Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dont expect instant resolution of 14 years of poopulist party, personal and vipal excess .. but I do believe that starmer will quickly start significant delivery of change - and deliver in the long run   They need to deliver to prevent a massive rebound away from them.   Lets remember - it took the torys a couple of years to trash the country and its reputation although they worked hard on it from day one. I expect no less in timescales, and a lot more in effort and application in Starmers resolution to the tory poop abuses.
    • True, but all the threads we have for Wise concern hospital car park parking (except one) so it would suggest a hospital car park.
    • Don't worry, a week and a half is fine, especially as you've already drafted a WS. However, we need to see everything as dx says in the post above.
    • This preliminary hearing has been allocated 20 minutes so it should be fairly simple. However, judges are always on the look-out to get cases settled and sometimes these things can mushroom unexpectedly, so I would take along all the paperwork in order and prepare too much rather than too little. For example, we have a recent case where someone went to a preliminary hearing but the judge was appalled by the parking company's case and put huge pressure on their solicitor to discontinue - which he did. I have personal experience of trotting along to a preliminary hearing, only for the judge to go ballistic at the other side's solicitor who promptly dropped the whole case against me. I suggest your Mum takes these notes along and refers to them when necessary.   1.  I sent Parking Eye a Subject Access Request on 03/07/2023.  After one calendar month they had not replied. 2.  Their failure caused me a great deal of distress.  I was desperately trying to prepare for a court case and I felt they were hiding information from me. 3.  However, I did not rush to court, I sent a Letter of Claim on 03/08/2023 giving them an extension.  Again they did not reply.  So I started this court case. 4.  Parking Eye insist I have proof of postage for everything I sent - and I do.  5.  Parking Eye eventually satisfied my Subject Access request at the end of August 2023.  I believe they put a false date on their letter to pretend to have satisfied the one-calendar month deadline.  I believe they will have no proof of postage. 6.  In April Parking Eye sent me a letter to try to settle the matter, which offered me nothing.  7.  Later I sent them a letter offering to settle and asking them to offer a serious amount, not nothing, but they did not reply. 8.  I would be willing to settle out of court, but not on the basis that they offer me nothing.  
    • That was the date the email was received from them
  • 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

Started renting cash 2006 LL goes legit with AST 2008 should deposit be TDS?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4486 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

Hi Moved into my flat 2006 paid cash agreement and deposit £1200. Landlord went legitimate 2008 and asked me to sign AST which he also signed and signed £1200 received that day as deposit. Now I have moved out and he refuses to return deposit via cleaning and damages. Should he have put deposit in scheme 2008 or does my tenancy start 2006 even though it had no contract

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

sam does this thread relate to same T as previous threads?

If so, rule is 1 T, 1 thread to avoid confusion/repetition.

 

In isolation, did 2008 written agreement establish a new AST with a 2008 commencement date and fixed term from that date or did it just formalise the 2006 agreement. LL did not go legit in 2008 just because he wanted a signed written agreement. A verbal 2006 agreement is binding until superceded. Since you moved out prior to 6 Apr 2012, your only option is to seek repayment of deposit via Court action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did previously list a post regarding this tenancy but couldn't change the title to be more generic than the original post. I have put together my case from all links here and everything I can find but this issue is quite important. I didnt see the rule 1T 1 thread.

 

The contract was a new AST starting 2008 for 12 months no mention of any previous tenancy in any way and deposit stated as received 2008 on same contract but was paid 2006.

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he should have put the deposit in a scheme, however now that you have moved out.. there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.

You cannot prosecute him for failing to protect it, and as you have moved out, you cannot claim the 3X deposit fine.

I am not sure where you intended to go with this, however financial reward is not an option I am afraid.

I am not a solicitor :!::!:

 

Most of my knowledge came from this site :-D:-D

 

If I have been helpful in any way at all .............. Please click my star..... :-(:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he should have put the deposit in a scheme, however now that you have moved out.. there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it.

You cannot prosecute him for failing to protect it, and as you have moved out, you cannot claim the 3X deposit fine.

I am not sure where you intended to go with this, however financial reward is not an option I am afraid.

 

...seems odd the scheme should really be known to the LL and his responsibility and not necessarily the tenant. It should be fair that the tenant only becomes aware of the scheme during debate over exit costs following advice from agents such as citizens advice. On exiting the property features of the scheme apply to disputes on moving out so why should LL failure to register be then void on tenant exit ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...