Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • yes  look for repetitive fixed sum penalty fees  like letter/missed payment/failedDD/phonecall/arrears   they are all unlawful and reclaimable, or be used to reduce your F&F offer.  
    • No worries.   ok. I’ve tried to send messages it says I can send 0 per day? Can you PM me so I can reply to you?    thanks for the answer on the joint question 
    • you need to converse with us Drays...   i will guess you have NOT received a claimform pack from northants bulk but merely a letter of claim from BW legal.   you respond by following Post 4 here: do NOT use their reply pack. but you MUST reply. follow Exactly as post 4 i would suggest the reason as: the alleged debt concerns a dispute for failure to provide a reliable service ( put nothing else at this stage)       JCI buy these old telecom debts up because sadly so many people wet themselves thinking they are owed and JCI have magical powers...when they don't. the debt is subject to a valid dispute.   there are number threads here regarding them.. https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=JC Talk talk&oq=JC Talk talk&gs_l=partner-generic.3...801398.805115.0.805375.12.12.0.0.0.0.121.799.10j2.12.0.csems%2Cnrl%3D13...0.3728j1478984j13...1.34.partner-generic..12.0.0.zyRD3vNgDww
    • Dear PIXeL_92 It has been explained to you in previous correspondence that the roof tiles that are the subject of your complaint, at the time of inspection were heavily covered in moss. It is in your agreed terms that the surveyor will not carry out an asbestos survey and is not required to scrape away moss if the surface below is obscured. The surveyor will carry out only a visual inspection and comment on defects visible at the time of inspection. Roofs can fail at any time particularly in periods of inclement weather. As stated in your report, the surveyor confirmed that the roof was in a satisfactory condition at the time of inspection therefore would not require replacement in the immediate future. The subject building is a utility building and is not a habitable room of the main property. As previously explained, tiles on an outbuilding of this nature would not affect the property value. You state you would have factored in the cost of removal/replacement into the purchase offer however as advised at the time of inspection the tiles were in a satisfactory condition and you have not sought to replace the tiles in the three years following the date of inspection. This confirms the comments provided by the surveyor. You have previously stated that the roof became damaged due to high winds and the roofing specialist you instructed to replace the broken tiles made you aware of the possibility that the tiles may contain asbestos. However, you have not yet had the tiles tested to confirm the presence of asbestos. Our surveyor revisited your property and confirmed that you have had the damaged roof tiles replaced. A roof that contains asbestos will only become a health and safety risk if it is disturbed and it therefore seems odd that the roofing contractor was happy to replace the tiles if in fact asbestos was present. We understand that raising a complaint and progressing to legal action as you have suggested you wish to do can be a lengthy drawn-out and expensive process with no guarantee of success. If necessary, we will notify our legal team to address this matter on our behalf however, we are happy to attempt to settle this matter in advance to avoid prolonged communications and extending this matter for many more months. In an effort to conclude this matter to the satisfaction of all parties, we shall increase our goodwill offer to £500 in full and final settlement of this matter. This offer will be available until Thursday 27 August 2020. There will be no further offers made after this date. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Walker Dunn MRICS   ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************   Dear Walker Dunn,   Apologies on the delayed reply unfortunately I had to attend to some personal matters that left me unable to reply to emails.   A few points I want to make regarding your previous letter.   You mention at the time of the inspection that the surface of the tiles was covered in moss and obscured the view of the tiles, we however have pictures from when we moved in showing this was not the case, whilst there is moss on the tiles it in no way obscured to the point that the material would have been assessed incorrectly and you can also see the curling of the edges to a large amount of the tiles and this is a characteristic of asbestos.   You state in the report that the roof was in satisfactory condition, however, if the roof was indeed slate that your report indicated this would have been correct however the curled edges of asbestos tiles indicate that they are fatigued and need replacing and that is not satisfactory condition, again the material was not identified correctly at the time of the report.   As for this point "You state you would have factored in the cost of removal/replacement into the purchase offer however as advised at the time of inspection the tiles were in a satisfactory condition and you have not sought to replace the tiles in the three years following the date of inspection. This confirms the comments provided by the surveyor."   We had put away money to have this done, at the time as it was deemed slate in your report we didn't prioritise this as a repair, as you know the roof of the main property was in an awful state and was leaking into the bedroom this took priority along with having all the plumbing in the bathroom replaced as we discovered it was stuffed with kitchen roll under the bath to hide a set of leaking pipes that eventually made its way into the kitchen. We then also had a passing in the family that took us away from the local area for around a month and then my partners dad became homeless due to a gas explosion that destroyed his property so we had to accommodate him for a year and half so most work we had planned got put on hold. This doesn't confirm your comments in your report, this just allows you to assume it did as it wasn't done straight away however this was not the case. We have all the paperwork and invoices to show the above work was done to the main property along with pictures along with all the details surrounding the gas explosion.   We don't agree that part of a building being a habitable room of the main property makes a difference in our case, of course any structure on a property would affect the properties overall value when offers are being made as you make your offer based on the overall property and if you wanted to use the outbuilding for a specific reason you would be more inclined to go for a property that dose have an outbuilding over one that doesn't or if you want another example one with a swimming pool selling for a higher amount as that is considered a premium.   You then say "You have previously stated that the roof became damaged due to high winds and the roofing specialist you instructed to replace the broken tiles made you aware of the possibility that the tiles may contain asbestos. However, you have not yet had the tiles tested to confirm the presence of asbestos."   