Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • WiltshireGuy81
      Advice needed regarding Eviction

      By WiltshireGuy81 · Posted

      Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc.      
    • dx100uk
      General question about CCJ's if not enforced or extended after 6 years

      By dx100uk · Posted

      extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • BazzaS
      Sold shoes to a platform. Tracking shows no issues but company claim empty box received - Should I apply to strikeout?

      By BazzaS · Posted

      You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Andy111
      General question about CCJ's if not enforced or extended after 6 years

      By Andy111 · Posted

      Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
    • dx100uk
      Moneybarn - Termination Received, no default received and only missed 3 payments.

      By dx100uk · Posted

      whats the court claimform for? return of goods order? please complete this:  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Tenant getting his lock broken by someone

axil23
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4750 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

axil23

axil23

Posted
Posted

Got a T that has probably wound someone the wrong way and is now getting harassed. My involvement in this is that I have changed the locks at his flat 2 times now as someone keeps on breaking a key in there. Anyway got a phone call from the T that its happened again and this time I refused to change it for free as it costs me quite a bit. Advised him that I would call out the locksmith and he could settle the bill with him directly. The T didn't agree to this.

 

The Housing dept from the council were on the phone within a couple of hours insisting that I get it repaired so he can get back into the property again.

 

Its costs me too much to do this Out of hours as I will have to call someone out as this being a long weekend.

 

What are my rights on this? Surely I have given him a working lock and changed it twice. Now its up to the T to fix it himself?

Link to post
Share on other sites
axil23

axil23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
and has been been burgled and have the police been involved.

 

No. Someone just breaks a key in there. I guess he must have had a argument with someone and this is there way of winding him up. No police has been involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
queensclose

queensclose

Posted
Posted

its your duty to pay for repairs and maintainence excluding tenant damage and neglect. that said because the police have not been involved the tenant should bear the cost of the damage. if he reports it to the police and gives you a crime number then you should pay for it.

a little more information may help

was the tenant out at the time

was anything taken etc

 

my friend had a tenant like that and it turned out he kept losing his keys.

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
axil23

axil23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
] if he reports it to the police and gives you a crime number then you should pay for it.

a little more information may help

was the tenant out at the time

was anything taken etc

 

my friend had a tenant like that and it turned out he kept losing his keys.

 

Yeah the T was out all three times as he called me saying he could not get in. Nothing was taken as no one goes inside. Basically they put something in there to stop the key getting inside.

 

I am not to happy with the T and have got him on a notice period to evict so am not keen on spending money on him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
axil23

axil23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Model landlord! Your tenant is the victim of crime, so you evict them. So when your new tenant moves in, are you going to inform them of the crime in the area?

 

To be honest with you that has nothing to do with it. I own the flat next door and also 3 more flats just 4 houses down and they are not getting problems.

 

I am evicting him as he is now 3 months over due on his rent. Thats why I am hurting when I have to pay for the lock changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
axil23

axil23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
are you going to inform them of the crime in the area?

 

I always tell my clients the entire truth. So yes I will mention this to them but will also advise them that it hasn't happened to my other properties so it was probably targeted at this person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
axil23

axil23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
where does the law take sides here? are they on your side or his?

 

I am not sure on this, I got the feeling from the Council that the T was. But they wouldn't confirm. I guess wear and tear I would be, but damage done because of the T's attitude should be his problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites
gavbon2011

gavbon2011

Posted
Posted
I am not sure on this, I got the feeling from the Council that the T was. But they wouldn't confirm. I guess wear and tear I would be, but damage done because of the T's attitude should be his problem?

 

i agree with you, if they have upset someone, and they came and kicked the door in, its a personal dispute between him and the person doing it, not you, so it shouldn't come out of your pocket!

Link to post
Share on other sites
axil23

axil23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
i agree with you, if they have upset someone, and they came and kicked the door in, its a personal dispute between him and the person doing it, not you, so it shouldn't come out of your pocket!

