Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you very much for your letter in regard to the above mentioned shipment.  Due to the high volume of parcels coursing through the courier network each day, undergoing continuous processing and handling, certain packages may experience delays or even can get lost in the course of this journey. Please note that due to the time that has passed, this shipment has been declared as lost.  I have today processed the claim and made offers to the value of £75 as a goodwill gesture without prejudice. I do acknowledge that you have mentioned in your letter that the value was higher, however, you did not take out any protection to that amount. The protection for this shipment was £20 and we will not be increasing our goodwill offer any further.    Please log into your account online in order to accept our offer. Once accepted, our accounts department will process the claim accordingly. The claim payment will be processed and received within 7 working days.                                  In addition, a refund of the carriage fee will be processed as a separate payment and will be received within 3 working days.  If I can further assist, please feel free to contact me.   I have also just noticed that yesterday afternoon they sent me an email stating that "after my request" they have refunded the cost of shipping. I did not request the refund so will mention that in my letter as well.
    • Hi I had to leave Dubai back in 2011, during the financial crisis. And only now have I received a letter from IDRWW. Is this anything to worry about about as I have 2 years left until it’s been 15 years(statute barred in Dubai). Worried as just got a mortgage 2 years ago. Could they force me in to bankruptcy? Red lots of different threads on here. And unsure what true and what isn’t. 
    • Not that TOR will see this now he's thrown in the hand grenade. Rayner has plenty of female supporters on X, for a start. As for the council and HMRC, fair enough and I thought Rayner was already in touch with them. That's where it should be dealt with, not the police force. @tobyjugg2 Daniel Finkelstein thinks the same as you about tax. The Fiver theory. How the Fiver Theory explains this election campaign ARCHIVE.PH archived 28 May 2024 17:36:51 UTC  
    • Often with the Likes of Lowells/ Overdales that 'proof' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   Think about it like a game of poker, they want to intimidate you into folding and giving up as soon as possible, and just get you to pay up and roll over, that is their business model, make you think your cards are rubbish. What they don't expect, and their business isn't set up for it, is for a defendant to find this place and to learn that they have an amazing set of cards to play. Overdales don't have an infinite number of lawyers, paralegals etc, and the time / money to spend on expensive court cases, that they are highly likely to lose, hence how hard they will try to get you to roll over.  Even to the extent of faking documents, which they need to do because the debts that they purchased were so cheap, in the first place. Nevertheless it works in most cases, most people chicken out, when they are so close to winning, and a holding defence is like slowly showing Overdales your first card, and a marker of intention that this could get tricky for them. In fact it may be,  although by no means guaranteed that it won't even go any further than that.  Even if it does, what they send you back will almost certainly have more holes than Swiss Cheese, and if with the help you receive here, you can identify those weaknesses and get the whole thing tossed in the bin.
    • So Rayner who is don’t forget still being investigated by the local council and HMRC  is now begging to save her seat Not a WOMAN in sight in this video other than Rayner  Farage is utterly correct this country’s values are non existent in her seat   Rayner Pleads With Muslim Voters as Pressure From Galloway Grows – Guido Fawkes ORDER-ORDER.COM Guido has obtained a leaked tape from inside a meeting between Angela Rayner and Muslim voters in Ashton-under-Lyne...  
  • 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

Freedom of Information Act?


baldasacoot
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6442 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

My landlords (a housing agency that has taken over from the local authority) want to do a tenancy audit to ensure that I am the tenant and not sub-letting. They refuse to let me send them ID documents or take them round in person and want to interview me in my home, which I'm, not too happy about. They have not said they want to inspect the condition of the property, which they are entitled to do under the tenancy agreement, but they do demand access to interview me inside the flat. This seems to imply they want to snoop about and check whether I actually live there, like, what? Looking through my laundry? They say they can evict me if they cannot gain access.

 

Am I entitled to ask for a copy of their audit checklist in advance of any interview? Does the Freedom of Information Act cover this? If not, is there any law I can use to get a copy before I let them in so I can see what boxes they want to tick?

 

 

Cheers

 

~

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I dont think the act would cover that... but i will stand corrected!

 

However, have you asked them on what basis they are conducting this on? As far as Im concerned, if my landlord did this to me, I would say this was a breech of my rights to have quiet enjoyment of the property.

 

I would say this is a breech of the tenancy agreement on their half. And that they should provide you proof that you are indeed subletting. If they do not have this proof, then they should leave you to quiet enjoyment of the property. I think this may come under the freedom of information act, request all details they hold on you, then you may know why they are conducting this enquiry.

 

Relooking at your post - is this a housing association? I dont know if a different set of rules apply to this, but I would say you have no less rights than someone in a privately rented setting.

