Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They didn't turn up because they knew they would lose so they saved the cost of sending a brief saving them a couple of hundred pounds at least. But still a big relief for you now that it's all over . So congratulations plus you can enjoy your trip that much more. 
    • I will try again...................... Even at my age there is quite clearly a PCN envelope by the windscreen wipers on your car on some of the photos.  But as I said in the IPC letter, that is not the dispute. The dispute is that CPM sent you the second PCN on the 28 th day of the issue date of the first PCN. It should not have been sent until the day AFTER the original PCN was issued. Therefore they broke the Act, they breached the IPC Code of Conduct and their agreement with the DVLA. It is something that the IPC cannot ignore since to do so will bring the ICO down on them and the DVLA should ban CPM from getting data from them once they know if the ICO do nothing. The minimum I expect is that your PCN will be cancelled. But it is up to you. I have given you the details, you have copies of both PCNs sent to you on the sar  with all  the relevant dates. 
    • Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card   An HM Armed Forces Veteran Card is a way to prove that you served in the UK armed forces. The card can make it quicker and easier to apply for support as a veteran. It’s free to apply. You can currently only apply for a Veteran Card if you have a UK address. Veterans who do not have a UK address will be able to apply later this year. READ MORE HERE: Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Apply for an armed forces veteran card to prove that you served in the UK armed forces.
    • The Private Parking Code of Parking has been postponed as the poor dears are frightened that thew will all go out of business once it becomes Law. We all wish but nothing could be further from the truth so doubtless most of them will have to change their ways if they don't want to be removed as approved parking companies. Thank you for still retaining and producing the original PCN which, no surprise, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. [It even states the vehicle "breeched" the terms  when it was the driver that allegedly breached the terms}. It fails to specify the Parking Period and whilst it does show the arrival and departure ANPR times on the photographs [that I cannot read] they do not include how long you actually parked nor was it specified on the Notice  [photos don't count]. So that means that you spent even less time parked though it would help had you not blocked out the dates and times, so good if you could please include them on your next  post. Pofa  asks the driver to pay the charge S( [2][b] which your PCN doesn't though they do ask the keeper to pay.and they have missed out theses words in parentheses S9[2][f] ii)  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; All of those errors mean that the cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible . What a rubbish Claim Form -doesn't even give the date of the event which it should.  
    • it doesn't matter what you are being charged or if you missed the discount period. you ain't paying anyway..... if this ever gets before a judge. then the ins and out of POFA2012 or any IPC/BPA guidelines might come into play. until then i go get on with your life. you are spending far too much time on a speculative invoice scan scheme  its almost as if you believe these are fines and enforceable in a criminal court and you could have bailiffs at your door any minute.    
  • 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

Landlord wants to charge for re-decoration


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5036 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

So I've recently moved out of a two bed flat, which was part-managed. When we moved out we paid for professional cleaners, and professional carpet cleaning at reasonable expense.

 

In the check-out report, under Decor it listed:

 

"Excessive black rub marks in several areas which need need to be removed or at least improved by cleaning."

 

with the following action required

 

"Possible need to remove or at least improve excess marks with cleaning, with charge to tenant. Tenant states that landlord intends to re-decorate so cleaning may not be required – Landlord please advise the agent if a deduction for cleaning should be made?"

 

Now it seems that the landlord and I got crossed wires at some point, as he said he was "considering" re-decorating upon inspection. However, in the belief he was going to do so and had planned to do so all along, we made no attempt at improving rub marks on walls prior to moving out.

 

He has since had it re-decorated, and wants to deduct £500 (the full cost) from the deposit. As the original report listed "light markings" in several places, re-decorating the flat would (in my book) qualify as an improvement on its original condition. Out of courtesy we offered half (£250), but he wants £350 due to a missing light bulb and a power socket that needed replacing.

 

Frankly I think we were overly generous in offering anything, but I feel I need further guidance on what my stance ought to be on this.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, hope I can help with this one. I spent 3 years managing residential lettings for a large Estate Agents for my sins!!

 

The Landlord is not entitled to 'betterment'. He can charge to put the flat back as it was but with due consideration for fair wear and tear.

 

The best way to work out what is fair is to ask when the flat was last decorated? Decor can be expected to last approx 5 years. If the flat was newly decorated before you moved in and you were there for 2 years and the decorating needed doing as a result of your occupation, then you could say that the Landlord was out of pocket for 3 years worth. Therefore he would be right to charge you 3/5 of the cost of redecoration.

 

However, you say that the flat was not 'perfect' when you moved in, so the Landlord has already had some 'life' from his decor. Therefore you really need some indication of how long ago the place was decorated and can do the sums to allow for this and your occupation as a proportion of the 5 years.

 

These are only guide figures but I know they are used by ARLA (Association of Residential Letting Agents) and if your case gets referred to them as a complaint, this is likely what will be used to assess it.

 

Who holds your deposit? Is it held by the Agent or a Tenants Deposit Scheme? If so then the Landlord cannot take any money from the deposit without your say so anyway. If the Landlord holds it then it should have been registered with a Tenants Deposit Scheme and you should have been notified of this at the start. If the Landlord failed to register it then I believe you can get all your deposit back plus a fine from the Landlord for breaking the law. I suggest you go to the TDS website and take a look at the rules.

 

If you cannot resolve your dispute then it can be referred to the TDS anyway. Talk to your Estate Agent about this, they can give you the forms.

 

The law was tightened up over tenants deposits some years ago to stop unfair practices by Landlords. I think what you offered sounded more than generous but ask to see invoices/receipts for any other works he is claiming for before you agree to it. The agent should be able to give you guidance on what is reasonable.

 

Good Luck.

 

This information is my opinion only and not legal advice and should not be construed as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for excellent reply.

 

To clarify a few points. The deposit is held by the agent, so there's no problem.

 

From what I've gleaned, the property was new in 2006 and hasn't been re-decorated since, so it's getting on four years since it was first decorated.

 

In any case, judging by your comments sticking to £250 seems fair.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are being very generous if the decoration is indeed 4 years old. It does also seem unfair that there was lack of communication to you about this, as personally I would have liked the opportunity to rectify such problems myself, without the LL assuming it would be ok to deduct from the deposit.

This very much sounds like an attempt at betterment from your LL, and I would even consider lowering your offer as far as say £100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...