Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So there's no tax payable anyway.... nothing to see here!  
    • are you actually going to benefit out of this at all?   I was slightly getting confused here earlier, and forgot you said you are the claimant because you are suing the defendant for the cost of a hire car that you personally haven't had to pay for ?    
    • I received PCN's from TFL and Southwark. 08/06/19 I spoke with Southwark regarding PCN's and thought it was sorted.   Didn't hear anything back until 17/01/20 when my car was taken by Marston EA. TFL & Marston say they sent letters but have no proof.   I emailed TFL (19th June) through their online portal and again, via email on (14th Nov 2019) < the email on 14th has been viewed 17 times but no reply. (so I have proof of contact, they don't) I asked them if they send via recoded delivery/signed for but they do not.   When my car was taken, I received a call from a friend saying it's on the back of a truck, outside his house (which is round the block from mine). I ran round there and the EA was aggressive, shouted at me and refused to show ID/why he had taken my car.   I complained to Marston who denied it but sent me some of the footage. I complained again through resolver.co.uk and Marston lied again. Then I sent ALL my info and evidence etc.   took a few weeks and called me saying sorry and taking full responsibly for their EA's aggressive behaviour etc. TFL are still refusing to comment.   Marston offered me £250 as a goodwill payment but obviously the pain and trauma causes - that doesn't cover it. The police were called when they took my car cause I was so distressed and having a panic attack etc.   I've requested the phone call recording where they accepted guilt and that they had handled everything badly, including lying about the video on Resovler. I feel like Marston know they've done wrong, but TFL still aren't in the know. (to my knowledge)   Also, I requested info from TFL via whatdotheyknow.com and TFL did a data protection breach by uploading my full details including address etc. to a public forum (and I didn't even ask anything specific about my case) so I feel like they did this out of spite/anger.   the www.whatdotheyknow.com team reprimanded them for this and advised me to complain. I also paid £800+ to retrieve my vehicle and I have completed the OOT which was denied. I tried to take it to court but when I tried to do the 'low income' thing but they wanted bank statements which I couldn't get... then corona happened.   I've downloaded/uploaded the ZIP file from Resolver convos.   Regarding the footage: my initial message to them, I made myself seem unaware and 'stupid'   they wrote a generic reply telling me that 'the footage is fine and the EA did nothing wrong' they can't uphold my complaint,   then once they sent that; I sent them the CIVEA rulebook and timestamps in the video to show that they were in the wrong and had further lied in their official response (which must be illegal)   when they received the in-depth response, I think they got scared, went away for a couple weeks   tried to get the nice sounding woman to call me up, say sorry and be really nice then offer me a measly £250.   She also tried to rush me into agreeing.   
    • No it was about under by a couple grand.    Cheers
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1917 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Happy 2015 everyone!

 

Hopefully someone can answer this question for me on this forum. The long and crazy background to this question in on another rental forum (can I post a link)? EDIT: Unfortunately, I can't as a new member.

 

Has any tenant or landlord ever been in a situation where they have rented a flat with a written AST, which was then replaced by a verbal AST?

 

The reason I am asking is that the judge found in the LL favour against four tenants stating that a new verbal AST was entered into in 2012 (four tenants signed a written AST in 2011), making all tenants several and liable for a rent increase.

 

The question now remains which baffles me personally, is can tenants who started off with a written AST then enter a new verbal AST while still in the same property????? The judge said so, so it must be true!! :-)

 

I've never heard of any situation where a new verbal AST is created with the same parties in the same property that overwrites the initial written tenancy??? Has anyone ever heard of this?

 

Any anecdotes, advice or pointers toward legislation would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

BoopDMX85

Edited by BoopDMX85
added the year we signed the written AST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an AST for 3yr or less does not have to be in writing and the verbal AST followed the written one, I would say Judge was correct, provided the verbal T&Cs were broadly similar to written AST, to avoid T confusion.

I think the Judge was wrong when he opined (reported by you elsewhere) that a rent increase alone, for same Ts created a new fixed term AST. Many LLs & Ts with a rent increase during periodic term, or 14 months into a 2 yr fixed term, may be dismayed.

 

 

We like to know the background to a query so I doubt Mods will be worried if you paste a hyperlink to the other forum post.

Often done when people spot double posters.

 

 

How diff were written & verbal T&Cs? By how much did the rent increase?

A new AST should require deposit protection & PI , similar to change to Periodic AST (legally a diff Contract).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mariner,

Thanks for the quick response!

