Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dear PIXeL_92 It has been explained to you in previous correspondence that the roof tiles that are the subject of your complaint, at the time of inspection were heavily covered in moss. It is in your agreed terms that the surveyor will not carry out an asbestos survey and is not required to scrape away moss if the surface below is obscured. The surveyor will carry out only a visual inspection and comment on defects visible at the time of inspection. Roofs can fail at any time particularly in periods of inclement weather. As stated in your report, the surveyor confirmed that the roof was in a satisfactory condition at the time of inspection therefore would not require replacement in the immediate future. The subject building is a utility building and is not a habitable room of the main property. As previously explained, tiles on an outbuilding of this nature would not affect the property value. You state you would have factored in the cost of removal/replacement into the purchase offer however as advised at the time of inspection the tiles were in a satisfactory condition and you have not sought to replace the tiles in the three years following the date of inspection. This confirms the comments provided by the surveyor. You have previously stated that the roof became damaged due to high winds and the roofing specialist you instructed to replace the broken tiles made you aware of the possibility that the tiles may contain asbestos. However, you have not yet had the tiles tested to confirm the presence of asbestos. Our surveyor revisited your property and confirmed that you have had the damaged roof tiles replaced. A roof that contains asbestos will only become a health and safety risk if it is disturbed and it therefore seems odd that the roofing contractor was happy to replace the tiles if in fact asbestos was present. We understand that raising a complaint and progressing to legal action as you have suggested you wish to do can be a lengthy drawn-out and expensive process with no guarantee of success. If necessary, we will notify our legal team to address this matter on our behalf however, we are happy to attempt to settle this matter in advance to avoid prolonged communications and extending this matter for many more months. In an effort to conclude this matter to the satisfaction of all parties, we shall increase our goodwill offer to £500 in full and final settlement of this matter. This offer will be available until Thursday 27 August 2020. There will be no further offers made after this date. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Walker Dunn MRICS   ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************   Dear Walker Dunn,   Apologies on the delayed reply unfortunately I had to attend to some personal matters that left me unable to reply to emails.   A few points I want to make regarding your previous letter.   You mention at the time of the inspection that the surface of the tiles was covered in moss and obscured the view of the tiles, we however have pictures from when we moved in showing this was not the case, whilst there is moss on the tiles it in no way obscured to the point that the material would have been assessed incorrectly and you can also see the curling of the edges to a large amount of the tiles and this is a characteristic of asbestos.   You state in the report that the roof was in satisfactory condition, however, if the roof was indeed slate that your report indicated this would have been correct however the curled edges of asbestos tiles indicate that they are fatigued and need replacing and that is not satisfactory condition, again the material was not identified correctly at the time of the report.   As for this point "You state you would have factored in the cost of removal/replacement into the purchase offer however as advised at the time of inspection the tiles were in a satisfactory condition and you have not sought to replace the tiles in the three years following the date of inspection. This confirms the comments provided by the surveyor."   We had put away money to have this done, at the time as it was deemed slate in your report we didn't prioritise this as a repair, as you know the roof of the main property was in an awful state and was leaking into the bedroom this took priority along with having all the plumbing in the bathroom replaced as we discovered it was stuffed with kitchen roll under the bath to hide a set of leaking pipes that eventually made its way into the kitchen. We then also had a passing in the family that took us away from the local area for around a month and then my partners dad became homeless due to a gas explosion that destroyed his property so we had to accommodate him for a year and half so most work we had planned got put on hold. This doesn't confirm your comments in your report, this just allows you to assume it did as it wasn't done straight away however this was not the case. We have all the paperwork and invoices to show the above work was done to the main property along with pictures along with all the details surrounding the gas explosion.   We don't agree that part of a building being a habitable room of the main property makes a difference in our case, of course any structure on a property would affect the properties overall value when offers are being made as you make your offer based on the overall property and if you wanted to use the outbuilding for a specific reason you would be more inclined to go for a property that dose have an outbuilding over one that doesn't or if you want another example one with a swimming pool selling for a higher amount as that is considered a premium.   You then say "You have previously stated that the roof became damaged due to high winds and the roofing specialist you instructed to replace the broken tiles made you aware of the possibility that the tiles may contain asbestos. However, you have not yet had the tiles tested to confirm the presence of asbestos."   We had the roofer come and take a look instructing him that we wanted two slate tiles replacing due to us believing at the time the roof was slate based on your report, he then mentioned from a simple visual inspection that they are in fact asbestos. He said he could replace them with two slate tiles but we would have dispose of the two slipped asbestos ones safely as he wasn't licensed to do so, they were removed in a safe manor to avoid cracking them due to how brittle they were.   We have at several times offered to have them tested for you if you would cover the costs of testing if they are in fact asbestos tiles but this simple question has still remained un answered, so for this reason we have now booked a test and this will be added to the costs we will be pursing if and when we are forced to go down the legal route along with all legal cost and the cost of disposal and replacement of the roof, as mentioned before I just wanted the disposal costs covered, but our solicitor has now advised us we should be entitled to have the full costs awarded so we are left in the same place financially along with the roof material matching the report.   