Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3351 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 am in the onerous position of having to deal with SIMARC who are the agents for my freeholder.

 

I missed the payment of ground rent in January of £60:00, I have now received a demand for £120:00 which I believe is unreasonable.

 

The only method of payment is via the SIMARC web site using credit or debit cards, neither of which I have access to at the moment.

 

I have emailed SIMARC explaining the situation, but I cannot obtain a reply or any form of communication.

 

They have also threatened further costs, if I do not pay the full amount within 14 days.

 

Is there any further steps I could take?

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

send a cheque to their office. If it is not part of your lease that a penalty or costs can be applied for late payment then the agents cant charge you. they work for the landlord, not themselves.

 

Thanks, I am out of UK at the moment. I can only use electronic bank transfer.

 

Simarc are well known for this type of action. Lots of info on the web about them. They act for and own the actual landlord company.

 

So far have had no response from them.

 

I feel they will be awkward so as to increase any amount owing.

 

They usually threaten legal action, then ask for huge legal fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive just answered almost the same issue so ill cut n poaste my last reply...

 

 

 

 

Ground Rent is only payable if you receive a valid demand as per S166 of CALRA 2002 > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/15/section/166 if you dont receive it then the ground rent is not due and neither is any associated late payment charge.

 

However if this case went to court or FTT (http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/...ntial-property) then it can be difficult to prove you didnt receive the demand, you may say you didnt get it, they may say they sent it, it may depend on did they send by recorded post, did other neighbours receive it ?

 

Secondly find your lease and read it, does it allow for late payment charges (many do not), also to be payable the freeholder/managing agent has to send you the Summary of Rights - Administration Charges > (many freeholders/managing agents forget this !) > http://www.lease-advice.org/publicat...asp?item=14#23

 

Even IF he has complied with all of the above, you as a leaseholder can apply to the FTT to determine the 'reasonableness' of such amounts (Note: They dont have juridstiction over ground rent BUT do have juridstiction over admin charges connected to ground rent). In my case, the FTT concluded that £25 would be a reasonable amount.

 

The LEASE site is very useful. > http://www.lease-advice.org/

 

Also have a look at S47 here > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31 again this and S48 often catch landlord/freeholders out, Im not sure but I would of thought that any demands should show the adress of the landlord/freeholder and not just the management company.

 

Do you know who your Freeholder is ?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@andydd Thank you for your informative reply.

 

I do know who my freeholder is, CAVERNLODGE they have the same directors as the agents SIMARC.

 

They are well known for intransigent behaviour.

 

As I mentioned previous, I am out of the UK at present, they have not responded to any of my emails to them.

 

They have sent a valid demand, the latest on 1 March threatening me with further costs.

 

"If we do not receive payment in full within 14 days of the date of this letter, we will obtain

details of the leasehold title from Land Registry. This will list other interested parties to the

lease, such as mortgage lenders. We may need to contact such parties to inform them of the

breach in their security. We may also pass this file for further action to our solicitors. This

will involve significant further costs being incurred for which you will be liable."

 

If you search CAG you will find multiple references to SIMARC.

 

I cannot pay any amount until I return to the UK later this month, a lot of problems for a mere £60:00

Edited by Brunel
Added extra info.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep..Ive heard of Simarc, my freeholder uses same trick in that management company is effectively the same company in all but name, but it appears nothing legally wrong with this, in my case, the LVT described it as a 'shell' company.

 

So in your case, look at the lease, does it allow admin/late payment charges ?, it may not.

 

Even if it does, many if not most fh/ma's simply forget to send the Summary of Right - Administration Charges attached to the demand for the extra charge, did you get one, if not then only the ground rent is payable.

 

Even then, you can apply to the FTT (previously LVT) to argue its not reasonable, I woulkd of thought £25 is a reasonable amount for a simple letter, however it may not be worth the hassle to save £35 !, but you could 'collect' a list of disputes and then make an application for lots of charges/amounts you think excessive or unfair upto 12 years in the past (for service charges) and 6 years for ground rent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant believe they would contact the mortgage provider for such a small amount, in fact its a bit of a bluff.

 

In reality a mortgage company should only be concerned if the property is at risk, most leases have a S146 forfeiture clause but it only applies to amounts owing over £350 or 3 years and the amount must be deemed owing and the leaseholder in breach by a court/ftt, this is a very long process and rarely succesful, but keep your eye open....many mortgage companies are very dumb and some pay up sums when freeholders contact them in ignorance of the actual law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reference to mortgage provider is a complete nonsense, as there is not one.

 

It is now all in limbo, until they make the effort to contact me.

 

I have a feeling that they never will, hoping that they can increase any extra charges.

 

Regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea.

 

Many FH/MA's will try on all sorts of extra charges, when you look into it, the actual profit FH/MA can legally obtain is tiny, normally only the ground rent and a management fee, these are often very low, in my case £30 and £120, so my FH (and associated MA) can only make a profit of £150 per year, not much, this is why so many are involved in various dubioius schemes to make extra profits, the most common being extra charges for late payment (some have been accussed of deliberatly allowing leaseholder to run up GR arrears), various commissions/claims fees connecting to insurance - bumping up insurance premiums to sky high levels, high fees for consents to let, high management fees on building works = 15-25%, etc.

