Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.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 3538 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

We own a buy to let flat in a converted office building. There are 12 flats altogether.

 

We are expecting the current owners to offer to sell the freehold of the building in the near future. On the face of it, buying the freehold between us sounds like a good idea, but we don't really know what the pros and cons might be. Since the landlord can already get us to pay for things like a new roof, would we be any worse off owning a share in the freehold?

 

One of the mortgage conditions was that they wouldn't lend on freehold flats, which is partly why we're dubious, but other than notifying them if we do buy a share is this likely to be a problem?

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

If all the owners buy a share of the freehold then you'd probably need to form a management company to run it. Who would take care of getting the new roof, getting tenders, etc. What would you do if one of the other owners didn't pay their share, or didn't agree that it needed doing. Do you want to take on the responsibility of running things which may save you paying the current freeholder? If you don't want to do it, would one of the other owners be willing? Do you know and trust this person to do it?

 

 

Obviously there may be benefits as you'd have more control, but as stu's link indicates, there can be problems with disputes between parties.

 

 

Think long and hard before making a decision.

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

A friend of mine lives in a place where they jointly own the freehold and manage the place.

 

For a while, my friend was the elected head (or whatever they call them) of the management board.

 

After a bit they agreed to pay a bit more to pay someone to do the accounts and issue stroppy letters to non-payers, but the residents are still in charge. If work needs done, they have a consultation, and additional payment is requested for whatever is agreed. Non-payers are mostly non-resident landlords. The slightest threat of a CCJ written by someone who *will* take them to court causes them to pay up.

 

My friend can get *massively* stressed by the tiniest of things, but remarkably, has never got stressed about this. So I'd say it could be a good idea if you could get a core of people who can cooperate in getting this set up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the many and varied opinions - lots for us to think about and confirmation that it isn't as easy as you might expect. If I have any more questions I'll come back and ask, and I'll also update with our decision and any consequences.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are various options when it comes to Leaseholders buying the freehold.

 

RTM (Right to Manage) – This can be used to take over the management of the building by the leaseholders (via a Ltd Company) but the Freeholder still remains and owns the land and receives ground rent, but for many LH’s this is ideal, they get to arrange the insurance, service charges, etc

 

RTE (Right To Enfranchise) – As above but you also own the freehold BUT the Freehold may be very expensive, sometimes tens of thousands depending on property and time left on lease.

 

A Freeholder can be forced to sell or give up management by these two or the FH can be sold informally by offering it to the leaseholders and then others.

 

There are benefits to buying it as you would then own (shared) a building/land that may be valuable.

Many though strive to just take control of the management (which can be done cheaply through RTM) especially if their Fh is a pain in the arse or that they feel the service charges are too high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would purchase the freehold.

This would avoid being charged £75 to change a light bulb and £200 to remove a bucket of hardcore left on the building doorstep.

Once you form your own management company you have a say about how the money is spent and can jointly appoint the most convenient / reliable contractors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With blocks of flats, even if you owned the freehold, you could still be subject to charges. With a relative of mine who owned the freehold with other flatowners in the block, they got a management company involved. If any of the resident had an issue with the flats they would contact the management company. My relative had to go into a care home and her garden became a little untidy. Another resident mentioned it to the management company who sent a letter giving notice that unless it was tidied up they would charge £100 to send a gardener around. Of course we tidied the garden when we went to check on the property, but it was only a half hours job to do.

 

If you buy the freehold, make sure you are involved in the running or setting up of any management of the flats. Flats get sold or rented out and you can end up with neighbours who you might not get along with, as much as the people you originally dealt with.

 

Best advice is to sell the flat and buy a freehold house instead.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you buy the freehold then it's upto you to employ a seperate management company if you don't like how they operate as in the above post then you can simply get rid of them or simply do the management yourself or with other directors.

 

Don't forgot about rtm though which can be a cheaper option.

 

I must say saying sell the flat and buying a freehold house is not that helpful, as we don't know the op's finincial situation....!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again many thanks for the helpful comments.

 

The existing management company are a firm I know and have worked with at other properties for a while and I have no complaints whatsoever about their management. We are going to be offered the freehold on a 'first refusal' basis as the current owners have gone bust. In those circumstances if we don't buy it, it will presumably be offerred on the open market and we could end up with just about anyone as landlord so overall, subject of course to being able to afford the price, I'm inclined to think we'd be better off with the freehold than without.

 

The price is of course the potential sticking point. Given that our mortgage lender (and most others I've enquired about) won't lend on freehold flats we'll have to find the money ourselves. Does anyone have a clue why banks/building societies won't lend on freehold flats?

 

And just to make things clear, I can't do houses as I can't get up the stairs and that applies even though this is a buy to let property - not much point me buying something if I can't even look at half of it!

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more likely that the bank won't lend on just a freehold or a part of the freehold. However, you also have one of the leases.

 

You really need to seek specialist advice on this one as there are so many things to consider aside from how you will raise the money (e.g. will you have shares in a company that owns the freehold or will you each be individually named). There's a forum called Landlord Zone that may be helpful for more informal advice.

 

Don't forget though that a share of the freehold can be to everyone's benefit...

Again many thanks for the helpful comments.

 

The existing management company are a firm I know and have worked with at other properties for a while and I have no complaints whatsoever about their management. We are going to be offered the freehold on a 'first refusal' basis as the current owners have gone bust. In those circumstances if we don't buy it, it will presumably be offerred on the open market and we could end up with just about anyone as landlord so overall, subject of course to being able to afford the price, I'm inclined to think we'd be better off with the freehold than without.

 

The price is of course the potential sticking point. Given that our mortgage lender (and most others I've enquired about) won't lend on freehold flats we'll have to find the money ourselves. Does anyone have a clue why banks/building societies won't lend on freehold flats?

 

And just to make things clear, I can't do houses as I can't get up the stairs and that applies even though this is a buy to let property - not much point me buying something if I can't even look at half of it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know little about this so just throwing an idea around but could the leaseholders form a LTD company to buy the freehold. That way the owners of the flats do not directly own the freehold but rather a share in the company that does? This LTD company could also hire a management company to deal with the charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know little about this so just throwing an idea around but could the leaseholders form a LTD company to buy the freehold. That way the owners of the flats do not directly own the freehold but rather a share in the company that does? This LTD company could also hire a management company to deal with the charges.

 

Yes, that is the normal situation in an RTE (that I mentioned above), or actually the most likely scenario is an RTE. Selling the Freehold to an individual leaseholder or to another landlord/company if they dont want to buy it is quite rare.

 

The OP is correct in that they do face a risk in that it might be sold to someone unscrupulous but it may well be sold to a respected company/individual, in reality the actual ownership is a bit irrellevant as its the management company they wil do the day to day work, set service charges, etc and this can be taken over by the tenants/leaseholders by an RTM or in certain circumstances if they are really poor a new management company can be forced through by an FTT (LVT) application.

 

My advice to the OP is not to worry too much about buying the freehold, or at least find out the cost, IMO its not worth getting a huge mortgage just to purchase it, the reality is you prob wont notice much on a day to day basis whoever owns it.

 

Dont forghet there is a lot of law to help LH take on bad FH's, I myself have had lots of battles against mine and been refunded many thousands in county court or LVT (now FTT).

 

There is a government run website Lease Advisory Service that can fill you in on more details about RTE and RTM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...