Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your response. I've read through some of the threads, however I haven't found any in a similar situation to mine where the overall outcome of the investigation has been posted (whether it was an out of court settlement or a conviction that resulted in a criminal record).    I'm aware that what typically happens is that you're taken to court where they give you a £1000 fine and a criminal record of 12 months (or 11 years if its an enhanced DBS check). This is the information I received following contacting a the TFL legal advice team.   
    • urm.. that's a telecom defence?? why not adapt the one I pointed you too??    
    • Thank you all again.   I think the word story is quite apt as it is clear from the 29 points over 6 pages that my parents have insisted lots of frankly irrelevant and often untrue things have been included in the solicitors letter.   Here is me filling in the gaps!   There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy.   Not abandoned, it went to court and the court decided it should be sold and the £ divided between my Mother and my Uncle who were the only two children. So maybe they did own it whilst on the market? You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – who were the owners of the house.   Correct, it went on the market, a few people viewed it, my parents were awkward towards these potential buyers and then I made the offer to the estate agent and purchased it. This was in 1999. We talking about 20 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed.   Exactly, 20 years is ridiculous, and during that time my Father could have purchased it from me, instead of purchasing their own council house, if they really wanted to it 'back' as they keep saying. Yes market value in need of work and all above board. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the story you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. My Uncle has also sadly passed away.   I obtained additional borrowing to fund the work needed in 2008 (not mentioned in letter obviously) and have found some receipts, emails and mortgage letter to back this up, but in the letter my parents claim they paid for all this and carried out the work as I ‘had little interest in the property’ also all correspondence from letting agent is to me, but in letter claims by Father did all these and ‘I merely singed the tenancy’ which is rubbish.   One weird thing, the garden shed is still full of my Grandad's tools and my parents have the only key to this, have visited it randomly and instructed a builder person we both know over the years to trim the hedges. This was always been behind my back and have asked them to let me know or I can do it. I spoke to him yesterday and they have always paid him cash, so no paper trail.   Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Yes, although the ‘trust’ that is mentioned is literally something they have made up, assumed or otherwise. There is absolutely nothing to my knowledge of this kind in place.   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 20 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem.   Reason being it is referred to in the letter and quite representative of the whole letter, rambling. My point was it is not true and I am the one who has paid for these. It’s almost like they are trying to paint me as someone collecting the rent money whilst the did all the hard work and paid for things. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property.   Agreed You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event.   Lets hope so So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth.   Good point about me being a trustee, if, such a thing were in place. I had a google of the meaning and I honestly don’t feel it meets any of the criteria. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I wouldn't supply this to their solicitor but if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me but we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions     I do really appreciate your time and effort on this. Yes, when I read it all again, rubbish does spring to mind.   My parents have been very challenging to say the least and have no idea of the consequence of their actions. To be honest, they have almost shot themselves in the foot as there is so much detail in the letter, lots of which is untrue and I can prove this. If it ever got to court and I really hope it doesn’t, I can only think this would go against them.   I really do think the solicitor (who is the same one that rinsed them ££££ over the will) is just charging them for this letter, which may have been a good few hours with the unneeded detail, knowing fully well this wont go anywhere!   Another thing the letter requests that I confirm I wont sell, rent out or re-mortgage the property!!! I have literally just started a new mortgage and need tenants to pay the rent, I don't think this request hold any water at all?   I hope this does come to nothing and hopefully helps others along the way!
    • god no never invite pointless letter tennis   dx  
    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   I expect people will be along to advise over the course of the day but in the meantime have a read of other fake Oyster card threads here,  we have a few.    HB      
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 928 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

Here is one for the Consumer Action Group and for the mods. Can you provide a proper link to the following legal case for all future reference just like a SARS request, or is that too difficult? Its the well known case of Lisa Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd, a must read for all.

 

 

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?? You cannot list every major court judgement. That is why you have Google and the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again , no one asked to quote all legal cases, just the most important one that considers Utility companies. Have you read it? Do you know of any other legal cases you could add?

 

 

When you quote law the CAB software attempts to place a link that makes a nonsense of the legal quote. So your software needs to reflect on such matters to make it clear, easy to use for all consumers etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Appelate court decison is important as it sets legal precedent on the lower courts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]Here is one for the Consumer Action Group and for the mods.[/b] Can you provide a proper link to the following legal case for all future reference just like a SARS request, or is that too difficult? Its the well known case of Lisa Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd, a must read for all.

 

 

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

 

You have already provided one above ?

 

 

Andy


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank goodness two ladies have the courage to take big energy company and Banks on with respect to Harassment.

 

 

Link http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html and

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.html .

 

 

Why is it this website does not recognise their efforts which benefit all.

Both case are a must read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another legal case precedent to do with harassment. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1492.html

Can the mods please set up a library of this and other such cases with a link to help others?

 

 

To keep posting links in inefficient. Can someone please help sort the problem out?

 

What would you like the mods to do, Mike? We're aware of the Sheila Ferguson case and have quoted it in the past.

 

If you want to draw the mods' attention to something in a thread, you need to report it. We can't be everywhere all of the time.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would you like the mods to do, Mike? We're aware of the Sheila Ferguson case and have quoted it in the past.

