Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3699 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

Ive never rented through a letting agent before so help would be much appreciated.

Me and my boyfriend have been looking to move in together and we've found a nice place, I phoned today to see what details they needed and they told me they want a £195 'tennant fee' upfront before they speak to the landlord - I spoke to my mom about this and she doesnt think this is right, and on Shelter and Citizens Advice websites it says :

'A letting agency can charge you:

an unlimited fee once you have signed a contract to accept a tenancy

You must have agreed to take the tenancy before the agency can charge you.'

 

So therefore, they cant charge me a non refundable fee before us and the landlord have agreed a deal, or am I wrong?

 

Huge Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I googled and found a link to a CAB document that included this. The document I found *does also* say that the agent can charge "A non-returnable holding deposit" before a tenancy agreement is signed, and says that the fee should be refunded if the landlord withdraws.

 

The holding deposit may be used by the agent to cover admin expenses and/or may be offset against the rent. It's not a payment for holding the property.

 

I would try to get in writing the terms of the fee from the agent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had an unpleasant experience with the lettings dept of an estate agency. I had been told--verbally--the previous day on the phone that it would be £230 for one person and £270 for two people 'to secure the property'. I was seriously interested in the property after viewing it, so I searched in vain on the agent's website for the details of what exactly this unusually large deposit was for. I went to the office the next morning and asked for written disclosure of the purposes of the fees. I was handed me a 'good faith' document, which had blanks--for amounts to be filled in by hand--in the place of amounts. I asked again, but where is the written disclosure about what the fees are for? The agent then claimed they didn't have them in writing. Then, the man who called the previous day to set up the viewing said, 'I told you on the phone it would be £270'. I said yes but I have a right to see written evidence of what the fee is for, the breakdown of charges, and the terms. Then the agent said, 'no one else has ever made an issue of this'. I said, yes, that is what people usually say when someone questions their business practices. I should be clear that I was in no way objecting to the *amount* of the deposit, but rather insisting upon my right as a consumer to have disclosure in writing as to its precise purpose and breakdown of costs involved. Or is this not a consumer right in the UK? (I am a foreigner) I had to excuse myself to take a phone call I had told the agent I was waiting for. When I returned, after about 10 minutes, the man who had set up the viewing (and who had resisted disclosing in writing the terms and fees) said to me 'oh, we've spoken to the landlords and they have decided to rent to the other person'. I was in the office prepared to sign an agreement, and the other person had only engaged by telephone, so it wasn't possible that s/he had paid the 'deposit to secure the property'. I was quite distressed as I feel that the agents had sabotaged my tenancy because I challenged them about proper disclosure of their fees.

 

I noticed that Aequitas above says these fees are unjustifiable. Could someone refer me to the Consumer Law and/or other information that would help me determine the lawfulness of this practice? I should mention that I'm in the Midlands and I've never heard of such a high fee and it is customary (as I told the agent) for letting agents to post this written disclosure on their websites. I've never had this problem before and I've viewed lots of properties. This was the first time I had ever dealt with this particular agent and I'm not happy about my experience..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...