We had the roofer come and take a look instructing him that we wanted two slate tiles replacing due to us believing at the time the roof was slate based on your report, he then mentioned from a simple visual inspection that they are in fact asbestos. He said he could replace them with two slate tiles but we would have dispose of the two slipped asbestos ones safely as he wasn't licensed to do so, they were removed in a safe manor to avoid cracking them due to how brittle they were.   We have at several times offered to have them tested for you if you would cover the costs of testing if they are in fact asbestos tiles but this simple question has still remained un answered, so for this reason we have now booked a test and this will be added to the costs we will be pursing if and when we are forced to go down the legal route along with all legal cost and the cost of disposal and replacement of the roof, as mentioned before I just wanted the disposal costs covered, but our solicitor has now advised us we should be entitled to have the full costs awarded so we are left in the same place financially along with the roof material matching the report.   Our next step would be to have the test results come back, and send those tests results if they come back as positive with the invoice and three quotes for removal of asbestos to yourselves to decide if you want to cover those costs or if you wish to continue with legal proceedings and as mentioned before if we have to issue legal proceedings we will be asking for all costs to be covered and a complaint to the RICS and Ombudsman will also be issued.   Unfortunately at this point we are rejecting your £500 settlement but if you decided you wanted to settle it without facing any potential legal action or complaint we would settle for the sum of £2000 and that will be the matter resolved, we believe this to be a fair amount as the testing has now cost us £150 and the mid range quote has come in at £1900.   Regards   Robert Atkins   ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************   Dear PIXeL_92 I refer to your email sent on 7th September. I am disappointed and dismayed that you have decided to not accept our very reasonable offer. We have now notified our legal team in preparation should you decide to proceed along the legal route. You have told us you are receiving legal advice, therefore I am sure that your solicitor will have explained to you that in matters of alleged negligence, if the court finds in your favour, they can only make an award on the basis of diminution of value and not the cost of repairs.   Therefore to quantify the diminution in value you would need to obtain a report from another surveying firm that identifies the value of your property three years ago with a slate roof to the outbuilding and the value of the property three years ago with an asbestos roof to the outbuilding. To do this effectively, the surveyor would have to identify comparable properties in the area with and without such roofs to be able to justify his findings. This would be no easy task.   To further complicate matters, the guidelines set out for the court are that they only award losses based upon diminution of value that exceed 5% of the property value, which is considered a reasonable margin of error for surveyor to work within. In this instance therefore, you would be required to identify a loss in excess of £6,000. This figure does not include your legal costs. Because this is a claim for alleged negligence and not for a debt, it is not a matter that can be dealt with by the Small Claims Court, it would have to be heard by a higher court. This would mean we would then be able to claim the costs of our barrister, solicitor and any experts for however many days the hearing lasts, plus you would have your own costs, if you were unable to prove your claim. Once you submit a claim, you are unable to then back out without incurring costs. I hope you find this advice helpful and I am sure that if you present this letter to your solicitor, he will be able to verify whether the above information is correct. We will await your response on how you intend to proceed. Yours sincerely, Colin Walker MRICS
    • Sorry for the text heavy post, we are getting nowhere with them, I need some help deciding our next steps, I have a couple more emails as PDFs that I need to attach below.   Dear PIXel_92, We confirmed in our previous email that our offer would be made available until Friday 14 August 2020. This offer was presented as a gesture of goodwill based on the information you have provided in support of your claim. Thus far, we have not had sight of a Specialist Report confirming the presence of Asbestos or quotations for the required works. Since you have not furnished us with any additional information we are unable to provide any further comments on the matter at this time. If you’re able to provide the requested information we will be happy to review the matter and discuss it further with you. Kind regards, Customer Relations ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Dear Walker Dunn,   I have on two occasions offered to have it tested further than a visual inspection but if it comes back as asbestos you cover the costs, you asked me for the costs involved in getting it tested and you neither agreed to nor declined to cover that cost if it came back as asbestos, again I am happy to have it tested but if it comes back as asbestos to have those costs covered.   I have sent communication from a roofer on headed paper confirming they belive it to be asbestos but they aren't registered to remove it.   I am happy to get three formal quotes written on paper and provide them, I have spoken to a roofer that deals in asbestos that was here to do another job at the time and he said just going off rough size it would be approximately £2000 to remove the roof and dispose of the asbestos. I will get some quotes over the next week and get back to you with them.   Regards ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Dear Walker Dunn,   Could I please get confirmation regarding if you are going to cover the cost of testing if it does come back as positive before I go ahead with it.   I now have 3 quotes for removal of the asbestos too.   My solicitors has also forwarded me this to read through, https://www.rics.org/uk/upholding-professional-standards/regulation/how-we-regulate/disciplinary-process/panel-hearings/disciplinary-panel-hearings/walker-dunn-limited-and-colin-walker/.   This will be our next step going to the RICS / property ombudsman as we seem to be getting nowhere and it has been going on for some time due to you not answering the above question.   If you don't answer it we can get it tested and look at legal action to recover the money at a later date if that's how you want to do it.   Regards **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************  
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3129 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 all,

