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

Guarantor and possible court action...help needed.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3123 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

just as an aside, carpet generally has a useful rental life of up to 10 years... corded carpet less so, because it is thinner between the cords and wears out quicker, the hole you have described would be put as wear and tear by any carpet professional.

I am not a solicitor :!::!:

 

Most of my knowledge came from this site :-D:-D

 

If I have been helpful in any way at all .............. Please click my star..... :-(:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

OK..here is a twist.

Saw the S21 letter today which was sent in dec 2014...it states that as per the S21 notice that was served on Sept 2013..she had until today to move...????

She says she doesnt recall any such letter in Sept 2013...that date coincides with the end of the 6 month assured tenancy.

Has he worked a fast one?

How does this work..?

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi raydetinu, the AST was 6 months after which it would continue on a month by month basis.

The end of that AST would be Sept 2013 but she says she didnt receive any letter to that effect.

I am beginning to wonder if the sneaky landlord had this written into his contract.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi raydetinu, the AST was 6 months after which it would continue on a month by month basis.

The end of that AST would be Sept 2013 but she says she didnt receive any letter to that effect.

I am beginning to wonder if the sneaky landlord had this written into his contract.

 

I've known LL's to get T to sign S21 at signing of the Tenancy agreement.... Could this be what he's done ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then its not valid then as it would had to be enforced when she did not move out at the end of the initial AST contract.

Continuing as a PST is in fact a new contract on the same terms. So LL would have to issue a new S21 ( with correct dates on it ).

Anyway that is irrelevant now as your daughter accepted that the LL wanted to terminate the Contract and you have handed the keys back by mutual agreement.

So you will just have to wait and see what action, if any, he is going to take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lea..... so he does still have to give 2 months notice though when he wants to take posession?? otherwise any time after the SPT has begun he could say "out now"

I am not a solicitor :!::!:

 

Most of my knowledge came from this site :-D:-D

 

If I have been helpful in any way at all .............. Please click my star..... :-(:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they not different S21 forms for during an AST period and after when a PST? but both have to have the notice period and date tenant has to leave by?

So unless LL wants tenant out at the end of the AST contract, whats the point? might as well issue a new S21? rather than a letter invoking the original one! with correct notice period etc.

As in this case LL would have to prove they sent it originally, as tenant does not acknowledge it existed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

raydetinu, Lea HTH is correct IMO. LL can serve precautionary s21b at start of AST (provided any deposit protected within 30 days), and it remains valid for duration of that AST fixed term and any subs SPT.

S21b is reqd if served during fixed term, s21a reqd if served during SPT (with 'after' repo action date), though basic s21b can be used in SPT IF there was an initial fixed term (no date reqd).

 

CCs, 2 months Notice is deemed served when s21 conditions have been met, no further Notice reqd, but LL cannot just say 'Ger out'; s21 is not a NTQ, only allows LL to seek Court Repo Order.

The later LL letter could be seen as advisory, or an indication that LL may seek Court costs from T if they do not vacate voluntarily. IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lea..... so he does still have to give 2 months notice though when he wants to take posession?? otherwise any time after the SPT has begun he could say "out now"

 

No. He's already given notice that when the fixed term is over he may want possession. He still has to go to court, but he doesn't have to serve any further notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they not different S21 forms for during an AST period and after when a PST? but both have to have the notice period and date tenant has to leave by?

So unless LL wants tenant out at the end of the AST contract, whats the point? might as well issue a new S21? rather than a letter invoking the original one! with correct notice period etc.

As in this case LL would have to prove they sent it originally, as tenant does not acknowledge it existed!

 

A s21(b) can be served and remains valid until the tenancy ends (when tenant moves out), or a new AST is created. A periodic tenancy makes no difference to the s21(b) served at any time during the fixed term - and doesn't invalidate any s21(b) served.

 

No need to issue a letter either. The original s21 will do.

 

If the LL was savvy enough to serve the s21, you can bet he has some form of proof it was served (a signature on his copy for example).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lea I appreciate you have a good understanding of this S21 situation, but how would a tenant know when they have to leave, if on a PST, unless LL writes and invokes the S21 issued a year before?

Not too savvy as I understand LL only gave tenant one months notice in letter!

Always learning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lea I appreciate you have a good understanding of this S21 situation, but how would a tenant know when they have to leave, if on a PST, unless LL writes and invokes the S21 issued a year before?

Not too savvy as I understand LL only gave tenant one months notice in letter!

Always learning.

 

Sometimes only when the court papers come through - and then they say they didn't receive the s21, only to find they signed for it when they signed the tenancy agreement. However, most landlords will indicate that they are expecting the tenant to move, and obviously if the s21 has been served already, there's no need for that indication to be anything other than a heads up that proceedings will begin, so the month given in this case is fine - so long as the s21 was actually served.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its getting worse.......He wants the entire house redecorated at our expense as well as the carpets.