 

The background to the story is on another forum here: (sorry I can't post the link as I am a new member) but you have responded to my other post on the other board Mariner - I have the same username on both boards.

 

If the judge was wrong to opine that the rent increase alone constituted a new verbal AST after the written one, what other reasons could there be for him to assert legally that the note severally made all the tenants liable for a rent increase?

 

I'm baffled myself, as effectively, this has left the door open for us tenants to claim for non-comlpiance with the Housing Act under a new verbal AST agreed in 2012. The LL says we owe upwards of 2200 and the deposit is 1250 - which has not yet been returned I may add.

 

So the verbal AST ruling does not really play into favour for the LL does it? It's left them open to a claim for possibly up to three times the amount of 1250, which of course would erode the 2200 plus court costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an AST for 3yr or less does not have to be in writing and the verbal AST followed the written one, I would say Judge was correct, ....................How diff were written & verbal T&Cs? By how much did the rent increase? A new AST should require deposit protection & PI , similar to change to Periodic AST (legally a diff Contract).

 

Hi Mariner,

I honestly cannot answer that question about the differences in the written and the verbal, as we honestly didn't know we had a new verbal AST commencing in 2012. The judge seemed to base his ruling on the fact that one of the tenants made an agreement to increase his rent, therefore, the upshot was a new AST was created as an result of the conversation he had with the LL and the note he posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read some of the thread that I found by googling your name.

 

What did your co-tenant say in his note about his intention to pay more rent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read some of the thread that I found by googling your name.

 

What did your co-tenant say in his note about his intention to pay more rent?

 

Hi Steve,

Thanks for reading the other thread. The Judge considered the note as an initiation by the tenant to increase the rent - the note said (paraphrase) -

Dear LL, As you know I am based on secondment to the UAE for an indefinite period of time. I intend to continue with this particular assignment overseas for a while and I anticipate that at some point I would not have sufficient funds in my account to cover my rent and have increased my standing order to 350 per month to cover my rent while I am away. I shall tally up with you on return to the UK. Regards - Tenant P - the tenant also spoke to the LL.

The Judge stated that as the tenant continued paying the higher amount of rent, he constituted this was an increase in rent. Interestingly enough, the judge actually said he would not have taken that position if the tenant had decreased his standing order to a smaller amount at some point during the tenancy as that would have shown intent that it was not an increase. It seems the advice received that new rent amounts dont equal new AST wasn't considerd by the judge. We are pondering if the judge stated that the new verbal ast was created because of the fact that the tenant initiated the rent increase. We can't seem to find any other reasoning that can be applied??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the paraphrase it's hard to know why the judge went the way he did.

 

But I could think of apparently small changes in wording and punctuation to the paraphrase that could change what was implied, so I would say we'd need the full text to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mariner,

Thanks for posting the link for me.

As you can see, Shelter gave some really good advice today and it looks like instead of the LL getting 2250 in rent arrears and 280 in costs, they would have to pay us, hopefully the penalty for non-compliance failures. Talking between us tenants, we agreed that an appeal isn't the way forward. WE hope to take the return of the deposit and 1 x penalty each instead for a total of 5000! :jaw:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose a problem might be that the law is not logical.

 

Just because one judge thinks there was a new AST doesn't mean another judge will. It sounds like the landlord was just claiming there was an agreement to increase the rent (which can be done without an AST).

 

If the next judge thinks there is no new AST then there is no need to protect/reprotect the deposit surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve_M,

Thank you for your reply. I wholly agree that the law is not logical. The view that the judge took was surprising. The case was about rent increase and the landlord did claim that the rent increase took place via the note, so yes, we would all think it would be a case of rent increase agreement without AST. However, the Judge did give reasons why he said he considered a new AST was created. Right now I just can't remember all of them, but the prevailing one reason I do recall was about the actions of the parties involved and their intent. It all came down to what the parties did at the time and he considered the continued payment at the new rent amount a new verbal agreement as it doesn't have to be written. I did write on another forum that we could only hazard a guess that the judge may have considered the initiation by the tenant as some factor but who knows? Another random thought by one of my former tenants was that the old written tenancy didn't have certain new information that pertains to the legislation as it relates to the tenancy laws now, who knows? Judges are strange. I think it just depends on the judge's personal view and interpretation of the law on the day of the case.

Edited by BoopDMX85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...