Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
    • The Barclay Card conditions is complete. There was only 3 pages. This had old address on. Full CCA. 15 pages. The only personal info is my name and address. Current Address The rest just like a generic document.  Barclays CCA 260424.pdf
  • 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

Esure/ Cunningham Lindsay - Home Insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4658 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

If any one could give me some advice on my following situation I would be most grateful, here goes....!

 

Around 4 weeks ago I contacted Esure as I's noticed a water mark on my kitchen ceiling and when investigated further in the room above, which is the bathroom, found there had been a leak as all of the plasterboard was wet and mouldy.

 

Esure advised me to get 2 estimations for the work so, I got a company round to check over the pipes in the loft to check for leaks and none were found, they were assuming that the water was possibly leaking from a crack in the grout to one of my tiles but could not rule out the shower leaking as the pipes are in the wall and this would involve taking off tiles etc.

 

They took measurements and noted down repair work and sent me a quotation, the 2nd quotation was based on the original contractors report. As the quotation was appox £6888 (inc vat) for repairs they said they would refer me to Cunnignham Lindsay and would send a loss adjuster round. (The reason for being quite high was because they were covering for possible water damage through the walls etc, room being re tiled, taking toilet & sink out to get bath out etc etc)

 

When she came I didnt realise I was going to be made to feel like I'd sabotaged my own bathroom, the visit took approx 30 minutes and actually looking at the damage 5 minutes. Her whole visit consited of telling me everything I was not covered for and basically stated that because it had been left for so long and was gradual I would not be covered.

 

Her reasoning behind this was because of mould growth saying this is a brake down in the seal etc but I fail to see how this can be proof of something going on for some time. I dont have mouldy tiles or grout and there are a few tiny spots on some wall sealant (and i mean tiny) All she did was take photos, she didnt even look under the bath etc.

 

We were advised not to continue using the shower but found another water mark on the ceiling, I got the contractor back as my insurance cover trace and access and found a leak to my shower. I emailed C&L with the findings and now their excuse for not excepting it is that im not covered for a 'slow leak' They have advised me that if im not happy with their decision to go to the contractor and get a report of why this was not a slow leak.

 

At the moment I have contacted the FOS and they are going to send me a form to fill in etc and have emailed C&L back to confirm this and also ask for a detailed explination of how they see this as a slow leak. I contacted them when I saw the signs of a leak which have since got worse so that surely has to go in my favour?! I have also contacted Esure to see if I should be keeping them up to date but they dont give a crap and dont want to know as its been passed on now. I am wondering why I have been paying for home insurance if this is the result?!

 

Any comments would be greatly appreciated as I dont want to let this go (and also be left with my bathroom as it is!)

 

Thank you

Gem

Link to post
Share on other sites

An update on my situation above. I have received another email from C&L today in reply to my last email as I requested full details as to why my claim is being repudiated, they inform me that it is due to evidence of mould growth on the plasterboard under the bath and on the tiles and also the shower seal breaking down and leaking.

 

My reply is that the shower screen has nothing to do with the claim, the screen has leaked in the past from the rubber but not from the seal. I actually had this replaced this year so I know the sealant hasnt broken down. I have also done some research into mould growth as this is all they seem to be mentioning and have informed them that mould growth can happen in a matter of days/weeks and they are suggesting it has been going on for many months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right to point out there are 2 issues here, the seal leak and the slow leak from the tap.

The seal leak would not be covered and any damage from that again not covered. The slow leak, well, it is gradual, but the leak is one event, and not one you will probably notice until it is too late. Now it could be a case that there are 2 causes and 2 incidents here, but they need to clarify that with you, and one may not be repairable without fixing the other.

Just go straight to the insurer, CL can't see past their nose and accept it may have been caused by something they didn’t discover.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

Yes it could have been two incidents, we may never know as the damage is in the same area. When I contacted Esure in the beginning they said that whether it was the bath seal or a leak on the shower I would be covered either way for the damage that has been caused just not for the repair of the cause i.e repairing the shower or re sealing the bath.

From my last email yesterday regarding the research into the mould as this is all they keep refering to, they have requested that I get a report from the contractors to say whether they think the damage was caused by a slow leak that has been happening for sometime or something more current.

I have tried to go back to Esure as I wondered whether I should be letting them know ive been to the FOS, basically they dont want to know now. All they could say was if your complaints with us then you do have to let us know, if the complaints with C&L then its nothing to do with us........... funny that, they dont seem to mind taking my money every month!!!

 

Ive got the form from the FOS now so im in the process of filling that in and providing them with as much evidence as possible. I will also be forwarding the report to C&L so we will see.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...