Have not yet seen the contract but he claims its contractual....seems yet another little clause to avoid his responsibilities under the Landlords and Tenants act.

 

This is in the act.....

The tenant would not normally be required to re-decorate the property at the end of the tenancy unless stated in the agreement. If the property’s interior decoration had been damaged the tenant may be required to re-decorate the property, or the landlord may retain some of the deposit to cover re-decoration costs.

If a tenant did want to re-decorate the property they should always seek the landlord's permission first and find out what changes they are entitled to make.

If the property is in need of decoration as a result of normal use and wear and tear then the landlord is responsible for re-decorating and should not retain any of the tenant’s deposit.

I'm starting to feel like my home is on the line now...no wonder he insists on a home owning guarantor each time...easier to rob us blind with the threat of a CCJ and charging order.

I could manage a small amount of money but this looks like its going to run into many thousands.

 

I am seriously worried now.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that LL is using the threat of court action to get anything he waqnts out of you by coercion. The reality is that things dont last for ever and that he gets a tax break on everything he spends on decorating so it is double bubble for him . If you think that this is going to actually happen then speak to a lawyer about "betterment" as well as LL responsibilites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am certain he is hoping most will cave in at the prospect of court action.

I fully intend to fight the excessive demands and hopefully challenge some on OFT rulings that a clause must be fair to be legal, ie penalty charges, future rent etc.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP is only G, so his legal cover may only pay for defending a claim made against him/her. Now if T had contents Is with LP, then it may cover Ts claim against LL etc.

In an early post OP mentioned T was due to end about now. Was that end of fixed term, expiry of LL notice (s21?) or Court appointed date for repo Order?

Let's concentrate on current status of T more than LLs demands.

The reason for requiring a property-owning G is that as a final resort LL can but a charge (equal to Gs Court-approved liability) on Gs property- repayable when sold.

The fact OP has been paying LL demands so far, relates more to fact T is dau and wish to keep an unblemished istory for her.

The solution lies mainly with T, give due Notice now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tenancy ended on 21st.

Gave notice, to quit in late December...letter said S21 was served in Sept 2013. AST started in March 2013.

Demands were a pre exit inspection.

The reasonable ones have been met but replacing carpets, redecorating house etc have not...plus he want future rent as he says he cannot let out property until redecorated etc....

I took pics on day we left...damp all over the house coming through the walls with paint peeling off in places.

Have restored two rooms to original colour as they had been painted in a different colour with LL permission on proviso they were returned on exit.

Done minor repairs such as replaced a damaged architrave but refused to replace carpets or redecorate house.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

OK...here's an update.

Received a demand for £2744.71 payable by 27th.

He has fully redecorated the house, replaced all carpets plus vinyl flooring..(Not even mentioned on original demand)

Fitted new oven and hob......(hob just needed a clean on the demand...this was done)

Charged for filling holes in the walls...we filled the ones we caused fitting a stairgate but the others were there when daughter moved in (Got pics)

Charged for 6 weeks lost rent.

This bit really gets my goat...charged for 2 smoke alarms.......the ones in the house were not working so the fire brigade fitted 2 new ones a year ago when they were down the street doing free checks.

Charged for replacing a door that was in a sorry state when daughter took the house on..again got pics.

Charged for cleaning the house when it was a damp ****hole with mould and damp coming through the plaster.

 

On a plus note, got my local councillors involved who are horrified at his charges.

I have a meeting with them and council officers next week to see if they can help but I am still going to have to pay for legal help if I need it.

I am trying to draft a response where I will refute his charges but I need the sections of law relevant to the issues.

As I understand it, redecoration and repairs for wear and tear are his responsibility but I cannot find the relevant section in the Landlords and Tenants Act.

Any other pointers appreciated.

 

Thanks

BF

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Belaflat,

 

I can't see anywhere in your thread about whether your daughter had a tenancy agreement, although you say that the landlord claims that all his demands are contractual.

 

Does she have one? You, as guarantor should have seen the agreement so that you were aware of what you were guaranteeing.

 

My son had a nightmare with a demanding landlady who tried to keep a large sum from his deposit. Fortunately it was protected and we had to put in a dispute which ended in her being granted a very small sum.

 

Has he provided receipts for all the work that has been done to justify the amount he is claiming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dotty50.

 

It was a 6 months AST which converted to a rolling monthly contract.

I did countersign but do not have a copy now.

All receipts have been provided but my argument is not regarding the cost but the liability as repairs due to wear and tear and redecoration are his responsibility although I will wager some of the receipts are likely to be bogus....(friends etc....I have been checking)

I Also dispute work being carried which has never been previously mentioned..

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...