Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Interesting they're not mentioning Barclaycard. Just Barclays Bank UK PLC. This may have been an Egg card ...but I simply don't know.
    • Just to be clear, the (£75) compliance stage fee is triggered the moment the instruction to undertake the Schedule 12 procedure is received by the enforcement agent/company - not on sending the Notice of Enforcement. That said, if you don't pay it, it can only be recovered using the Schedule 12 procedure if the Notice has been correctly 'given'.  To do that it must be given to the place, or one of the places where you usually live or carry on a trade or business.  Which, as I see it, has not been achieved.  The (£235) enforcement stage fee applied by attending an address where you don't live or carry on a trade or business is not enforceable and cannot be recovered using the Schedule 12 procedure. If they find your current address, they would have to re-issue a Notice of Enforcement to you at that address before being able to undertake the Schedule 12 procedure. In your place I would pay the debt plus the £75.00 direct to the council, leaving them to pay the £75 to the enforcement agent/agency.  While not (at this stage) enforceable, the £75 is due under the liability order (debt + costs). If you pay the debt direct without paying the £75, the distribution of any payment received, while the liability order is still with the enforcement agent/agency, requires the £75 to be paid first - leaving £75 of debt! Hope this helps  
    • "Customer Appeasement" apparently So they refunded £10.4m without actually receiving the returned goods. Sounds a very thorough fool proof returns system they have there
    • Time for the papers as per @FTMDave's suggestion then.  
  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3927 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

I live in a leasehold flat, purchased in 2003, it is one in a block of eight.

 

The lease is very simple, I pay £50 per annum ground rent to the freeholder, and he has to arrange buildings insurance, divide the premium by 8, and collect the payment, the contents insurance is my responsibility.

 

Eight years ago, the freehold was purchased by a different landlord, there is another block of four, further along the street, and he bought those, too, he owns one flat, in each block, which he rents out.

 

He is now refusing to insure the properties, [which I would think is a breach of the lease], but my question is, can I, and the remainder of the residents, insure our properties?

 

Enquiries at two insurance agencies, reveal that they have conflicting views and are in utter confusion - what is the definitive answer, please?

 

Sam

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

I'll move this to the lettings/freehold forum and see if the guys know the answer. At this stage, I think it's more of a property question than a legal one and the thread can be moved later if need be.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks HB.

 

raydetinu, No, no other charges are in the lease, that's why he's refusing to arrange the insurance.

 

His idea of running the show is to get the insurance, divide by ten, [instead of 12, so that we would have to pay his portion], then stick 20% on top, as a self invented "admin fee", and tells us that we aren't entitled to a copy of the insurance.

 

That's why he's never had any money from us since he bought the leases, we keep asking for it to be done in a business like manner, but this isn't his way, it seems!

 

Sam

Edited by honeybee13
Potentially pejorative word removed.

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the buildings managed then, maintenance, repairs etc.?

If there is nothing in the lease about insurance then, surely you need to come to some arrangement, otherwise the whole lot could go up in flames and you would both lose out.

One for andydd, I think! try a pm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance arrangements are in the lease, see para 2 in post# 1

 

Repairs are the agents responsibility, he is the agents for his two sons, who are the owners, and the total is to be split 8 ways, [4 in the case of the other block]

 

When the roof needed complete replacement about seven years ago, he wouldn't cooperate, saying to us that the roofs of "his" properties didn't leak!

 

Some of us had water ingress each time it rained - after 18 months, we made out own arrangements, when "our" contractors started work, he then said that his two sons owned a roofing firm, and that they had just ordered the materials, [for the "non leaking" roofs?], and that we should pay him, or he would take us to "The Country Court" - that's not a spelling error, by the way.

 

As he wouldn't pay his whack, we paid it, [£3000].

 

I have a letter from him stating that he considered the matter of the roof replacement, to be "racialist"!

 

He was arrested in May, for harrasment of another owner, and was given a "Criminal Caution", so he's skating on thin ice, he had one criminal conviction before his family bought the leases, and I understand a few CCJ are against his name, although that is only what I've been told .

 

Can anybody tell me if we can arrange our own insurance, please?

 

Sam

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO arranging buildings Ins for ind flats in a block not owned by Ts will be v difficult.

 

Ask your contents insurer/underwriter if they can suggest a way.

 

By racist does LL infer that he is not IC1 (white European) and the Ts are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Mariner, we obviously need investigate further, and yes, the LL, and his family are from the Country that was home to "Bin Liner".

 

All of the owner/residents are white/British.

 

Pug

Edited by sameagle
Added last sentence

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Yes you do have the right to insure your own Flat. You'll find this in with the Unfair Consumer Contract Regs (1990). I'd also suggest Quote 123. I use them myself & have had no problem as I am not deemed a Tenant. Always remember that point - you are not a Tenant but a Leaseholder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...