Our next step would be to have the test results come back, and send those tests results if they come back as positive with the invoice and three quotes for removal of asbestos to yourselves to decide if you want to cover those costs or if you wish to continue with legal proceedings and as mentioned before if we have to issue legal proceedings we will be asking for all costs to be covered and a complaint to the RICS and Ombudsman will also be issued.   Unfortunately at this point we are rejecting your £500 settlement but if you decided you wanted to settle it without facing any potential legal action or complaint we would settle for the sum of £2000 and that will be the matter resolved, we believe this to be a fair amount as the testing has now cost us £150 and the mid range quote has come in at £1900.   Regards   Robert Atkins   ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************   Dear PIXeL_92 I refer to your email sent on 7th September. I am disappointed and dismayed that you have decided to not accept our very reasonable offer. We have now notified our legal team in preparation should you decide to proceed along the legal route. You have told us you are receiving legal advice, therefore I am sure that your solicitor will have explained to you that in matters of alleged negligence, if the court finds in your favour, they can only make an award on the basis of diminution of value and not the cost of repairs.   Therefore to quantify the diminution in value you would need to obtain a report from another surveying firm that identifies the value of your property three years ago with a slate roof to the outbuilding and the value of the property three years ago with an asbestos roof to the outbuilding. To do this effectively, the surveyor would have to identify comparable properties in the area with and without such roofs to be able to justify his findings. This would be no easy task.   To further complicate matters, the guidelines set out for the court are that they only award losses based upon diminution of value that exceed 5% of the property value, which is considered a reasonable margin of error for surveyor to work within. In this instance therefore, you would be required to identify a loss in excess of £6,000. This figure does not include your legal costs. Because this is a claim for alleged negligence and not for a debt, it is not a matter that can be dealt with by the Small Claims Court, it would have to be heard by a higher court. This would mean we would then be able to claim the costs of our barrister, solicitor and any experts for however many days the hearing lasts, plus you would have your own costs, if you were unable to prove your claim. Once you submit a claim, you are unable to then back out without incurring costs. I hope you find this advice helpful and I am sure that if you present this letter to your solicitor, he will be able to verify whether the above information is correct. We will await your response on how you intend to proceed. Yours sincerely, Colin Walker MRICS
    • Sorry for the text heavy post, we are getting nowhere with them, I need some help deciding our next steps, I have a couple more emails as PDFs that I need to attach below.   Dear PIXel_92, We confirmed in our previous email that our offer would be made available until Friday 14 August 2020. This offer was presented as a gesture of goodwill based on the information you have provided in support of your claim. Thus far, we have not had sight of a Specialist Report confirming the presence of Asbestos or quotations for the required works. Since you have not furnished us with any additional information we are unable to provide any further comments on the matter at this time. If you’re able to provide the requested information we will be happy to review the matter and discuss it further with you. Kind regards, Customer Relations ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Dear Walker Dunn,   I have on two occasions offered to have it tested further than a visual inspection but if it comes back as asbestos you cover the costs, you asked me for the costs involved in getting it tested and you neither agreed to nor declined to cover that cost if it came back as asbestos, again I am happy to have it tested but if it comes back as asbestos to have those costs covered.   I have sent communication from a roofer on headed paper confirming they belive it to be asbestos but they aren't registered to remove it.   I am happy to get three formal quotes written on paper and provide them, I have spoken to a roofer that deals in asbestos that was here to do another job at the time and he said just going off rough size it would be approximately £2000 to remove the roof and dispose of the asbestos. I will get some quotes over the next week and get back to you with them.   Regards ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Dear Walker Dunn,   Could I please get confirmation regarding if you are going to cover the cost of testing if it does come back as positive before I go ahead with it.   I now have 3 quotes for removal of the asbestos too.   My solicitors has also forwarded me this to read through, https://www.rics.org/uk/upholding-professional-standards/regulation/how-we-regulate/disciplinary-process/panel-hearings/disciplinary-panel-hearings/walker-dunn-limited-and-colin-walker/.   This will be our next step going to the RICS / property ombudsman as we seem to be getting nowhere and it has been going on for some time due to you not answering the above question.   If you don't answer it we can get it tested and look at legal action to recover the money at a later date if that's how you want to do it.   Regards **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************  
    • So you did...should have gone to specsavers......so as this debt is in your name only only a restriction type K can be placed on your share of the equity.   You have still not explain why " you dont actually own any equity "...you can PM if you rather this was not divulged on the open topic....as this may be important and possibly stop any interim charge.....subject to your response.
    • unfortunately, under the statute of limitations Act, that has has been around for probably +100yrs, yes.
    • At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief. There would be quite wrong and it's a shame that this very interesting and relevant video has tried to express this.
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Athena ANPR parking 'fine' Lidl Streatham 29/08/15 - ** SUCCESS AT POPLA **