 

Have you looked at your lease re: administration/late payment fees ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have checked my lease, no mention at all Re. admin/ late fees.

 

Simarc just state: Our processing and other administration costs incurred to date have been added to your

account as per the attached schedule.

 

I did try to pay the normal G.R. this was rejected.

 

They will not accept anything less than than double the normal G.R.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..extra charges are only payable as per the lease, that is your contract between you and the FH/MA, they cant just add on extra charges when they feel like it.

 

Have you got the 'attached schedule' ?, I assume that just lists various charges.

 

If the lease makes no mention of charges and if youve tried to pay the GR but its been returned then you have done everything correct.

 

As mentioned above, the FTT is the tribunal to judicate on admin charges relating to GR (but not GR itself).

 

The proper course of action is to write to them asking them to point out the provision in the lease allowing them to charge admin charges, if no response write again pointing to the RICS Code that says they should correspond with you. (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?43583-Service-Charge-Residential-Management-Code-of-Practice).

 

If no satisfactory response send a NBA (Notice Before Action) and then if no luck put in an application to the FTT, claiming that admin charges are not payable, that youve tried to pay GR and ask for any costs/fees be reimbursed and ask for costs as per Paragraph 13 of FTT Rules (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/general/si-1169-l8-.pdf) due to the FH acting unreasonably.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha..Muppets.

 

It wouldnt matter anyway, they can send whatever they like, its the lease that counts.

 

Did the demanmd for the extra charges also come with Admin Charges - Summary of Rights (worded EXACTLY as here > http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=89), if not another reason not to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..after youve done the steps in #14 there are different schools of thought about applying to the FTT, you could just wait for them to chase you for the money and let them start legal action, but this can get complicated and some FH are too quick to approach your lender who sometimes pays up without even refering to you.........the recommended course is for you to be pre-emptive and apply to the FTT first but this can be a pain and youve have to pay fees upfront, although hopefully you can retrieve them.

 

Does the lease allow the FH to recoup legal costs ?, many do, but some dont (with the exception of S146 costs).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had this reply from Simarc.

 

Dear Sir

 

Thank you for your email dated 1st April 2014 regarding the above mentioned property.

 

Firstly, please be advised that your ground rent is £60.00 per annum payable yearly in advance on 18th January each year and this is stated clearly in your Lease.

 

Please note our fees are determined by the time spent and work undertaken on each separate file. We are not obliged to go into any further details with regards to arrears file preparation as this is work undertaken by Simarc on behalf of the Freeholders.

 

 

Furthermore, as the leaseholder of the above property it is your responsibility to ensure that ground rent is paid on the due date or before with accordance to the lease. As you are no doubt aware you have failed to comply with the terms of your lease and as a result the Freeholders, have incurred charges due to late payment and a breach of lease.

 

 

 

You may wish to consider setting up a direct debit for future payments to ensure this problem does not arise again.

 

We hope this clarifies the matters and look forward to receiving your remittance in the sum of £120.00 within 10 working days.

 

If you are in any doubt whatsoever regarding this matter we suggest you seek independent legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What rubbish.

 

Did you ask under what provision of the lease they are payable ?

 

So lets go through it.

 

Yes, they are correct GR is payable in accordance with the lease (although S166 CALRA 2002 overides this where applicable).

 

As to how the sum is calculated, they would have to explain to an FTT how a fee is calculated so saying 'we are not obliged' isnt a fair answer.

 

Now it may technically be true that a breach has occurred (but of course never admit this), and possible scenarios are:-

 

1. They try and forfeit the lease (as per S146 of LTA 1926), BUT you cant do this for under £350 plus it is almost impossible for it to succeed these days.

 

2. Sue for damages, they claim youve breached, so they could in theory claim for damages to cover any loss BUT they havnt followed this route. (Plus like parking charges you could argue that £60 is not an actual loss)

 

3. Charge a set fee, this is the route they have chosen and is quite common IF the lease allows it, many modern leses will say that failure to pay will incur a charge (similar to banks/cards) or that any legal/other costs are recoverable.

 

So double check the lease, as you want to be sure they cant charge you, feel free to scan and post it or email it to me.

 

As mentioned in #16, your secret weapon is that despite all the above even if payable, you have right to withold as no Summary of Rights was included.

 

Here is great thread by the knowledable LeaseholdAnswers > http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?55587-Late-payment-charges-SC-and-GR

 

Also to add, a wise move maybe to pay the full amount and then straight away start a county court claim to claim it back, small track CC claims are cheaper easier and faster than starting a claim at FTT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Often FH ignore correspondence when it suits them and there is not much you can do about it other than keep reminding them of the RICS Code.

 

If you want to be a pain you can use S21 of LTA 1985 to request summary of service charges and even S22 to visit them and inspect paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see this is going to be a hard battle, but I have no intention of giving in to their tactics.

 

P.S. We are self managed, the F.H. only collects G.R.

Edited by Brunel
Added PS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been in endless battles for about 10 years, after the FH ripped me off I wised up, been refunded £1000 overpaid ground rent, had 6 years of their service charges (about £5000) struck out, and theyve been forced to refund me about £2000.. all good fun :)

 

If I were you I'd pay up (to avoid any risks) and then start court claim to get it back (plus interest, costs, etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...