Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However there reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
    • Hi, From everything I've read about how EVRi handle mediation, and given I intend not to budge on my position, I am preparing for court. Having read the the full WS and court bundl @occysrazor kindly supplied, I am wondering what value adding the Jamie Bradbury v UPS Limited has?  Obviously this case was lost by the claimant and the ruling clearly goes against the Farooq case and more recently @occysrazor's.  Is the case to include it simply to showcase my argument as being well rounded? Interested in your opinions. Many thanks, Sam 
  • 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

Letting Agent withdrawing cost unfairly

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4273 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

Hi there


I resonantly agreed to use a letting agent to manage my property. I received an email from the agent 4 days later after new tenants moved in that a contractor has already completed maintenance in respect of cleaning for removal of rubble and received an invoice of £220 which will be deducted from the next rental collection. When I instructed the agent to handle the rental of the above property I was not given any details or phone call of other charges.


As per the ingoing inspection & photographs...the property was left in a terrible condition by the outgoing tenants (unfortunately I didn't use a letting agent with previous tenants and let down, but that's a separate issue)


The new tenants could not take occupation of the property prior to cleaning & rubble removal. Therefore the office proceeded with the cleaning & rubble removal as a matter of urgency, in order for the new tenant to take occupation. The agent states there was no alternative but to have the property professionally cleaned & for the rubble to be removed. (I agree, it need to be cleaned but the agent should have notified me by email/phone as per the agreement to give my consent)


The agent states that under the circumstances they were acting on the landlords best interest & to accommodate the waiting tenant had to act quickly. Therefore this is an exception but the contract does not allow for any exceptions.


I believe the agent is liable for the cost, however there are two clause stating


1) Attend to do repairs and general maintenance of the premises as authorised by the landlord from time to time


2) The Landlord authorises agent to incur reasonable expenses relating to the general upkeep of the PREMISES for which the LANDLORD may be liable in terms of the LEASE AGREEMENT, and to set such expenses off against monies collected by agent on behalf of the LANDLORD from time to time. It is expressly agreed that the reasonable maintenance expenses referred to above shall be limited to £100.00 (plus VAT) per occurrence. If any repairs are reasonably expected to exceed this amount, payment of such expense must be authorised by the LANDLORD.


My concern is after indicating these two clause to the agent they now are treating this agreement unfairly. The agent confirmed that they will not hold the landlord liable for the entire cleaning & rubble removal invoice, £220.00...but only for £100.00 as per clause of the authorization.


I am concerned about this as the agent treated this issue unfairly; the agent did not follow protocols and have breach the contract. By all these acts, what will the future hold for their next defence when dealing with any issues in a prompt and professional manner if they already acted dishonest and caused me severe problems?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the rubble clearing and cleaning significantly overpriced? Would you have cleared and cleaned it yourself had you been advised? If the answer to both is no then the letting agent has made amends and saved you £100 in the process. Accept their apologies and tell them to make sure they don't overstep the contractual boundaries in future.


I would also count yourself lucky that they didn't ask the cleaning company to issue two invoices; one for the cleaning and one for the rubble removal. That way you could have been legally obliged to pay the whole amount.


Finally, I wouldn't question the honesty of the letting agent on the basis of this scenario alone. Agreements of this nature will often vary the reasonable expenses threshold depending on the rent, so it's more likely to be an honest mistake on the part of the agent (a mistake they have paid for!) rather than a deception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative would have been to organise the cleaning and rubble removal (rubble?!) at your own expense, before you turned over responsibility to the agent and agreed for them to commence a new tenancy. Or you could easily have lost income while the agent arranged cleaning on a slower timescale, to the letter of the contract. If your agent has found you a decent and reliable long-term tenant by getting them in sooner rather than later, they will actually save you money in the long run, especially as your experience of direct letting has clearly not been a good one.


You admit that you wouldn't expect tenants to move in before this had happened, so I'm not sure there's much to worry about here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The compensation for a breach of contract is the amount of money you have lost.


In this case, had they not breached the contract you may have lost the tenants, and you would still have had to pay for the work.


Therefore it may be reasonable to say you have lost nothing due to the breach of contract, and therefore have nothing to sue for.


Make it clear to the agent what you expect from them and hopefully they will keep you in the loop in future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Agent's prompt action in removing rubble and cleaning property prob saved a claim from prosp Ts for breach of Contract (property not avail on due date) conpensation for temp alt accom could have cost LL £50 p day.

Whilst monitoring agents charges is good, in this instance they deserve a letter of thanks IMO (small skip prob cost £100+ to hire)

"... if they already acted dishonest and caused me severe problems?"


Were you going to refuse their estimate, sort it yourself or just leave it? thus causing angry new Ts.

Your severe problems? £220 is prob only 2 wks rent and poss recoverable from prev Ts deposit.


How long have you been renting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...