Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Help with additional charges after vacation of property

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4639 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Dear all:


I have an issue which I would like some advice with hopefully in lieu of paying a solicitor. Any help offered will be gratefully received:


Essentially I moved into a flat that was rented to me by a letting agent (acting on behalf of a landlord) and I signed an assured tenancy agreement, paying my deposit into the protection scheme etc.



The agreement said no pets. However, due to my grandmother being hospitalized I was faced with breaking this term and taking in her cat or having the cat put to sleep as nobody else was in the position to look after it. Upon arrival there was a burn mark in the carpet which the letting agent said the landlord wished to have repaired/replaced but I said there was no need, do so after I vacate. Unfortunately I do not have evidence of this conversation anymore.


In any case, the flat became infested with fleas. As I was to leave the flat I made arrangements to have the flat professionally fumigated to get rid of aforesaid fleas and I cleaned the flat down. When I vacated the flat it was not in pristine condition, but a friend of mine looked it over and we both agreed that it was habitable - note I had cleaned it.

I then received a message from the letting agent essentially saying there are still fleas in the property, what do you want to do about it. I said the pest control company I used would treat the property again for free and gave them the details so they could arrange this.


About four weeks went past and then I received another email from the letting agent saying they moved new tenants in but fleas were still there so they had to move them out and refund the deposit what do you want to do now. They hinted at getting the carpets replaced and I essentially said as this is my fault, provide me with some quotes and if they are reasonable I will contribute to the replacement of the carpet in addition to the landlord keeping my full deposit. I was under the impression that this was a decent offer and that as the flat was small and the landlord wanted to replace the carpet BEFORE I arrived, they would come up with a quote of two-hundred and fifty - three hundred pounds approx and that this would be the end of it.


Instead however, what they did was provide a quote for seven hundred and fifty pounds for the replacement carpet and an additional fumigation which I was neither made aware of nor did I authorize. It became evident reading between the lines of an email trail that this was in actual not a quote but a bill of work as they had already instructed the carpet fitters and installed the carpet. However, they presented the information as please pay now so we can instruct workmen.


I had also forgotten to release the deposit to the landlord and of course they are chasing me for it. However, I do not now wish to release it until I get some advice regarding my rights. Essentially:


I am aware that I have greatly inconvenienced the landlord by allowing the property to become flea infested. I had taken steps to rectify the situation by paying for the property to be fumigated, and offering to make a contribution for the carpet being replaced. However, where do I stand legally - I DO NOT want to pay the letting agent seven hundred and fifty pounds. Indeed I feel loathed to pay them anything at all as they seem to be shafting me over an error of judgment and getting a carpet which they would have to replace and indeed were going to anyway.


Also, I am aware that what I did was stupid however, I was attempting to act in the best interests of aforementioned cat and my grandmother. I am also aware that this is not the landlord's concern and he is in business to make money.


Many thanks



Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments only apply if the premises are entirely within England, and you were granted a shorthold tenancy (under which you have exclusive use of a separate dwelling, and the landlord does not live in the same building), and you were over 18 years of age when the tenancy was granted.


This posting is supplemental to the information in this forum's "sticky" threads and is NOT to be read in isolation.



Deduction for Dilapidations at end of tenancy


If the landlord alleges damage, he must prove it.


If there is no check-in inventory, the landlord really doesn't have a leg to stand on; so the tenant is in a stronger position where there is no check-in inventory.


The landlord isn't allowed to improve the premises through "betterment" (replacing an old or worn item with a brand new one).


Likewise, the tenant is not liable for the cost of cleaning or repairing an item which was already soiled or damaged before the tenancy began. A check-in Inventory can be evidence that an item was already in bad repair before the start of the tenancy.



Read this document - Fair Wear and Tear


And read this document - Wear and Tear Guide


Those documents explain some aspects of the law regarding fair wear and tear, applying the principle that a tenant is NOT liable to pay for the cost of remedying ordinary wear and tear.


This link gives examples of what is fair wear-and-tear, and what is not:





Also, the landlord can't ask the tenant to pay (i.e. out of the deposit) for the cost of repairs which the law requires the landlord to do. What those repairs are is explained in this FAQ -


Disrepairs in privately rented accommodation


A detailed analysis of the landlord's repairing obligations, prepared by a Barrister, is set out at -


Interpreting Repairing Covenants



Any deposit paid at the beginning of the tenancy belongs to the tenant. So the burden is on the landlord to prove that any deduction from it is justified.


Read the FAQ about what deductions the landlord can lawfully make from the deposit -


Unfair deposit deductions



There is a vast amount of additional information about the tenant's legal rights in cases of disrepair on the website of Shelter, the housing charity -


Repairs and Bad Conditions

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...