Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • 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.  
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4830 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

Here's my story:

 

My partner and i lived in our last apt for 2 years, and we moved out August 2010. Previous to that we lived in a smaller apt owned by the same landlord for 9months. Our deposit on the smaller apt was £450, and when we moved to a bigger apt, we paid an extra £150 to make the deposit £600.

 

When we moved out of our apt, the Landlords' Dad (who lived accross the road and dealt with any problems tennants had) came to inspect and said that the condition was fine, and i handed him back the keys. We never heard anything about the return of our deposit for a month so contacted the Landlords' Dad (as we never had a contact number for our Landlord) who said he'd ask his son to get in touch with us.

 

We recieved a letter stating that he had deducted money for re-decorating and for boiler repair!! :!:

 

Once we recieved this we sent him a letter asking for details of which Tennancy Deposit Scheme he had used (so we could dispute these deductions) and he replied stating that it was not in one as the tennancy pre-dated the law coming in to force. We replied stating the dates of our tennancy did fall in to this Law coming in to force and had no reply. We sent another letter again stating that it was a legal requirement to put it one of the TDS's and again had no reply.

 

At this point we spoke to a solicitor who sent a letter on our behalf asking for the deposit within 7 days. 9 days later we recieved a letter with a cheque for the deposit MINUS the deductions (which had been pre-dated to the month before even tho the postal mark said the day before we recieved it) and again saying that the deposit was not in a scheme and he would have to "look in the archives to find out why".

 

As we now know that our deposit is not in a scheme we want to persue getting the 3x deposit back as well as our full deposit, however when i spoke to someone at Shelter, they told me it may not be successful as there is a case ongoing (Tiensia services v Vision enterprise) that could change the outcome for other future claims?

 

 

Can anyone give me advice on what to do? I've searched the internet all day for some help and rang a few people. We dont have the money to waste on court fees if it's not going to be successful.

 

Thanking you in advance :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So neither side has evidence of condition on 2nd move in or out?

 

As for 3x deposit claim I think this will fail as you have vacated the property so no Tenancy currently exists, LL has returned deposit less deductions so no deposit exists. Your only hope is to claim the disputed deductions in SCC, neither side appears to have evidence of property condition during the T.

How much is the disputed charge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't cashed the cheque he sent (for £318 out of £600) so deductions are £282 for "redecorating" a place that was fine (and even if it wasn't my dad's a painter & decorator so i'd have got him to do it for free for me before we left) and for repair of the boiler which wasn't broken and was his responsibility anyway!!

As for not being able to claim the 3x amount as we are moved out, surely this is wrong as you can't get your deposit back whilst still living there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that you do have a solid claim for your deposit, especially as you have not cashed the cheque. There are two options available to you, one is that you simply claim for you deposit in the Small Claims Court, where the fees are low, the process fairly simple, and there is no risk of you having to pay the landlords solicitors costs should you lose (although from the info given it doesn't sound like you would).

 

The second option is the one where you would claim for you deposit + the 3x compensation. This is not heard in a small claims court, it is know as a Part 8 Claim, which means you could be liable for the landlords costs should you lose, it is strongly recommended that you seek legal advice before pursuing this option,.

 

The case of Tiensia v Universal Estates t/a Vision Enterprise, has been heard in the Appeals Court, but as far as I'm aware is being taken even higher. This means that any decision made on this case (and other similar cases e.g Honeysuckle and Draycott and Hannels) are binding on the lower courts. There was also a case heard in the High Court on the 7th Feb which will bring new light to the argument of protecting a deposit after a tenancy has ended which has yet to have judgement passed.

 

As it stands currently, the cases listed above, amount to the opinion (and this is very subjective from solicitor to solicitor and judge to judge) that a landlord can escape the compensation part of the law if they protect the deposit at any time before the court hearing, even if the tenancy has ended. This would not necessarily mean they would 'win' as such, but that is up to the judge on the day, and you could be liable for the costs running into 4 figures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...