Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • as you mention the bpa sounds like its a scummy private car park lot blue badges mean nothing on private land anyway.............. so a failure to display something that is meaningless on private land anyway is a money grabbing scam moved to the private parking forum dx dx
    • who is it from  a council or a private parking company?
    • As per the heading, received a parking charge for failure to display a blue badge in a disabled bay on a retail park.  I am a blue badge holder, disabled/wheelchair user with a Motability vehicle. I received the charge as 'notice to keeper' I was not the driver. I don't have a valid driving license so use a carer. The notice arrived a week after the alleged incident. It states that as the 'driver' failed to pay the charge in full  hence, it is now the keepers responsibility ( the notice was dated 2 days after the alleged infringement and as no notice to driver was on the vehicle, I don't know how they expect the driver to be able to either pay or dispute the charge if they are not aware of it) Anyway, really looking for help how to reply. I cannot remember if the badge was correctly displayed or not. Photos taken of car miss a bit where I store my badge if not displayed so it would be possible to see a badge even if not 'correctly displayed" . It was a bit of a sh**ty day weather wise, gusty and raining  (as seen on the photos which reminded me of the actual day) so it is possible that badge blew to the floor as the driver was helping me out of the car into wheelchair. There is no windscreen photo showing that a PCN to "Driver" was stuck on the window either. The car park is free. There are no Parking Signs at all near the disabled bays that one could read to adhere to any terms and conditions. The whole row of disabled bays - of which are there many only state badge holders ( does not stipulate Blue Badge Holders) The notice states that the parking company is a member of the BPA and Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The BPA, section 19.1 State that at least one parking sign should be near the disabled bays, in a position that can be easily  read by by a disabled person without leaving their car in order to decide to be bound by such terms. We returned to look for signage on the retail park and could not find one sign that was near the bays. The only sign we could find was high up on a pole but not near the bays. Someone had to get out of the car and stand on tip toes to be able to take a photo of a sign. I would be grateful if someone could help or point me in the right direction. It is now  15 days since the alleged incident and 7 days since I received the notice.
  • 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
      • 162 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5101 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 been given notice to leave our current property where we have lived for the last 4 years, every year we get a new 1 year assured shorthold tenancy which starts this tenancy supercedes the previous tenancy.

 

My question is there is a special clause attachment stating that neither the landlord or tenant can give 2 months notice to leave within the first 6 months of the tenancy.

 

This new tenancy started on the 12/06/10, but the landlord is saying this clause only applies to the very first tenancy, its not clear in the contract and I would like to know if the 2 months notice to leave is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Each agreement creates a new tenancy. The terms of your current agreement must apply to the current tenancy. The landlord is almost certainly wrong. To be absolutely certain he is wrong we need to see the exact wording of the relevant clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the clause in question reads

 

It is hereby agreed that in accordance with the Housing Act 1996 the Landlord may terminate this tenancy by giving not less that the required two months notice in writing to the tenant at any time after the commencement of the tenancy PROVIDED that the tenancy shall not be determined before six months from the commencement date of the Tenancy ansy such determination pursuant to the provision of this clause shall be without prejudice to the claim of either party against the other in respect of any antecedent breach or non-observance of the provisions of this agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hereby agreed that in accordance with the Housing Act 1996 the Landlord may terminate this tenancy by giving not less that the required two months notice in writing to the tenant at any time after the commencement of the tenancy PROVIDED that the tenancy shall not be determined before six months from the commencement date of the Tenancy ansy such determination pursuant to the provision of this clause shall be without prejudice to the claim of either party against the other in respect of any antecedent breach or non-observance of the provisions of this agreement.

 

First of all, the Housing Act 1996 does not allow a landlord to terminate a tenancy by giving the tenant two months notice in writing. What the Act says (operating as an amendment to the Housing Act 1988) is that following service of a section 21 notice no court order for possession can be made granting possession until a tenant has been in occupation for six months. Despite the misunderstanding, the terms of the clause are still clear and they apply to the current tenancy.

 

A word of warning: the County Courts have been known to make some strange decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So does that mean the 1st six months we lived here or can we just sit here until december am also unclear on the fact that this is a tenancy with a 12month term which does not expire until 12/06/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this on another site

 

Mandatory grounds on which court must order possession

 

Ground 1

The residential investment property was previously the landlord’s only or main home or the landlord or their spouse require it to live in as his or her main home.

 

This is the reason given for the 2 months notice, in that she has split from her partner and now needs to return to the UK. Am just a little annoyed at the amount of notice we received and we regarded these ppl has friends we have even done our own repairs because they have no work in Spain. And our rent was paying their mortgage to stop the house being repossesed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2 months notice is certainly legally unenforceable but it would probably be accepted by a court as notice requiring possession on 11/12/10. It may be possible for LL to get to court just before that and get a possession order to operate 28 days after that date - 9th January. This is the very best a LL can hope for.

 

I suggest that you talk to your erstwhile friend and explain this. Be understanding about her situation and ask her to be both understanding and realistic about yours. Agree with her that you will go by 9th January at the latest - that gives you over 5 months - but that you will go earlier if you find something suitable. In the meantime, keep paying the rent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I've not taken notice of the last post of yours. Yes, that mandatory reason does make a difference.

 

I suggest you tell her that you are looking for a new home and certainly do that, but keep her from going to court as long as you need to. In practice she is unlikely to be able to get actual possession for another 5 months unless you move out voluntarily. You can almost certainly find something suitable long before that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this on another site

 

Mandatory grounds on which court must order possession

 

Ground 1

The residential investment property was previously the landlord’s only or main home or the landlord or their spouse require it to live in as his or her main home.

 

This is the reason given for the 2 months notice, in that she has split from her partner and now needs to return to the UK. Am just a little annoyed at the amount of notice we received and we regarded these ppl has friends we have even done our own repairs because they have no work in Spain. And our rent was paying their mortgage to stop the house being repossesed.

 

The fact that you have a fixed term tenancy overrides this ground. See section 7 (6) of the Housing Act 1988:

 

(6) The court shall not make an order for possession of a dwelling-house to take effect at a time when it is let on an assured fixed term tenancy unless—

 

(a) the ground for possession is Ground 2 or Ground 8 in Part I of Schedule 2 to this Act or any of the grounds in Part II of that Schedule, other than Ground 9 or Ground 16; and

 

(b) [not relevant because Ground 1 is not mentioned in paragraph (a)]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, you could ask her what she will pay you to leave earlier than you legally have to. I don't know what part of the country you are in and how easily you can find alternative accommodation?

 

She might be happy to pay you if she is really desperate and knows that the legal rights are yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing about Ground 1 is that notice of the possibility that possession might be recovered under this Ground ought normally to have been given on or before the start of the agreement:

 

Not later than the beginning of the tenancy the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered on this ground or the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of notice...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose in this case she could argue that even if she didn't serve formal notice, her tenant was a friend who knew the situation anyway, but I wouldn't have thought that there are many situations in which "it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of notice" for this reason.

 

I can think of a lot of other situations in which the tenant's conduct make it "just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of notice" but in those it is not allowed!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...