 

If you want to draw the mods' attention to something in a thread, you need to report it. We can't be everywhere all of the time.

 

HB

 

 

As I started this thread due to the lack of such legal case law information can you explain why it has a disingenuous link to British Gas Help?

Was it approved by the mods?

 

Can you advise when this was link was added and why?

 

This site has links to sar , county court and other such links . Why not leading case law on utility companies. There is excellent stuff on here.

 

 

 

So many question . Time to have the answers please.

Edited by Andyorch
Personal remarks removed against ST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those reasonable people out there, I have provided the following "Legal case authorities" on harassment , which is a criminal and civil offence.

 

 

These are the leading cases although these will lead you to other such cases:-

 

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.html- Roberts v Bank of Scotland Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCA Civ 882 - a bank customer whom it harassed by repeated telephone calls.

Please note : Theresa May was famed for her harassment and bullying in her time at the Home Office. Bear that in mind when placing your X on the ballot paper in the local and general election on Thursday and the 8 June 2017.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html- Ferguson v British Gas Trading Limited [2010] 1 WLR 785, - the defendant supplied gas to the claimant until 25 May 2006.

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2006/34.html- Majrowski v Guy's and Thomas's NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34; [2007] 1 AC 224,- a clerical worker claimed damages for harassment by his departmental manager.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1492.html- Sunderland City Council v Conn - [2008] IRLR 324,- a paver employed by the Council alleged harassment by his foreman.

There are other harassment cases , including one in the lower county court not reported but the details are important:

 

 

Christopher Poncelet v Npower [2010] Northampton man takes NPower to court and wins

A Northampton man has secured what could prove a landmark ruling against energy giant NPower, and won damages after enduring years of incorrect billing and harassment by debt collection agencies.

Christopher Poncelet waged a lone battle against NPower for over three years after a succession of incorrect electricity bills led the energy firm to demand payment for money he did not owe and enlist a succession of companies to recover the debt. Mr Poncelet finally lost patience after NPower blocked his attempts to switch to another supplier and he decided to take the matter to court.

Northampton County Court ruled in the consumer’s favour on 13 September, criticising NPower for failing to resolve the issue and awarding Mr Poncelet £3,000 in damages for the persistent harassment he faced over a protracted period. Judge Bray described NPower’s conduct as: "the oppressive and unacceptable conduct of a large company over a small individual" and repeated the words of Lord Justice Jacob in the case of Ferguson v British Gas, saying: "It is one of the glories of this country that every now and again one of its citizens is prepared to take a stand against the big battalions of government or industry."

The judge also ruled that Mr Poncelet could switch his electricity supplier from NPower to a new supplier. Sarah Canning of Franklins Solicitors, the legal firm representing Mr Poncelet, said it was one of the worst cases of company insensitivity and poor customer care she had ever dealt with. 

"Mr Poncelet received no fewer than 15 inaccurate bills from NPower, faced demands for money that was not owed on 11 occasions, and had to endure 14 attempts by debt collectors to recover money," she explained. "This wasn’t an ‘automatic billing error’ by NPower and involved harassment that required human agency involvement on repeated occasions. It is rare, if not unique, that a consumer manages to secure not just damages against a major utility provider, but a judgment of harassment."

Mr Poncelet, a British software developer with a US company, works American hours, meaning considerable overnight working. His problems started when he noticed that NPower had transposed low-rate overnight electricity costs for higher daytime tariffs. Although he successfully persuaded them to correct early bills, the practice continued quarter after quarter and led to incorrect demands for outstanding payment and interest charges. Faced with visits from debt collection agencies, warnings that a pre-payment meter would be fitted and threats to cut off his power supply, Mr Poncelet attempted to switch to an alternative supplier. He admitted to being at his ‘wits end’ when his preferred new supplier refused to accept him because of his so-called "outstanding debts".

"I was left with no choice but to take the matter to court to try and end this situation," explained Mr Poncelet.  "I had exhausted my patience and energies trying to combat NPower’s billing system and couldn’t take any more."

Following the judgment, Mr Poncelet said he was just relieved that other consumers would now not have to go through the same harassment that he had endured.

Posted by: Franklins Solicitors LLP

 

 

 

 

I have also provided a link to the UK law on Protection from Harassment :-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents- Protection from Harassment Act 1997 1997 c. 40

 

 

That makes 3 Utility companies who have been or are involved in harassment over many years. Do you know of others?

I hope others find this useful. It is free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

British Gas up to their old tricks again on harassment . Story extract from 7 May Sunday Mirror:

 

 

 

 

" OAP taken to court over unpaid energy bill despite having no heating or hot water for 17 YEARS

 

British Gas claims 74-year-old Dr Roland Graf owes nearly £200 in standing charges and debt recovery costs, even though his supply was cut off in 2000.

The 74-year-old retired hospital consultant has been taken to court three times over the case with the claim by the energy giant being thrown out twice, and abandoned a third time. "

the full story here http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pensioner-taken-court-over-unpaid-10368081

 

 

 

 

Have British Gas not learned the lesson handed out by Lisa Maria Ferguson?

All have been warned about these cowboys and their repeat law breaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...