 

Just wondering where I stand legally though as the council worker mentioned that I am stopping the T getting access to his property. To which my reply was that I gave him a working lock and its not wear & tear which has broken it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed999

Ed999

Posted
Posted
legally it is your resposibility even if it gets vandalised every day.

 

 

Can you cite any legal authority supporting your opinion?

 

I have considered the point regarding fair wear and tear being the landlord's responsibility, and it seems to me that the legal principle behind that point is that the tenant is responsible for damage to the premises, unless it is only wear and tear - because the latter does not count as true damage.

 

That being so, the problem which the landlord faces in the present instance is clearly NOT wear-and-tear. It is property damage.

 

That, it seems to me, ought to be treated the same as any other type of dilapidations or disrepair: i.e. as something the tenant must pay for. Thus if the tenant allows the locks to be damaged, the tenant must repair the damage himself.

 

If the tenant's children smash a window, are you going to say, oh no, the tenant himself didn't do that, so it's not his responsibility? Of course you're not. Any intentional damage to the premises is the tenant's responsibility: it is he who has covenanted to use the premises in a tenant-like manner.

 

Where the damage is not to the main structure, nor to main services that pass through other premises not included in the letting, it is not within the landlord's statutory repairing obligations under section 11 of the 1985 Act. See the FAQ -

 

- Disrepairs in privately rented accommodation

 

I think the landlord has a reasonable case in law for asking the tenant to repair this type of damage at the tenant's own expense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
axil23

axil23

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Can you cite any legal authority supporting your opinion?

 

I have considered the point regarding fair wear and tear being the landlord's responsibility, and it seems to me that the legal principle behind that point is that the tenant is responsible for damage to the premises, unless it is only wear and tear - because the latter does not count as true damage.

 

That being so, the problem which the landlord faces in the present instance is clearly NOT wear-and-tear. It is property damage.

 

That, it seems to me, ought to be treated the same as any other type of dilapidations or disrepair: i.e. as something the tenant must pay for. Thus if the tenant allows the locks to be damaged, the tenant must repair the damage himself.

 

If the tenant's children smash a window, are you going to say, oh no, the tenant himself didn't do that, so it's not his responsibility? Of course you're not. Any intentional damage to the premises is the tenant's responsibility: it is he who has covenanted to use the premises in a tenant-like manner.

 

Where the damage is not to the main structure, nor to main services that pass through other premises not included in the letting, it is not within the landlord's statutory repairing obligations under section 11 of the 1985 Act. See the FAQ -

 

- Disrepairs in privately rented accommodation

 

I think the landlord has a reasonable case in law for asking the tenant to repair this type of damage at the tenant's own expense.

 

Just what I had thought and wanted to hear.

 

Thank you very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed999

Ed999

Posted
Posted

I did take a look at the other thread, but it was really about wear and tear, not about intentional damage.

 

Two points might be relevent -

 

a. Any cost incurred by the landlord for repairs might be covered by the landlord's insurance policy.

 

b. If the landlord has signed a management agreement which puts maintenance in the hands of the Letting Agent, the landlord should not have to become involved. It's the Letting Agent's problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve__M

Steve__M

Posted
Posted

I checked the tenancy agreement I use and that agreement says that the tenant is responsible for damage to doors and windows.

 

As far as I can see there is no statutary requirement on the LL, so I would guess that unless the contract says otherwise it is the tenants responsibility.

 

Reading between the lines, the tenant has told the council that the landlord has done it to try and get rid of him, hence the council's response.

 

Reading even more between the lines, the tenant has caused the damage and hopes the landlord is blamed for attempted illegal eviction.

 

Allegedly :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed999

Ed999

Posted
Posted
Reading between the lines, the tenant has told the council that the landlord has done it to try and get rid of him, hence the council's response.

 

This was my impression, too, on reading the details of this case.

 

It's a disreputable tactic commonly used by tenants to interest a Local Authority in a case in which the Authority would otherwise have no legal powers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...