Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sunak tried to stop the public seeing this report. Rishi Sunak ordered to publish secret analysis showing Universal Credit cut impact - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK As Chancellor, Rishi Sunak ignored pleas from campaigners including footballer Marcus Rashford by scrapping the £20-per-week Universal Credit...  
    • A full-scale strike at the firm could have an impact on the global supply chains of electronics.View the full article
    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
  • 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

Management company asking for more and more money


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3670 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

Hi Caggers,

I have a query on my friend's behalf.

He pays service charges related to communal areas around his freehold house to a management company.

Recently they have increased the charges by almost 50% without explanation

and asked for £500 arrears because they made a mistake not charging an administration fee for the past 6 years.

At this point my friend requested evidence of expenditures.

They refused to provide them, claiming that the accounts are private (?!?!)

They also ignored my friend's request to view the building insurance certificate which costs around £70/year.

He showed me a breakdown of the charges they claimed in the past 6 years

and I can tell that there is something fishy,

i.e. there's a charge for garden maintenance

and one for landscaping,

one charge named Management charge and

one Administration fee (the one they forgot to charge and they want £500 now).

It sounds like the same things under a different name to me.

He now wants to inspect all accounts for the past 6 years including all supporting evidence to balance the sheets

but they are refusing to disclose these and said that he's only entitled to the breakdown of charges,

a list with the price next to each line.

What can it be done to obtain the accounts?

I thought of a SAR, but would the DPA apply to this kind of situation?

Second question:

the Administration fee they forgot to charge is a contractual fee stated in the lease,

so he needs to pay that, but he can't atm.

What can he do to pay it in small instalments, possibly £5/week?

 

Thanks for your help and let me know if you need any more info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused (not unusual). You say his house is freehold but he has a lease. What is the lease for?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charges have to be claimed within 18 months so they shouldn't be able to go back 6 years, unless something in the lease says different. http://www.lease-advice.org/documents/Service_Charges.pdf

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused (not unusual). You say his house is freehold but he has a lease. What is the lease for?

Yes, it's odd.

His house is freehold, but there are communal private gardens and parking spaces

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi king

 

They really need to have a good read of the lease for that communal area to fully understand its meaning.

 

In the mean time I would challenge this "Administration FEE" for the past 6yrs.

 

1. As this error was of the Management Companies doing what Act of parliament/Regulation/Legislation states they can claim 6yrs backdated money with copies of these provided to you?

2. A complete breakdown of said money.

3. A full explanation as to why this error was not picked up during those 6yrs by your companies Financial Accountants that would have had to do annual accounts for your company?

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks stu007,

I try to answer your questions in order:

 

1. They said that because the admin fee is listed in the lease (It's there, I checked) then it's a contractual fee and must be paid even if it is their error that it was never invoiced.

I suppose they are appealing to the fact that debts become statute barred after 6 years (correct me if I'm wrong) and being a contractual fee it would surely be awarded in the county court.

2. We asked for detailed breakdown of all the other charges which are not listed in the lease, so non contractual, but they refused to give them because the accounts are private (?!?!)

We wrote to them highlighting that if that was the case they could charge £1000 a month for service charges without anyone being able to challenge them.

No answer to this.

On that note, if we make a SAR under the DPA, would they be obliged to disclose full accounts including receipts and proof of expenditures?

3. Already asked, they said human error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Normally in similar situations, the property is leasehold and you pay service charges, for leasehold properties there are all sorts of laws that apply and even charges can be challanged at a LVT (Leasehold Valuation Tribunal), now called FTT.

 

BUT unfortuntaley these DO NOT apply to freehold properties, so the links above such as #3 don't apply.

 

In your situation, the leasehold rules dont apply, for example, if leasehold you have rights to view invoices, etc. In your situation it is purely contractually..i.e what ever is in the lease, what does it say ?, does it give an amount ?, can it rise ?, or soes it say something like to pay for services ?

 

If the last one then clearly they can only bill you for costs they have actually incurred, if they started legal action, they would have to prove this, you maybe be able to ask to see details as part of the CPR Pre-Action Protocols.

 

I normally deal with leasehold issues and there are many protections in law, alas freehold properties that include a management fee can be tricky as nearly all of the protection is stripped away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys,

One thing is not clear to me:

If we make a sar to see the detailed accounts under dpa, do they have to comply?

