Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

deposit not protected and ll harrassment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3301 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

im writing this on behalf of my sister

 

shes a tenant in a shared accomadtion (Live out landllord) about to leave after numerous disputes with LL

 

she took over the broadband/tv pacakge when another tenant left- i did tell her not to but the LL at the time assured her his agreement that she could deduct from the rent

 

a new cotract was set up with virgin which the LL agreed t back in november 14, and everything was fine she deducted it from her monthly rent and he didnt have any problems with it

 

come to last month she gives her required 1 month notice to leave and he starts hassling her about when prospective tenants can come and view the room-she said is it ok to do it just in the evenings as shes at work he said no i want them to come when i want

she refused this as not being reasonable and he starts hassling her saying its his house he can do what he likes when he likes

 

he also starts bringing up the payments to virgin stating it sounds too much and why is it 40 pounds a month even though he agreed to this

 

he says hes going to take it out of the deposit as its too much-

 

she has never had a confirmation that the deposit was sent to a protection scheme nor even a proper contract as ive just found out

 

just an email stating how much rent is deposit and how much notice to give

 

so on two points has he got any comback for her not "paying full rent" even though he agreed to the broadband contract

 

and second does the fact is not in a protection scheme supercede all that

 

thanks for any help

Link to post
Share on other sites

need to be clear here about the contract first; ( AST? )

Is there just one contract which the two tenants signed or did each one have there own separate contract? could be a problem if only one contract!

what was the contract end date? or had it gone periodic? if periodic then notice needs to be minimum one month to end on day before rent due date.

Best just to get deposit back in full, and not have to go to court, but certainly use the fact deposit should have been protected as a lever to do that.

 

 

She also may have a problem with the virgin contract, if it is her name she will be liable for it until the end of the contract period as she signed the contract! unless the LL agrees to take it over the payments? direct with virgin, getting complicated now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there was a seprate contract for each tenenat-i say contract like in my above post it was just an email stating rent amount and deposit taken

 

i did warn her about the virgin contract but at the time rthe landlord wasnt hassling her

 

i dont know how she goes about proving he said it was ok for the contract thers a couple of emails would that be enough

Link to post
Share on other sites

"a new cotract was set up with virgin which the LL agreed t back in november 14, and everything was fine she deducted it from her monthly rent and he didnt have any problems with it"

 

This sounds as if sister may only have been in the accommodation since November 2014. Please confirm her move in date.

 

There is no written tenancy agreement - just a couple of texts. A court will therefore assume an Assured Shorthold Tenancy, with a term of six months. So, depending on her move in date, she may be in a contract until May 2015.

 

A bigger issue seems to be the landlord never having protected sister's deposit in a government approved scheme, and serving her the prescribed information. Landlord could be made to pay the tenant up to 3 times the amount of the deposit - but only a court could impose such a penalty. If sister mentioned this to LL, he may quickly change his mind about the Virgin payments and also about witholding her deposit.

 

What evidence (bank statements?) is there of the payments sister made to this LL?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I got this right: sister gave notice (at least one month, ending on last day of tenancy period?) intending to move out in March.

 

She is in a contract with Virgin - typically for 12 or 18 months from November 2014. There will be written evidence of that - Virgin are professionals. Even if she moves out this month, there will be another 8 or 14 months when Virgin will be collecting £40 from her.

 

What evidence is there that rent has been paid and a deposit has been paid? She'll need to show some proof of the tenancy existing to a court. She would demonstrate to the judge that she is not in arrears with the rent (relying on the emails/texts from LL from Nov 14 for this).

 

To make a believable claim for three times the deposit, she'd have to convince the LL that her evidence stacks up. She'll also have to show that there is no reason for LL to withold anything from her deposit, eg for rent arrears or damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

she didnt know in november she was going to start having problems and took over the contract in good faith

 

this is what im saying he agreed in emails that she could subtract the virgin payments from her rent and is now saying they sound high and doesnt want to give deposit back based on the virgin payments

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...