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1797 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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]59612[/ATTACH]Sorry guys. I have re uploaded. Pics should be fine now.

 

I also realised when I was scanning the letters in. The rejection letter was sent on the 17th Sept and deadline is 19th Sept. I probable didnt receive it until then. Does this matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If sent on the 17th it will be deemed as received in time unless you can show otherwise (they do have a habit of dating letters days before they send them.)

I note that they say you failed to mitigate any circumstances. Well, mitigation is what you do when you admit being in the wrong and want to reduce the culpability to the minimum. This has nothing to do with the appeal or the law.

So, now you appeal to POPLA but wait, they havent given you the POPLA code but expect you to write again and ask for it WRONG, they have 35 days after receiving your appeal letter to reject and supply the code. If they dont then they cannot claim keeper liability so now make a note on your calendar as to when they received your appeal and when the 35 days are up and you havent got the POPLA code you can tell them where to go should they send further begging letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If sent on the 17th it will be deemed as received in time unless you can show otherwise (they do have a habit of dating letters days before they send them.)

I note that they say you failed to mitigate any circumstances. Well, mitigation is what you do when you admit being in the wrong and want to reduce the culpability to the minimum. This has nothing to do with the appeal or the law.

So, now you appeal to POPLA but wait, they havent given you the POPLA code but expect you to write again and ask for it WRONG, they have 35 days after receiving your appeal letter to reject and supply the code. If they dont then they cannot claim keeper liability so now make a note on your calendar as to when they received your appeal and when the 35 days are up and you havent got the POPLA code you can tell them where to go should they send further begging letters.

 

Hi Eric thanks for the reply.

 

Unfortunately they DID supply the POPLA code. It's on the bottom right hand corner error of the letter. I covered it in order to upload the documents.

 

So I will now need to appeal through POPLA. Has anyone you know don't it through the new system that they have?

 

Is there any particular angle I should try with the appeal? I'm not sure the old ways will work.

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Eric thanks for the reply.

 

Unfortunately they DID supply the POPLA code. It's on the bottom right hand corner error of the letter. I covered it in order to upload the documents.

 

So I will now need to appeal through POPLA. Has anyone you know don't it through the new system that they have?

 

Is there any particular angle I should try with the appeal? I'm not sure the old ways will work.

 

Thanks again.

 

 

This is the lastest on the new POPLA website;

 

new POPLA process is much speedier than before.

