Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I assume this mattress was the Tenants own property?   So after moving out the Tenants provided an attachment showing a stained mattress and wanting full deposit back and threatening to claim against you for this.   1. Tenants failed to notify you of this stained mattress issue until the end of tenancy after they had vacated the property.   2. You have no evidence that this was the actual mattress used in that property nor evidence to back up there claim the staining caused this mattress damage.  (i.e. one of them could have had an accident and wet the bed or done this when they moved from the property).     3. Ask them that you wish the mattress independently inspected. (which you are fully entitled to do and if it proves this claim is false it will be added to the deposit claim by you the landlord for damages as well as the Garden if you need to get landscapers in to carry out the work that should have been carried out by Tenants as per Tenacy Agreement and raised  by yourself (Landlord) on a few occasions which Tenants failed to rectify even at end of tenancy.   4. Ask them to provide you with the contact details of there Contents Insurance Company (tenants whether Private or Social Housing should always take out and have Contents Insurance but is up to that tenant) bet they don't provide it Big question is the Deposit protected in a Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) and those Tenants that have left were given a copy of the Prescribed Terms for that TDS? (Bear in mind you may need to tell TDS that you are in dispute with the Tenant about damages i.e. mattress and Garden)    
    • plenty of time to research and calm down. nothing much to do until the end of june.    
    • well ...... 1st you need to go back to post 1 and carefully read ALL this thread from the start again and pay attention to the advice and the undertones it explains about 'debt'.   2nd ...the truth is you owe no-one ANYTHING, the OC wrote off and sold the debt, and got most of it back against tax and business insurance schemes ...throw the morality card out the window...the OC did by selling the debt on for <10p=£1. and the DCa want the full balance ...id so many fools stopped paying powerless DCA's tomorrow, the whole industry would collapse overnight.   3rd the only reason this is still around your neck is because you failed to follow given advice...had you ..it would now be statute barred.      ^^^ very important research the M+S credit card debacle using our enhanced google searchbox on this page   as for the PAPLOC reply,   D.. desipte a previous CCA requests, the claimant has yet to supply any/all of the required paperwork.   i: delete [CC is attached to this reply form]"   
    • Hi again   Yes, it's been a lovely day weather wise.   Guess you've better things to do with weather like today than help with this problem, so thanks very much for your input, it's very much appreciated.   Late this afternoon I did receive a reply from the tenants, and they are asking me to go 50/50 with getting the garden sorted, not only that, as they have moved away they are expecting me to get the quotes.   Regarding you view on this issue, its so easy not to see the whole picture and my thoughts that the staining damp may be of their own doing didn't occur to me as I was so locked into the historical leak. Taking a closer look at the room in question today, I'm convinced that they are trying it on with the stained mattress- they did mail through a picture and then a receipt for supposedly the mattress. My wife and I then took both the pic and receipt to the bedding store where purchase was made to ask if the two married up, the picture does not show any emblems/manufactures logo or such to prove that this is the case, so we are none the wiser- our thoughts being that the stained mattress is from elsewhere.   A few days back I spoke to our letting agent regarding all of this, as was quite correctly mentioned there are two parts to this equation, namely the mattress and then the property.   Our agents mentioned to me that as an inventory was not carried out initially with the let, (hindsight) the pictures that were used to advertise the property could not be used as evidence to present to the TDS to be compared to the pictures now as there is no proof that the advertising pictures were in fact how the property was when the let started. I mentioned that all digital pictures have a means of finding when that pic was taken- Geo tag/Metadata- agent was quite surprised by this. The agents thoughts then went for a hide in a vacuum-   This is going off at a tangent here-many moons ago my wife studied computer science at a local University, one of her classmates who she is still in touch with is now a practising Solicitor. My wife suggested that maybe I give her a call, a bit rude I guess, but I did  phone and with the pleasantries out the way  I asked for her opinion of the best way to get this sorted. Her remit isn't landlord type stuff, however she will speak to a colleague on Monday and come back to me.   The property is due to be relet on the 21st, we will ensure that the new tenants move in to a home that is immaculate and welcoming, trouble is its getting a tadge close to get the garden issues sorted in time.   I know that all this will get closure in the end, but at the moment I've had more fun with a toothpick-   Again, many thanks.
    • The collection is currently stored at curator James Blower's home, but he has now found a space situated in an old bank premises where he hopes to exhibit them from this autumn or early next year. View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2445 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 financed a Chrysler Voyager in 2001 from Garage A with the last payment due in 2004.


I also took out Chrysler Jeep Assurance with the Contract purchase for the car called

Chrysler Creditor Protection Insurance for 36 months at £127.61 per month[£4593.96]


At the bottom of the page and at the top is the words Chrysler Jeep Finance.


As a self employed person there is little doubt that this is PPI, and I should be entitled to the sum paid refunded plus interest.


Initially I went after Garage A who referred me to Chrysler, who insisted it was nothing to do with them, and referred me to the Financial Ombudsman.


Continuing my research I now discover that the underwriters for this policy are London General Insurance Company

who say it is nothing to do with them and referred me to the Financial Ombudsman


Now follows the recent communication from the Ombudsman


When we spoke, I explained that we are still in the process of trying to establish whether we can hold the underwriter

London General Insurance Company Limited (“LGIC”) responsible for your complaint.



I understand your point that the underwriter, LGIC should accept responsibility for the business that was selling it’s policy to you.

However, we are restricted in that we can only hold LGIC responsible if it is established that Garage A was acting as an agent of LGIC.

This is not something that I have any power to change, it is a question of how far our legal powers stretch.


There are two scenarios that would mean we could look at your complaint against LGIC.

We could either establish that Garage A was acting directly as an agent of LGIC,

which from looking at your complaint seems unlikely to have been the case.



Alternatively, we could establish that Garage A was acting as an agent of the lender Chrysler Jeep Finance (“CJF”),

which in turn was acting as an agent of LGIC.



As explained on the phone, I contacted the lender yesterday to gather information that should help me to establish

whether this was the case, and whether ultimately we are able to take your complaint any further.


Although it is clear that the seller, lender and underwriter had a commercial relationship with one another,

this does not necessarily mean that any of the businesses had an agency relationship to one another.

So at this stage, it remains unclear whether your complaint is one that we can consider.


Because of this, I want to be transparent.

I cannot confirm yet whether we will be able to take your complaint any further,

but from looking at your complaint as it stands I think it unlikely that we will be able to hold LGIC responsible.



I say this because you policy was sold to you by a car dealership,

and from our experience it is unusual for independent car dealerships to be acting as agents of lenders.



Again, I will not be able to confirm this until I receive the information I need back from the lender,

but I want to make you aware of what I think is likely to happen so that you can make an informed decision about what you want to do next.


My most recent phone call gave me no encouragement at all[yesterday]


I do know that Garage A had an agency for Chrysler cars at that time,

because they then lost it to another local garage by the time I came to replace the Chrysler.


HELP!!! Should I take this to the small claims court, and if so, who?




Any advice at this stage would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

diff one



and at the end of the day



you'd have to prove if they were cover by GISC or one of the other schemes

and then you'll have the issue of who enforces it

as the FOS cant enforce before I think 2004 anyway.



court could be fun

it is then on you to prove there were guideline they should have adhered too.



and who is your target



ok yes self employment probably rules out it should ever been sold

but that's the only sure bit so far




please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...