Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
  • 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

Eviction from grazing - is this legal??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4381 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

Hiya, this is my first post so please be gentle with me!!

 

Three months ago we were looking for a field on which to graze our horse and some goats. we say an advert locally for "grazing suitable for horses and other livestock" so we viewed it, liked it and agreed the rental figure, rent due end of each month, so as we were half way through the month, we paid the remaining two weeks of that month there and then at the gate. we were told that a contract and receipt book etc would follow.

 

Since then, we have paid the rent - cash - direct to the landlord, still had no sign of rent book or recieipts or contract. Within the first two weeks we moved the horse onto the land and a pair of goats, and made repairs to a dilapidated steel barn ourselves (out of our own pockets) as the landlord told us that the fencing, buildings (of which there is a barn, couple of sheds and a poly tunnel) are on a "repairing lease" i.e our responsibility.

 

We moved on a dozen or so chickens (including a cockerel) to help "rotovate" some of the land as the top part of the land with a poly tunnel had a run down allotment which we were told we could also use as part of the lease. Have been to pay the rent today - again cash - and got a text message from the landlord stating that due to the fact that we were keeping chickens the lease has been terminated and we have two weeks to move off the field.

 

So OK, several things now running through my mind. Bit scattered so please ask for clarification if needed.

 

1 - Grazing of livestock other than horses - this was approved and therefore does this mean that the lease is in fact an agricultural lease? if so, what notice period should we actually receive?

2 - Al rent is up to date (however last months was two weeks late) so can the LL claim late payments as a reason?

3 - I have nothing in writing - does a verbal contract still stand?

4 - Something in the back of my mind says "allotments Act 1950" which states that any person using land as their own can raise poultry and rabbits under statute law, irrespective of local clauses or conditions" or words to that effect. if this is so, then the reason for terminating the lease is non-valid surely?

5 - if it does qualify as an agricultural lease, surely their must be provisions and paperwork that the LL has to provide under law?

 

Just to recap:

 

1 - LL knew about goats grazing before we paid for the lease

2 - LL came up to view field one month into the lease and saw the chickens and said "how lovely" they were, so knew about those too

3 - With LL permission, using part of the land as allotment, having cleared brambles etc out of the way

4 - Undertaken extensive repairs - i.e re-roofing - steel barn

5 - Undertaken repairs to poly tunnel and planted a considerable lot of fruit and vegetables in the allotment

6 - all rent up to date, none outstanding

7 - we live in Wales if this has any bearing on the answers you may give

 

I am happy to go and speak direct to the LL, but i want to make sure that i know where i stand and don't agree to anything stupid before i speak to them. I could remove the hens if needs be, but i feel that i am at least protected under statute law in keeping them there!

 

Many thanks

 

Anxious Smallholder

Edited by anxious_smallholder
poor spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

You appear to be taking a very legalistic attitude over an arrangement between 2 private individuals.

The property is not for your residential or commercial use, so L&T law does not apply IMO, so straight contract law may be applicable. A verbal agreement may be sufficient, a written one preferable, esp for land only.

Allotment Act does not apply since land not owned or leased to you by Council.

Rent book not required nor can I see an Agricultural lease being created

Original request was for grazing horses; repairs & adding doats/chickens and veg patch effectively means a small holding being established (as indicated by your screen name). Chickens also increase the risk of foxes, poss something the landowner does not want to encourage.

Extensive repairs were your decision, for your benefit, LL did not ask for them hence your cost. Did you ask LLs prior permission before roofing the barn?

Pay by cheque/SO if poss, for bank statement entry or provide your own receipt for personal collection.

You have modified the orig agreement, LL now realises chickens are likely to be perm feature so I believe he can terminate it at end of current paid rent period.

Talk to landowner & negotiate. In certain areas, suitable grazing for horses is hard to find and expensive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank-you for your prompt reply, can i point out a couple of issues:-

 

the original agreement for the land was to provide for horses AND two goats (one of which is in kidd). This therefore indicates that the land was for "agricultural use" as one of the pre-requisites to establish nature is the breeding and raising of animals. During negotiations sheep were also mentioned and permissible by the LL. There is a large poultry shed already on the property, supplied with water that the LL had use of, and had partially converted to provide a kitchen and a casual sleeping area for "wild camping" by his family. In total, the lease is not for land only, but includes poly tunnel, greenhouse, barn, stables, poultry shed and assorted lean-to's and storage areas. The property is divided up into several lots, all ring fenced and provides several grazing areas and an allotment area kept apart from the grazing.

 

With regards to the barn roof, it was notified to the LL before acceptance of the land and the LL stated that the roof needed to be put back on, something either they would arrange, or i could do as part of the repairing lease. Therefore, informing them i would do it, i feel justified in stating that the landlord was fully aware of my requirement to repair the roof.

 

Chickens were indeed a later addition, however, LL in full knowledge of them and not initially concerned. I feel that the use of chickens is a lever with with to start removing us from the land. As i understand it, allowing us entry to the land

 

No Farm Business Tenancy has been implemented therefore as we were invited by the LL to have use over the poly tunnel, greenhouses etc to raise plants, practice horticulture and grow seedlings, as the LL was aware of the livestock from the outset, am i right to feel an agricultural lease should have been formed??

Link to post
Share on other sites

No its just an agreement between you, i would say that the |LL is a little unhappy about the amount of things happening which seems to have veered away from grazing, at the end of the day its his land if he dosnt want you there you will have to look for somewhere else.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regretfully, I have to agree with the two other posters.

You do seem to have changed the origenal agreement somewhat and I agree with assisted blonde that the landowner is having second feelings about this. If you can, talk face to face with the LL and try and see if you can get him to reconsider.

At the end of the day, would you want to leave your horses somewhere they were not wanted.

 

Lex

Please help us to help you. Download the CAG tool bar for free

HERE and use the search option for all your searches. CAG earns a few pennies every time !!!

 

Please don't rush, take time to read these:-

 

 

&

 

 

This is always worth referring to

 

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by me are personal, are not endorsed by the Consumer Action Group or the Bank Action Group. Should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...