 

Previously the motorist received a confirmation email from POPLA giving a provisional assessment date 35 days in the future. The new process is that the operator has up 28 days to submit their evidence. However, as soon as they have done this the motorist is emailed to let them know the evidence is available.

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process-much-speedier.html

 

 

What old ways will not work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the lastest on the new POPLA website;

 

 

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process-much-speedier.html

 

 

What old ways will not work?

 

No I was reading on the POPLA site and it was saying do not copy and paste laws and long winded clauses from other sites. Instead write in own words why you are appealing.

 

So the usual things I was going to use such as the charge is not proportionate and contracts with the land owners etc. Seems like I may not be able to.

 

Based on what I have provided what do you think is the best way to attack this?

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Eric thanks for the reply.

 

Unfortunately they DID supply the POPLA code. It's on the bottom right hand corner error of the letter. I covered it in order to upload the documents.

 

So I will now need to appeal through POPLA. Has anyone you know don't it through the new system that they have?

 

Is there any particular angle I should try with the appeal? I'm not sure the old ways will work.

 

Thanks again.

I assume this is only what POPLA say,who are they to say what and where you get your appeal information from!.if you quote any law then it's the law and statute.you just use any input where ever you get it from,sod em.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume this is only what POPLA say,who are they to say what and where you get your appeal information from!.if you quote any law then it's the law and statute.you just use any input where ever you get it from,sod em.

 

Yea it was from the POPLA site.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Can anyone tell me based on what I have posted above in various documents what grounds I should EXACTLY be appealing on?

 

Thank you. Time is ticking. I think I have 35 days from rejection is that right?

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have 28 days, the 35 days is for them to reject your appeal. Firstly ask lambeth council planning dept if Athena have planning permission for their signs. If they dont they are there illegally and you cant enter a contract where criminality is involved. If this is the case then that will do as your appeal.

If not you say you do not believe the Athena have the authority to make claims in their own anme and so demand sight of the assignment of this right from the landowner. They dont usually hand over thweir contracts so the public can see them as they are often flawed so the usual situation here is that you win by then not offering any evidence.

You also say that in any case the amount claimed does not represent a loss caused by your action in a free car park not owned or managed by them in any true sense of the word as it is ANPR only. This means that the amount claimed is an unenforceable penalty under Dunlop v Selfridge 1915 and even if it is decided they do manage the site the amount is an unlawful penalty charge under Dunlop v The new Motor & Garage Co 1914

They may ask for a delay in the adjudication to await the result of PE v Beavis but if you can dont agree to this

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have 28 days, the 35 days is for them to reject your appeal. Firstly ask lambeth council planning dept if Athena have planning permission for their signs. If they dont they are there illegally and you cant enter a contract where criminality is involved. If this is the case then that will do as your appeal.

If not you say you do not believe the Athena have the authority to make claims in their own anme and so demand sight of the assignment of this right from the landowner. They dont usually hand over thweir contracts so the public can see them as they are often flawed so the usual situation here is that you win by then not offering any evidence.

You also say that in any case the amount claimed does not represent a loss caused by your action in a free car park not owned or managed by them in any true sense of the word as it is ANPR only. This means that the amount claimed is an unenforceable penalty under Dunlop v Selfridge 1915 and even if it is decided they do manage the site the amount is an unlawful penalty charge under Dunlop v The new Motor & Garage Co 1914

They may ask for a delay in the adjudication to await the result of PE v Beavis but if you can dont agree to this

 

Eric thanks very much I will get in contact with lambeth council.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric thanks very much I will get in contact with lambeth council.

 

Spoken to the council and there appears to be no planning permission for anything from Athena on the Lidl address.

 

There is an application for 1 sign from Lidl themselves but it's does not state anything about a car park, but also this is pending anyway and a decision won't be made until November.

 

So should I just solely go with that? Or add in the excess charge as well.

 

Cheers again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From lambeth council:

 

Thank you for your email to the Lambeth planning department.

 

Application 12/02497/ADV for 222-224 Streatham High Road was decided and refused in 2012 for display of two non-illuminated freestanding billboards lond the south-west boundary of the site, however, we have a current application 15/04938/ADV which is due for a decision on the 10th of November.