 

I do however remember reading in a local paper, that the housing estate (ex council taken over by social landlord) I have recently moved away from was subjected to police going around checking who was in the properties, and making sure they were the right people in the properties. I also remember thinking, surely this must be incorrect, as no one would have a right to do this to people, and what about those like me, who were out all day, would the police batter down the door? It seemed like Big Brother to me, and I would have had a LOT to say about the matter. As it is, im just grateful im out of there now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they say my address was randomly selected for a tenancy audit and that they are allowed access at all reasonable times "for other management purposes", as well as in emergencies and to inspect for damage. I'm inclined to tell them to off it and prove in court that I am not the tenant, but if they can evict me for not letting them in, they won't have to prove that I'm not the tenant. I just don't think this is reasonable, although it seems it happens on other estates.

 

I have to prove who I am, my date of birth and provide recent bills, statements etc to show I am living there and that I am not someone else who is subletting from... er... me. And some git with a clipboard will be asking me questions and trying to ascertain if the place is occupied by me.

 

Yes, it's a type of housing association that is managing the estate for the council and paying for some re-building, refurbishing and new builds. In order to make a profit, of course. I've been there over 17 years, my rent is always paid monthly in advance and I've never heard of this before.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

~

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are being misled about material issues. A tenancy audit does not require entry to your property unless the audit includes other matters. If they want to confirm the ID it can be done at the door.

 

They cant evict for not letting them in. Even if entry was permitted in the agreement their remedy would be a court order/ injunction and not necessarily eviction.

 

The only way they could try to evict is if they claim that the tenancy was induced by misrepresentation or fraud. Having said that, your refusal to allow entry is not evidence of that. If they want to allege such grounds...its up to them to prove the case....if all they have is a refusal to allow entry...it would be a very weak case.....

 

They dont need to enter the property to make sure there is no subletting either...this maybe one case where there could be a HR issue...

Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your question about the Freedom of Information Act, the Act allows access to Government or Official information which is defined particularly in the Act - it most certainly does NOT apply to personal, corporate or commercial information. It would not therefore cover any request for information from your Landlord (whether a person or an organisation), unless they are actually a Housing Association which form part of the local authority.

 

Rather than quoting the Act at them, why not just write and ask them nicely first? It may be they'll be quite happy to send a copy of their audit checklist - and any threat of eviction is simply whistling in the wind; they can only evict you for matters of gross misconduct on your part regarding your tenancy, and denying them access is not that. They might be the rightful owners of the property, but a Tenancy Agreement makes it YOUR HOME, and they must submit to any reasonable conditions you have for entering it on official business.

 

If they wish to interview you, suggest to them that they do so in their offices, and explain that you'd like to have a formal representative with you. If they wish to inspect and audit the property then they are entitled to do so at a time convenient to you and with your presence. If you think they have any REASON for their apparent suspicion, now would be a good time to negate that reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if they are a straight-forward Housing Association or an Arm's length body. They are managing the estate on behalf of the local borough authority.

 

I agree with most people's comments, at least it seems common sense to me in a free democracy, but my tenancy agreement says that I must allow them access "...at all reasonable times.... "for other management purposes". They are saying that the audit is part of estate management and if I don't let them in I am in breach of contract, which gives them grounds for eviction. So far, my main concern is that they were setting appointments and expecting me to take a day's annual leave from work and sit around waiting for them to turn up, which I am not prepared to do. I've been so busy I haven''t had time, anyway.

 

I already asked them to send me a check list of questions they wanted answering, offered to ask my GP to verify I've been registered at the local health centre on the estate and at my address for 17 years, send them copies of rent statements, electric and phone bills etc, but they won't have it. They want photo ID as well.

 

I already suggested that I could probably find time to call in at the local office one day, but I can't make definite appointments due to work committments, and they insist the interview has to take place in my home.

 

Sucks, doesn't it?

 

~

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if they are a straight-forward Housing Association or an Arm's length body. They are managing the estate on behalf of the local borough authority.

 

 

~

 

If they're managing the property in the way you describe then I'm pretty certain that they will fall under the FOI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I have just found out that they are an ALMO which is wholly owned by the local Borough Authority and have taken over managing the publically-owned housing stock on the borough's behalf. They are managed by some sort of "board" of five residents, five member's of the organisation and five "independent people".

 

In order to get details of their policies, standard operating procedures, audit procedure etc, I assume I use the Freedom of Information Act, rather than the Data Protection Act? The next question is how do I go about this? I am not claiming back bank charges or anything like that, I just want information on the information they want from me, plus some other information.

 

I know from doing audits at work that many questions on an audit form are addressed to the person doing the audit, not the person being audited. So they won't ask me those questions at all. The auditor will make a value judgement and answer those questions for himself. I just want to know what those questions are, in advance. They have so far not sent me anything. They are threatening to evict me for breach of contract, although I have pointed out in writing that I am not preventing them doing their audit, nor am I denying them access to the property. They simply have failed to call round when I am at home and I am not in a position to take a day's holiday to meet an appointment of their choosing.

 

Cheers, grateful for any help.

 

~

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as a guardian of misuse of dates of birth - I'm almost positive this information does not need to be disclosed, other than 'Over 21' to confirm the tenant legally entered into the contract. As I tell others, my wife and mother know my date of birth, and unless you're going to send me a card each year, it's really none of your business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...