How can they charge what they want without proving that they've actually spent the money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does your lease say ?. That is your contract and is the first place to start, can you post it up or the relevant parts with perosnal info redacted.

 

Thanks.

 

I dont know if SAR applies, hopefully someone esle can answer, IF it were leasehold, there are clear provisions under Landlord Tenant Act S21 to view accounts and then further under S22 to actually visit their office and physically inspect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi, how are you getting on with this, i believe youre talking about a deed of covenant. Have similar situation and made a lot of paperwork, so get in touch through here and lets see what we can do

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for my friend to find the lease agreement.

The first question remains: can we request the management company to disclose the details of how the money is spent? (i.e. receipt from the gardening contractor).

The truth is that they do not look after anything deemed communal.

They don't cut the grass, they don't repair car park potholes etc.

The residents have been doing it themselves since the houses were built, so I suppose they're just pocketing the money.

This would explain why they don't want to show any receipt or accounts.

I'll be grateful if anyone could answer the question.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first question, yes you can ask for a full breakdown of their charges, it most likely states that inthe deed. Ie, up front estimate for six months followed by a full and detailed bill six months later.

Although the deed will say your friend promises to pay the company, they also have to provide the service.

So you need the breakdown to allow your friend to make a reasoned judgement over whether the charges are correct.

However, they will most likely refuse this as they will know it will cause them embarrassment. If youve got proof that residents have been doing work on the estate, get them on your side, before any threat of court.

Challenge everything, even down to insurance costs. Lets say this company charges £10 per household, per year for insurance. How many proprties do they manage? If its say 400, then i would expect to see the original insurance policy cost as £4000. If its less, then they have made a profit, which they are not allowed to do.

This formula should work for everything.

Get the bill and the deed together and write down each part, then request the info. If they resist, then that would be fishy to say the least. If it gets to court, then you have certain procedures that allow you to force them to disclose this, as long as the court allows it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far they have refused to provide any evidence and separately my friend asked for the building insurance policy documents (they charge £70 a year to 1400 dwellings) but they ignored his request.

I think that they don't have a building insurance as all houses are freehold and the only parts they're supposed to manage are the flower beds and car park spaces.

Would be nice if hmrc investigated the accounts and found no evidence of any expenditures.

All residents have been looking after the flower beds from day one and the car parks are areas of badly broken tarmac without lines or lights, just empty spaces where residents park.

Indeed fishy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely my point, so that insurance policy should equal 70 x 1400. If it exists, ill wager it doesnt even have the correct value, well worth pursuing. Sounds like exactly same as our company, ive not paid them for over 5 years, so just waiting court, theyve threatened but backed down in the past, they seem to be a little bolder now, but we,ll see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how a SAR would help you. It is a "Subject Access Request" and only information directly relating to you should be given out.

 

A Freedom of Information request is more like what you are thinking about but I believe (although I may be wrong) that this applies to regulatory (Government owned) bodies only

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, FIR only applies to government bodies.

SAR is probably the best bet, but they've already said that they will only release a summary of how money is spent without evidence of any sort.

In practice they will break up the amount pay in fictitious charges for work never carried out

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget sar , are they threatening court? You can ask that they fully explain all charges, if they refuse then put the account in dispute, if this is a deed of covenant, it will be stated somewhere that they must act reasonably and in the best interests of customers, it may be implied also. So effectively you give them the chance to be unreasonable and they have breached the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget sar , are they threatening court? You can ask that they fully explain all charges, if they refuse then put the account in dispute, if this is a deed of covenant, it will be stated somewhere that they must act reasonably and in the best interests of customers, it may be implied also. So effectively you give them the chance to be unreasonable and they have breached the agreement.

No, they're not threatening court because my friend has always paid and keeps on paying.

They're just refusing to justify how the money is spent.

They sent him an email saying that they're only obliged to provide a summary of accounts, not proofs that they've actually spent the money.

In other words they take the money from 1400 residents and issue a fabricated summary at a cost of a few pounds a year.

I'm thinking of starting a management company myself!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh wow, thats exactly thevsame response i got a few years ago,

Sounds like the same company to me.

Well, i guess if your friend is paying they wont do a thing, but they have to prove they did the work and they have to prove their costs as there is a maximum 15% normally as profit, our paperwork stated 10 % but the snidey gits charged 15 straight away, so was very misleading.

 

I got trading standards involved, they will investigate on your behalf, the more people who do this it will highlight the issues with this type of company.

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...