Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
    • No the first LBA was delivered by royal mail, but I responded by email, sorry if I didn't make that clear.   I look at redacting the emails tomorrow, got to get some sleep now.   Thanks
    • ok well that changes things alot. you've accepted one before by email  and now they are doing it again ..   might have shot yourself in the foot until now lets get some 1st aid done.   gonna be a pain to redact but i'm gonna need to see all the emails in/out please in ONE MULTIPAGE PDF from/inc  date of their last PAPLOC   redact them properly !! read our upload guide carefully   you may  think this is immaterial, but its not, esp important is their and your exact wording
    • OK I've looked back at my emails and it appears I've been dealing with shoosmiths since the start of 2019 when they sent a LBA that I'd totally forgot about.   I replied that I didn't recognise the debt and we got into a big letter tennis over the facts.   They then went quiet and then contacted me again in April 2020 asking for income and expenditure details to work out a payment plan with them.   After I responded with my covid comments they went quiet again.   And now they are back with another LBA and I haven't responded to that.   Hope that clears it up. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3439 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

Hi, I'd be very grateful if anyone can give me some urgent advice...

 

To outline my situation -

 

I live in a H.A. flat. My mother was the sole tenant, with an Assured tenancy. I moved in with her in 2005 as her carer. Mom died in June last year. Upon her death I applied for 'discretionary' succession. The H.A. refused, I believe unreasonably. I have documentary evidence to support my claim, including a letter of reference acknowledging my residence at the address, from the Housing Officer.

 

The H.A. has threatened to change the locks several times & has issued me with a NTQ twice. They have now issued a claim for Trespass. At the initial hearing, Judge looked at my defence bundle & ordered a 2 hour hearing at the beginning of October. Unfortunately, he seemed a little confused re: Secure/Assured tenancies & mentioned that there is relevant case law that includes interpretations of 'family members' & 'normally residing at', etc.

 

I am aware that the succession rights in an Assured tenancy do not apply to family members other than a 'spouse or cohabitee', but they do in a Secure tenancy. So I'm worried that Judge has this issue confused & was considering my rights under a Secure tenancy.

 

Either way, the fact is that I do not have any statutory or contractual right to succession. My only claim is for 'discretionary

succession' to be granted by the H.A.

 

My defence centres on the fact that the H.A. have not considered my application fairly & that they have disregarded strong evidence that I live & have lived at the property for years. I believe that the H.A. has been constructive in dismissing my claim for succession & has not excercised its dicretion responsibly.

 

So my main question is simple -

 

Is this a viable defence?

i.e. Even if I am able to show evidence & convince Judge that the H.A. has treated me unfairly, does the court have the power to influence the H.A. to change its decision or reconsider my claim? Or is it bound by the fact that, at law, I am a trespasser as I have no tenancy & no statutory/contractual right to succession?

 

I'd be really grateful if anyone can advise me on this urgently as my deadline to file my defence is this Wednesday.

 

I also have another point on which I am considering defending the claim, if anyone has time I'd be grateful if you could also consider this -

 

The tenancy states that it shall terminate upon the death of the tenant. But the H.A. did not terminate the tenancy on my mother's death, they wrote to me on several occassions to say that they would be closing the tenancy off 'soon' & have sent me up to date rent statements. Does this mean that the tenancy is/was still in existence after my mother's death, and if so did I inherit the tenancy? Would this make it a 'devolved tenancy' and would that mean that the H.A. should have issued a claim under Ground 7, Shedule 2 of the Housing Act?

 

As this is a Trespass claim I have no access to legal aid & am unable to get advice from Shelter etc. so any advice will be received with heartfelt thanks. if you do think I have a defence, any pointers to the relevant case law would be really helpful to me.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this even if you cannot help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi D Stanley

Welcome to The Consumer Action Group.

 

 

I am just letting you know that as you haven't had any replies to your post yet, it might be better if you post your message again in an appropriate sub-forum. You will get lots of help there.

 

Also take some time to read around the forum and get used to the layout. It is a big forum and takes a lot of getting used to.

 

 

Once you start to find your way, you will soon realise that it is fairly easy to get round and to get the help you need.

 

It can be bit confusing at first.

Please be advised that my time will be limited for the next few weeks.Thanks for your understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DS

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will be happy to advise as soon as they are available.

 

Thread moved to the correct forum.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...