 

I've got a bit of a situation on my hands.

 

My sister has a Motability Car for her disabled daughter. In 2010 Islington council started carrying out works to the roads around my sisters flat which meant that she couldn't park anywhere near her flat. she wrote to them and asked them to put in a disabled bay for her, they refused. she asked for an alternative means of parking, they refused and said that the only alternative was that she should appeal any ticket she got.

 

As you would imagine she got a ticket and appealed it, in the meantime Islington were issuing tickets on a daily basis because she didn't have anywhere to park close enough for to be safe for her disabled daughter. There was no response to her appeal or request for resolution. In mid 2011, she started getting bailiff letters asking for £3000 approx for a total of 21 tickets. She wrote to them again and stated that she wished to appeal all the tickets and requested a resolution to her parking problem. They did not respond to her request and kept sending her chaser letters.

 

The vehicle has now been clamped which is a real pain because her daughter needs medical treatment and access to hospitals at a moments notice. She passed the matter to me to resolve. I wrote them an email asking for an explanation as to the current state of play, why the vehicle had been clamped and for a resolution to the matter. I also advised them that the vehicle was a mobility vehicle and also had a blue badge and should not have been clamped.

To my amazement the emailed me back this evening on a without prejudice basis stating they would unclamp the vehicle on the basis that we agreed not to make any claims against the council and then we could come to a resolution of the outstanding tickets.

 

Now what I'm trying to understand is what claims would they be thinking of and what my next step should be.

 

I'm at a loss here guys so please help because my sister needs the car for her daughter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be looking in the area of discrimination, clearly she has asked for a disabled space, and been refused, I imagine her blue badge was on display also when receiving the tickets.

This should tell whoever that it is a disabled persons car, and as long as it is not causing an obstruction, can be parked almost anywhere eg, double yellow lines ect.

question everything!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi loco

 

I would have a chat with the Equality and Human Rights Commision here the link:

 

www.equalityhumanrights.com/

 

or advice from their helpline:

 

England - 0845 604 6610

 

Scotland - 0845 604 5510

 

Wales - 0845 604 8810

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guys at Islington are pushing me for a response to agree not to bring an action against them. Do you really think they would be worried about a discrimination action? I think he may have meant that we should not make any claims against them for any expenses incurred whilst the vehicle is clamped. It's been clamped for one day, what charges could they be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Developing news!

 

The car has already been declamped but yet the council are still pushing me for a response????

 

I'm really confused why they want me to agree not to make a claim for any charges incurred whilst the clamp was on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

did a bailiff clamp the car as this is a PCN related issue the bailiff would have know that the car was a mobility vehicle (before he clamped it) therefore exempt from seizure

tomtubby (bailiff forum)is the best person to advice on this

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a bailiff.

 

According to my sister, the council originally instructed one set of bailiffs to carry out the clamping and when she saw them she showed the the blue badge and the motability paperwork and they decided not to clamp it. Then the council instructed a different set of bailiffs.

