Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • "These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest." Well worded.   I would add that as VCS have been  active in Airports over the years  that one would  expect they would be familiar with the Airports Act which would call into question the accuracy of their WS.   By questioning their WS you are hoping that VCS might decide not to turn up in Court [giving you a walkover] as they might not want the Judge looking closely at their WS. Also it would not be good for them should you win your case based on the Airports Act as it will have other Courts  kicking out other Airport cases hitting them in the pocket.    
    • Hi,   Still no response. I have my Liability Order hearing in a few days time, I was hoping I might have been able to receive a response from either my local councillor or the leader of the council before then. I wonder if they are just going to ignore my email?   Walshy    
    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of.   My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using.   Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose.   Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process.   To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
    • I would if I could tobyjugg  Did the same run today over an hour quicker than yesterday, thats what happens when you know where to go and not just try finding places with the postcode as I was yesterday
    • Thank you, @lookinforinfo. I have updated the VCS v Ward case as below:   VCS v Ward     1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.   63 Airport byelaws. (2) Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws— (d) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies

Plaster repair responsibility; Tenant or Housing Association?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1267 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

I have number of plastering defects around the flat that i rent from Radian housing association.

 

 

Im a complete failure when it comes to anything diy related so have asked if they would do it as i feel it falls under their responsibility as quoting from their online documents i would only be responsible for 'filling minor cracks in plaster'.

 

 

The defects are several 'plaster pops' where the head of a nail/screw protrudes out the wall with a head of plaster on it giving a kind of roundish raised head of cracked plaster which protrudes when any weight is put on the wall.

 

 

you cant just plaster over it it has to be excavated, re-screwed then plastered over.

 

 

Also lot of joins in the plaster where one or both edges move independently creating an unsealable crack unless the boards are fastened properly and then re plastered.

 

They have ofc said that this dosent fall under their responsibility which from experience they always say when they feel they will get away with it anyway :)

 

Should i chase them up on this?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say if it's something that you had no control over or input into then it's not your problem.

It sounds like the fixings were not set deep enough and the plaster has dried around them. If they want someone to pay for this, suggest they try whoever plastered the walls

I would not expect they would have a leg to stand on trying to charge you for poor quality in the building.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you know anyone in the building trade get them to have a look and write you a letter stating that it is a defcet arising from the time of installation etc. The board edges and screw heads should have been taped over with a special tape before the wall was skimmed. You need to read the complaints procedure and satrt making a formal complain in witing following the steps in the procedure. Eventually they will have to take the matter seriously and if they have any sense get the contractors to come back and remediate the problem they caused by doing it badly in the beginning. Many local gov and HA's cant be bothered to keep an eye on thei contractors and dont force them to make good any bodged job, they jsut pay out more money rather than kicking someone's backside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies. I have a surveyor coming out in a few weeks. If they mess me about ill just do as recommended and pester them through official channels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why wait? if they are in the wrong waiting a few weeks wont make them suddenly right.

star the complaints now and dont let up until you get what you want even if they admit they are wrong.

 

Thanks for the replies. I have a surveyor coming out in a few weeks. If they mess me about ill just do as recommended and pester them through official channels.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Who undertook initial repair - OP, HA or previous T?

 

Ive patched up one or two badly but most have never been touched and are basically just from crap workmanship when the place was built.

 

why wait? if they are in the wrong waiting a few weeks wont make them suddenly right.

star the complaints now and dont let up until you get what you want even if they admit they are wrong.

 

Your correct i thought the same thing earlier and emailed them along with a few sample pictures.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...