people like us. Im not saying we are a landlords dream but my opinion is that we have to call it home so want to look after it whilst we are in it. I cant think its a ploy to get rid of us.

I think whats oirked me as well is that another house in the close has come empty and is up for rent from a different company an thats £70 a month cheaper. (and before anyone says- I do understand that we chose to take this house and its just a case of green eyed monster - but Im still a bit miffed)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update on this.

 

We spoke to the landlords agents who told us that

 

'All 3 houses are owned by the same property company and all have the same rent other than the one that is still in its first 12 month contract term. The rent will be increased on all 3 eventually, its just that we havnt had time to sort the other out yet. Dont worry, you wont be paying more than next door'

 

6 months since ours was increased and they havnt had time to do the other yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...