Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am hoping for some help. I noticed some readers state they have successfully challenged leaseholder charges. I am now being charged in excess of £2000 leasholder service charges on a garage in Kent. It is a simple garage. As it is a  non-residential the normal tribunal routes to appeal  the garage charges are unavailable. I requested an explanation of the charges. All the service company have provided is a list of charges nothing to say how these charges relate to my garage which has never been visited or maintained. I am charged management fees, account preparation fees, audit fees. The leaseholder forwarded my account to SLC solicitors three years ago. Three years ago I sent SLC a cheque to avoid legal action. SLC did not bank the cheque as they agreed that the charges are unreasonable. However the management company continued to issue charges on the garage. SLC have issued legal action again. I would love to hear from readers who have successfully challenged unreasonable leasehold service charges.
    • i can't find a lost scottish court claim for a speculative invoice... likewise i haven't seen any gauge of an increase in PPC's issuing court claims in scotland since the much trumpeted POFA changes in Scotland - if they even happened or changed anything   it pers concerns mea bit  more as you say you've read up....focussing on POFA.. that you still appear not to have understood the very 1st basic principle of PPC things ..they are not FINES.   if they did get sheriff officers to issue a claim, and again there is no data to indicate any increase at all in them doing so, bar a handful of cases you can count on one hand in the years before, there would be plenty of chances to fold .
    • Hi This is the email i sent in December.     Hi  I do apologise but I must say going by your list of varying case studies upon your website i think you are wrong. There are various examples there of let us say loans that have have recently completed, whereby resolutions have been found, they were not deemed out of time just because the policy was entered into at the start of the loan, some +10yrs earlier. What concerned me more was the DMP and thus the CMP & CML membership were only recently concluded.. The comment you have made that PayPlan sold me the two plans I've complained about in October 2007 is somewhat mute as policies were still live within the last 6yrs with regard to payments toward them , even within the last 3yrs , if fact. I would also like to mention. "letters in 2015 from Payplan should have alerted me there was an issue," is again pretty mute as I was not aware then I could complain of mis-selling, there is no evidence I can find before 2017 anywhere that CMP & CML were even reclaimable.! I would also like to point out there is a diff between CMP & CML, they state they are both membership schemes, they are NOT. I also believe the above further answers his exceptional circumstance question...there are none as I believe I don't need any as I am NOT out of time! For the reasons above I don't agree with your decision and would like to have this looked at by an ombudsman as stated in your previous email. Kind Regards.     I will post the attachment shortly.   
    • Ah I see, I did kind of give them a notice to pay up in 7 days before taking things further but they refused and instead asked for the next instalments through a solicitor letter. I was thinking whether it would be better and more cost saving if I instead take this to a small claims court as oppose to the big courts, I know that is what you suggested at the begining. I was just not sure if I had a case since I unfortunately signed the new variation agreement.   
    • Yes, I expect that the mutual agreement was based on "we'll give you this amount of money but part of the deal is that you agree not to talk about what happened during this mediation". I suppose that either party can insert any demands they want in the mediation process and it's up to the other party to accept it or to walk away and then to go on to court
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Tripped and fell in supermarket car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1898 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

It was still wet when the manager and I walked around.

 

 

Thank you all for your help.

 

 

I will write to the manager asking for the cctv footage if it's available.

 

 

It has been really helpful getting different views

but really should the sarcastic so and sos be posting if they can't be objective and non judgemental?

 

 

I will let you know how it goes.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

well if F1 cars can skid on lines so can you:lol:

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

If it gets slippery shouldn't they have warning signs

 

My local shopping centre has warning signs everywhere even the escalators have a speaker that says " warning floor is slippery "

 

The walkway floors is like what you find inside of buildings like the trafford centre , west quay ect

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pose a letter, and post up on here if you wish for others to have a look at and advise accordingly.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it gets slippery shouldn't they have warning signs

 

My local shopping centre has warning signs everywhere even the escalators have a speaker that says " warning floor is slippery "

 

The walkway floors is like what you find inside of buildings like the trafford centre , west quay ect

 

There was a case won by someone a few years ago who slipped on a wet floor, they had signs up saying slippery and the judge said that was an admittance and made an award to the girl that slipped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have known 2 rational intelligent people, who would not be the type to seek compensation for accidents, look to take legal action against supermarkets as they have broken arms slipping over. For some reason, people think supermarkets should be liable inside and outside them. In both cases they consulted Solicitors who advised against it and it was not pursued. There was just not enough evidence in either case that the supermarket had failed in any duty of care. One case was a slippery floor inside with a wet floor sign. The other was outside, where snow was in he process of being cleared.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
But signs outside in a ar park? Surely a common sense approach is needed?

Of should the supermarket have to put signs in the car park saying floor is wet?

I understand inside the store, but outside?

 

The Occupiers Liability Act would extend to the underground car park under the supermarket.

 

It matters not that the accident was not inside the store itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have known 2 rational intelligent people, who would not be the type to seek compensation for accidents, look to take legal action against supermarkets as they have broken arms slipping over. For some reason, people think supermarkets should be liable inside and outside them. In both cases they consulted Solicitors who advised against it and it was not pursued. There was just not enough evidence in either case that the supermarket had failed in any duty of care. One case was a slippery floor inside with a wet floor sign. The other was outside, where snow was in he process of being cleared.

 

That's the key, what evidence is there that the supermarket has a reasonable system of inspection/cleaning/maintenance etc.

 

If they have no systems in place then the supermarket is liable.

 

The OP will only know this once investigations have been done and the supermarket has disclosed it's records.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trying to get to 4th page, wouldnt load, any ideas ?

 

I see the same. Must be a fault.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...