Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
-
-
thanks ae - yes I understand the claims are between me and the lender. But with regards to the order for sale the judge specifically said it is the receiver who is appointed to sell - and he hasn't/ and isn't - which is why I am asking if I can apply to the court v the receiver for an order for sale right now? The receiver is not part of the current proceedings heading to trial. But he is responsible for selling the property - and he has consistently rejected offers over >5y. This is specifically why I would like to understand if I can apply to the court to enforce the sale by the receiver??? As above - The judge has said otherwise the order for sale v the lender has to be dealt with via the trial. Which they have deliberately delayed via the adjournment. Valuation is an issue. The lender chose the valuer. I paid but his report basically belongs to and is referred to by the lender. He did a prof valuation without doing a site visit. He had done a site visit 5 months earlier for different potential lender. The 1st valuation he erroneously wrote in his report as fh. He just did a re-write 5m later - but wrote in his report that the value was the same for lh. I had a great offer on the table from a niche buyer which would have cleared the loan and given me a lot of £s. But the lender rushed through the repo and the buyer got spooked and ran. The lender then slashed the price by 30%+ from their valuation (fire sale price?). As you suggest - they fully expected potential buyers to quickly grab the property at such a discount. But it turned out they couldn't. The market had dropped anyway. Then covid hit. Every potential buyer was questioning the valuation (which clearly was wrong but the lender had accepted). The lender and receivers actions have eroded the equity. This wouldn't make sense to any normal lender. 99.9% would have just sold to the 1st buyer willing to transact. The lender/ receiver had such a willing buyer on day 1 of marketing. But they spent 15months trying not to sell to them. As I said, disclosure shows the ceo wanted (wants?) to keep it for himself - so common sense didn't (doesn't) prevail. The lender has made a £ Claim v me. I am disputing it because I maintain it is their actions that has caused the erosion of equity/ a debt to accrue. The lender's problem now is that they have spent so much money and added so much interest over 5y that they cannot sell the property for what they need/ want. They are trying to blame me for this. But it is their fault; not mine - because I am not in possession or in charge of selling it. As I also said above - if there is some legal reason why I cannot make an application to the court for an order for the receiver to sell - then can I ask the other entity which has a charging order and threatened to do so ??? I will contact this other entity only if I can't make an app to sell v the receiver -
-
We registered our child with a nursery last year for a June 2024 start date. This was before how the new 15 hours free childcare was going to work. At the time my wife paid a £50 deposit. A few weeks ago they sent out an email about how the new funding was going to work. The nurseries can use it as they wish and they said if the child wants to come for one full day we still have to pay £50 and we can't use all the hours for one day. They also drastically increased their day rate. As a result of this we were looking elsewhere and have found a much cheaper nursery so we are changing. The original nursery now said you only get the deposit back if she starts because it comes out of the first month of fees. I don't think we filled any any form or anything so there were no terms and conditions. Are we entitled to get the deposit back or is it our fault for not asking what the terms were when we paid.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.- 1 reply
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 3702 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 3702 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