 

If you need any further assistance, please contact us on 0207 926 1180 or email planning@lambeth.gov.uk.

 

Kind regards

 

Christine Barnes

Customer Services Officer

Business & Customer Services

Enabling Cluster

London Borough of Lambeth

 

email: CBarnes@lambeth.gov.uk

website: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

then they are committing a criminal offence and you cannot form a contract even if you wanted to. Just go with that at POPLA and say that you are going to make a complaint of fraud by misrepresentation regarding the demand. Report the matter to actionfraud (who will do nothing) but at least you get a crime ref to pass on to POPLA. That will put them in an awkward position if they then make a perverse decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
then they are committing a criminal offence and you cannot form a contract even if you wanted to. Just go with that at POPLA and say that you are going to make a complaint of fraud by misrepresentation regarding the demand. Report the matter to actionfraud (who will do nothing) but at least you get a crime ref to pass on to POPLA. That will put them in an awkward position if they then make a perverse decision.

 

I looked into actionfraud. Looks like the type of claim I am making is not covered under their reporting policy. So instead to go to the police and log it? What do you think. I haven't spoken to actionfraud. Just read on their website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go to the local police they will tell you to phone actionfraud so you may as well just do that. AF dont actually do anything other than log it but if they get enough complaints the City of London Police investigate. The offence you are reporting is fraud by misrepresentation under the fraud act of 2006

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council can enforce the planning act but all the parking co has to do is apply for PP and they will get it as it is a nod through unless it is a conservation area. However, the company must apply or they are breaking the law, as is the case here

Link to post
Share on other sites
The council can enforce the planning act but all the parking co has to do is apply for PP and they will get it as it is a nod through unless it is a conservation area. However, the company must apply or they are breaking the law, as is the case here

 

This last bit lost me. So I'm going to ring action fraud. Will they give me a log number in which I will put to POPLA?

Also you say about they only have to apply for PP to get the nod. Which they have done but it's not due to be decided on until November..

Link to post
Share on other sites

the no PP on the date of the supposed breach of contract so no contract to breach. Simples. Yes, phone actionfraud and get it logged. Nothing will happen but you ge crime ref to forward.t a

Link to post
Share on other sites
the no PP on the date of the supposed breach of contract so no contract to breach. Simples. Yes, phone actionfraud and get it logged. Nothing will happen but you ge crime ref to forward.t a

 

Spoken to action fraud. Pretty useless actually. They say it's not a fraudulent matter but a civil matter and they cannot help. I raised all points as previously stated. They say I should contact citizens advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are wrong as it is a criminal matter to falsely claim that a contract exists when it doesnt, it is making a gain by misrepresentation but the truth is actionfraud are just phone jockeys who dont know the law and do nothing anyway. You couls ask again and tell them that you wish to make a formal complaint about them not logging a crime and want to take the matter further and speak to a real police officer about it if necessary. You wont get any action but at least they wil log something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They are wrong as it is a criminal matter to falsely claim that a contract exists when it doesnt, it is making a gain by misrepresentation but the truth is actionfraud are just phone jockeys who dont know the law and do nothing anyway. You couls ask again and tell them that you wish to make a formal complaint about them not logging a crime and want to take the matter further and speak to a real police officer about it if necessary. You wont get any action but at least they wil log something.

 

Hmm. Is it a must to deal with them. I was speaking to them for a while today and the lady whom I spoke to also asked her "supervisor" and the same was concurred.

 

Can I just say to POPLA that I have reported it to action fraud? Will they ask for the ref number?

 

Time is ticking. I think it's been 21 days since the rejection letter so I need to do this in the next couple Of days.

 

Thanks again. I know you must get bored of all this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do what you want, I was just pointing out that these parking companies are genuine criminals but no-one is interested in feeling their collars becuse it only affects people who dont matter in the eyes of the establishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Today I received this.

 

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

 

*

 

An Appeal has been opened with the reference 0562605579

 

*

 

Athena ANPR Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

 

*

 

Yours sincerely

 

*

 

POPLA Team*

 

 

Thank you to all for your help and expertise.

 

It's another win for the Caggers!

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...