Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 3717 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

I have been served with an S21(1)(b) that expires on the last day of my AST. However, I have read somewhere that when I renewed my tenancy last year, they should have provided me with the details of the deposit protection within 30 days.


There are some details of the deposit protection contained within the tenancy agreement and a section that reads: Details of the DPS to which the landlord subscribes are given in the documentation annexed to this agreement, receipt of which the tennant acknowledges. Please refer to annex 1 & 3 at the end of this agreement.


Annex one says :INFORMATION PRESCRIBED BY THE HOUSING ACT 2004 then goes on to show landlords name and address and mine and my partners names and email addresses.




However, I have NEVER received anything that refers to my deposit since moving in 3 years ago and certainly not when I have renewed each time.


Does this make the section 21 invalid?


If so, what should I do? Wait to receive a court notice? Are they legally then able to make any deductions from the deposit when i do move out?


Any help is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should of got the PI info when you took your first AST, it will just rollover if you sign another one.

But agent or LL should confirm that.

Ask for details now and see what happens.

You are correct if not protected then S21 no valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have given you all the information here:




which includes a leaflet (2b) from the DPS that describes the DPS scheme.


My opinion is that they only have to have given it to you once - when your deposit was first paid to them - and not at each renewal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Does this make the section 21 invalid?


Yes. As long as the judge is convinced...


> If so, what should I do?


What is their aim? Do they want you to leave, or is it being issued so that they can require you to sign a new contract.


If they want you to leave you could stay and ignore the notice. You could also negotiate your way out of the contract in a way that is satisfactory to you.


> Wait to receive a court notice?


That would be an option if you want to delay things as long as possible. If you tell them now, they can resolve the problem and re-issue a new Section 21.


> Are they legally then able to make any deductions from the deposit when i do move out?


They are legally liable to return the full deposit to you plus between 1 and 3 times the amount. But you would have to issue a court claim.


If you do not issue a court claim, then they may propose deductions and you may have access to the free resolution service provided by the deposit protection company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, thanks. They want us to leave at the end of the AST. We are currently looking for alternative accomodation, but it is difficult to find a suitable place that is not to far from the kids schools and is a suitable size etc, so utltimatley we would like to hang on here as long as possible.


If we were able to get the deposit back with the 1-3 x penalty before we moved out, that would help greatly as we are really struggling to raise a new deposit for another place.


Any advice on how to proceed. The AST doesnt run out until beginning of June.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if judge will see the lack of PI as important as NON protection! and my IMHO would not award any compensation, but could return deposit; but it would be up to you to start a claim which could be very expensive up front and risky.

Also LL could make valid deductions from deposit, and it would be up to you to challenge that through the scheme or courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So long as the S21 is invalid and buys us a bit of time, we would be happy. Return of deposit would be a bonus, but im not too worried about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, late provision of the prescribed information does not render a s21 notice invalid, if the deposit itself has been protected - and there's mitigation to any claim brought by a tenant if all that was not provided was the PI.


Don't rely on the s21 not being valid - doubtful any judge will see it as such, since whether the prescribed information was provided or not will come down to who the judge believes. There is good evidence to support the LL, in that the deposit was in fact protected in time and the tenancy agreement itself gives details of the scheme it is held in, and makes reference to the prescribed information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...