Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm wondering whether you would be interested in spending a small amount of money bringing a legal action against this company in order to test the water – a sort of Pathfinder. We want to minimise your losses in the most likely event that you would not be able to enforce the judgement that we would want to maximise the risk and liability for them. It is clear that you are the owner of the vehicle and it is clear that they are depriving you of the use of it and by withholding it from you they are treating it as if they were the owners. There is a tort called "Conversion" which is where you do somebody wrong by treating their goods as your own. It is pretty well the civil equivalent of the crime of theft. "Conversion" refers to the act of converting your ownership into their ownership. It seems to me that that is what is happening here. You could bring a small claim in the County Court for conversion. Damages for conversion are awarded effectively for the insult of the fact that your ownership has been interfered with. This means that the damages don't necessarily have to reflect your actual losses and when one makes the claim in conversion, one generally identifies an upper limit for damages and asked the court to exercise its discretion in making its award. You could bring an action in conversion for anything from, say maximum damages £50 – to thousands of pounds if you wanted. Bringing an action for a large sum would incur greater costs. I don't see any point because as I said, the chances of enforcement are very slim. However, it might be interesting to sue for conversion damages not exceeding £650 in the discretion of the court. If you are awarded £600 or more then you could instruct High Court enforcement officers to enforce the judgement. These people have enormous power and they don't stand for any nonsense. Also the cost of enforcement by High Court enforcement officers is expensive but this would be borne by the defendant. Although this wouldn't provide any instant solutions for you, it would be interesting to see what the response of the seller might be – if anything. It might even prompt them to refund your money – although don't bank on it. The cost of bringing an action for conversion for damages not exceeding £650 would be £70 to begin the action and then a hearing fee of £80. The cost of attempting to enforce the judgement would be £66. As I said, you may consider that this would be throwing good money after bad but it might produce some interesting results. If they defended the claim then you are probably be risking all of this money – about £210. If they didn't defend the claim then you wouldn't pay the hearing fee – although the rest of the cost would have to be incurred. Please think about this. Frankly as far as I can see it is the only way you might be to make some kind of progress.
    • When she died us 3 wives of her sons were offered to choose a piece from her vast collection.  I chose this piece. When I told my husband I wanted out, I asked if I could keep the piece and he said no.  He still has a key to my house and I did say he could come whilst I am out to collect his things but I may just rethink that! 
    • I think we need to see the RAC report We need to see the advertising which was used to sell the car We need to see the exchange which you have already had with the dealer.   We will also need to see this invoice or other evidence that people are relying on to suggest that it is a trade sale. Please can you post these documents up in PDF format - single file multipage. The right way round and in the correct order   Also, it is likely that you will have to litigate on this. Are you prepared to do so? Are you happy to do it on your own with our assistance?
    • Read carefully as it is a badly formatted document.  It says weekly total for whole year and that from April 2021 you will be paying £111.60 per week in total.   Seems quite reasonable to me £101.23 rent per week and £10.37 services charges per week.   For this type of Housing they have agreement with Government that the increase in rent including services charges will be below a certain percentage.     
    • Is there a misunderstanding here?   I had gathered that the dealer had said that they were selling on behalf of someone else - a private owner - and therefore the sale was not a trade sale and therefore not subject to the 2015 Act.   But my site team colleague is suggesting that this not be correct and that in fact the dealer is saying that they sold the car to you and that you were buying it as a trader and therefore it was a "trade sale" and therefore not subject to the 2015 Act.   In fact going back over the posts so far I see that both scenarios may have been suggested. The RAC seems to be saying that the sale was a trade sale - within the trade.  The dealer seems to be saying that they were selling on behalf of someone else - I am presuming a private owner on commission. I suppose that we had better clear this up - although if no indication of any of this was given at the time of sale that it is a standard consumer contract and subject to the 2015 Act.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2637 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

We moved into a 3 bed semi detached property may 2013, from the offset weve had allsorts of problems, bei it curtain poles falling out of the ceiling to rainwater coming in and flooding the kitchen. Time frames are ridiculous, getting things repaired ie. in September 2013 we complained the chinney was looking dangerous due to a small tree growing out of the back - a contractor quoted the landlord and the neighbour to re-render the shared chimney but the neighbour refused to pay, as its our side of the chimney that is damaged. Still the chimney hasn't been done, still I feel its going to fall down and possibly injure us should we be sitting in the garden.

This week took the biscuit, our oven stopped working, the guy came out to look at it after two and a half weeks of faffing (one guy came quoted and didn't hear from them again week 1, then the handy man came out then a week later the REAL guy came. He was alarmed, the earth had been wired up wrongly, a cable had burnt out laving a fire mark, and the earth had been wired up to the negative - We have old type fuses, which the man said was the reason for it not tripping - they were forcing the current through, for it to work. He was baffled it worked at all.

There are no smoke alarms at the property, we bought in our own to be safe. The whole place is just cheap fixtures and fittings and bad workmanship, being even dangerous, who knows what other dangers lurk.

Should we not have had an electrical safety check before we entered the property? If so, it clearly wasn't adhered to.



Being without a cooker for almost 3 weeks, with 3 kids, We've had enough!



My point now is - what options do we have? We have signed a 12 month contract, ending in November, but wed really like to get out asap as we're sick of the constant repairs, bodges and dangers we unveil.

We've looked through the contract and there's little we seem to be able to get out on, what are the chances of reducing our rent period?



Can we claim damaged as per our contract, if so, what?



It seems if we breech the contract we're out on our ears with fines, yet he can provide us with a crap service and theres nothing we can do to break the contract because of them.



Please help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add they quote schedule 2 housing act 1988, and specifically grounds 12 which states 'Any obligation of the tenancy (other than one related to the payment of rent) has been broken or not performed'

We've just spotted in our contract, under interuptions to the tenancy "If the premises are not made havbitable within 1 month, either party may terminate this agreement by giving immediate written notice to the other party.



Kitchen still floods when it rains, still not been sorted

Chimney still dangerous

Water coming in through my sons room from the exterior leaking inside the house - 4 weeks on this one.



How strong is this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 11 of the Landlord and tenant act 1985 states:

(1B)Nothing in subsection (1A) shall be construed as requiring the lessor to carry out any works or repairs unless the disrepair (or failure to maintain in working order) is such as to affect the lessee’s enjoyment of the dwelling-house or of any common parts, as defined in section 60(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act M11987, which the lessee, as such, is entitled to use.]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has the electrical equipment been made safe now?

You can report this to the council if it has not; also if the chimney is unsafe this can reported also as a dangerous structure. The council engineer will inspect and force the LL to take action if necessary.

shelter do a guide for getting repairs done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...