 

The council seem to be working in a very shifty way to be honest. I have asked them to provide their responses to her letters and we will see where that takes us. They are trying to get her to pay £3000 worth of charges which is ridiculous. She's also almost had a nervous breakdown over this because she needed to take her daughter to the hospital and she didnt have access to her car

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding a motability car or disabled car cannot be clamped as this would cause issues for the disabled driver. May be a case of discrimination here, Id certainly speak to the equality commission and consider a claim against the council. They are covered under Human Right legislation as well so may be in breach of this

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the best person to answer this you may be better posting in the bailiff forum regarding the bailiff clamping the car

 

but if the council (who are fully responsible for actions of there bailiff) have instructed there bailiffs to clamp remove crush or sell a car on mobility they are on a sticky wicket as they would have known that the car was exempt from seizure as would the bailiff I'm 99% sure Ive seen a post by tomtubby saying the warrant of execution from TEC would have mobility as owner of car and your sis as registered keeper

this means that the debtor did not own the car making it exempt from seizure

on another point your sis should have had a notice of seizure/distress from the bailiff firm before they clamped the the car

your council will also have a service level agreement/contract with the bailiff firm and somewhere in there there may be something about clamping vehicles with blue badge

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get a complaint off to the CEO, outlining the fact that they told you to park where you parked in the first place then to appeal the PCN.

Sounds like the council know they are in the wrong here and seem to be softly black mailing you to not complain.

 

If you get no further forward with the CEO then the next move would be the LGO, I would also have a word with your local MP and see if they are prepared to get involved.

 

Have you thought about going to the papers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CEO (Chief Executive Officer?) of the council? I didnt realise that council's had CEO's.

 

Yes, we are in contact with the LGO and they are currently processing our matter.

 

I have thought about going to the papers however due to other unconnected matters my sister wishes to keep her identity and address private.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chief Executive for Islington Council is Lesley Seary.

For further information, contact:

Chief Executive's Office

Room G07

Town Hall

Upper Street

N1 2UD

Tel: 020 7527 3136

Fax:020 7527 3063

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have known from day 1 that a car obtained through the Motability Scheme is not the property of the person who looks after it as it is subject to a finance agreement. The legal owner being Motabilty. A simple DVLA check would have revealed this at the outset. If the OP has incurred any costs since the vehicle was clamped they should claim them back in full from the Council in my view.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm, it think this is what the council were saying that they dont wont to incur any charges. In any case the clamp has been removed - although the council have said that they did not know by whom.

 

I have asked for the council to provide me the responses to my sisters letters and which they said they will provide. I have to wait to see what their response is before i know which direction to move but i think i will contact the EHRC as this matter seems to have arisen out of the council not providing disabled parking for my sister.

 

Can you believed they actually told her that she should park on a road 150 metres away and change the clock on the car every 3 hours every day for 3 months, when my sister said she couldnt leave her disabled daughter at home on her own they replied "carry her with you!"

 

Can you believe the cheek!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view the Council are being obstructive and think it is about time they were bypassed so it can be dealt with at a higher level. I would start with a Formal Complaint to the Council CEO and make sure he/she is aware that you have copied all of the following in - MP, Leader of the Council and his opposite number, local Councillors. They are showing an utter disregard for your sister & her daughter, maybe an article in the press may focus their minds.

 

PT

Edited by ploddertom

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nutshell you have grounds to sue the Council and seek compensation....they know they will get a roasting over this and therefore it is going to be a case of " clamp gone...parking space found..bailiffs withdrawn...parking tickets scrapped..if you don't make a claim against us"!!!!!

 

Persomally I would look for a fixed fee interview with a good solicitor!!!!!!

 

WD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Formal complaint to the CEO, and head of Highways, AND Parking copied to elected leader, councillor and your MP, the complaint also is to be a LETTER BEFORE ACTION, as they are trying to wipe out any liability, most likely they will keep on ticketing the car.

 

The LBA will set out how you have been dealt with, and the fact that as they were aware of the parking issue, and carried on ticketting regardless, combined with the ACTUAL CLAMPING, hope you took a picture of the clamp in situ, IS Prima Facie evidence of Direct Disabiklity Discrimination contrary to the Equalities Act 2010, and unless they resolve thias wipe out the tickets And provide a parking bay, you will be going ahead with the case after 14 days, If you have paid any charges to remove the clamp it is evidence of their wrongdoing, so NO you don't agree not to claim back any charges. they are up the creek and they know it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you believed they actually told her that she should park on a road 150 metres away and change the clock on the car every 3 hours every day for 3 months, when my sister said she couldnt leave her disabled daughter at home on her own they replied "carry her with you!"

 

Oh thats very naughty, did you get the name of the person she spoke to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this were me, I would be making the biggest fuss I could. Almost certainly you need to get your MP and the press involved. This is disgraceful.

 

Did you contact Motability as well ?

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...