Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim. 1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied. 2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists. 3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document. 4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either. 5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided. 6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
    • Can I  ask what you mean by "... they recommended a firm... "?   I ask because I'm a bit surprised that Social Services are even allowed to do that.  (I may be mistaken and that this is common practice, but it seems a bit odd to me).   If they did do so and the work has turned out to be sub-standard and unsatisfactory, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the council and also to my (or your friend's) local councillor(s).  You acted on the council's recommendation and you should have a reasonable expectation that the firm recommended should be reliable and professional.  I would also insist that trading standards be asked to investigate this firm.  (Where I live our local county council trading standards department runs an approved trader database).   A complaint to the council might not directly assist you but it might help to prevent others being taken in by this firm.
    • Hello Susan, welcome to CAG.   Hopefully Paul Walton will see this message and reply to you, but it would also be a good idea to start a new thread of your own so we can advise on anything else connected with your refund.   Best, HB
  • 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

Landlord selling up, unwilling to negotiate an earlier end to tenancy


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 945 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

We've been in the property 12 months, and 10 months in the landlord has served us with a section 21. So we have two months to leave.

 

An estate agent has been in touch regarding viewings and we have been as accommodating as we can.

 

We have found another place to rent and have asked if the landlord is willing to end the tenancy early, and the answer was no. We can leave early but still need to pay until the end of the 12 months.

 

The new landlord doesn't want to wait that long and if we cant move in earlier he will have to let it to someone else.

 

So, in an attempt to persuade the current landlord I have pointed out that we have been very flexible with the viewings, but have no reason to do this. If he isn't willing to negotiate the leave date, we have no reason to be as flexible as we are, even to the point of not allowing viewings at all.

 

Am I within my rights here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In short no.

Your LL doesn't have to agree to an earlier date. You can of course just pay the rent and move earlier, but not many people can afford that.

You need to refer to the clause in your lease on allowable access and notice for your LL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks. Yes I realise I can pay the rent and move early, but that just doesn't make much sense.

 

I was thinking the 'quiet enjoyment' clause would cover us here but youre right the tenancy agreement does say that within the last two months the landlord can access the property with tenants or purchasers but must give reasonable notice.

 

Which leads me onto another question; when we fist let the property we had a verbal agreement that the landlord would not enter the property without us being present because of our dog.

 

If the landlord decides to let his self in for viewing and the dog attacks someone, is that our fault?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Verbal agreements mean very little when a paper contract is in place. They can be denied knowledge of and it falls back to the paper one.

However the landlord cannot just let themselves in. You need to be there.

A big sign on the door warning of a dog may be prudent, but my argument is its the dogs home and if your unsupervised and the dog feels threatened that's your fault, not the dogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

LL has right to inspect Property, without consent of, T proviided he gave min 24 hr Notice of intended Inspection / failed to respond to Ts offer,of mutuallly convenient appt wiitin,7?./days,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just inform the LL and estate agent in writing that you have a dog.

If they then decide to take a risk and enter the property while you're not there you could not be blamed.

However, as we live in a "other's fault" society, I wouldn't be surprised if you were blamed if the dog attack them despite your warning.

Written communication and sign on the door would seem reasonable to a reasonable person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatively you can change the locks until you leave and then change them back..

 

 

That way no one can enter whilst you are not there, and if they ask why you have changed them, you know that they have tried to enter without permission.

I am not a solicitor :!::!:

 

Most of my knowledge came from this site :-D:-D

 

If I have been helpful in any way at all .............. Please click my star..... :-(:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites
:nono: I wouldn't advise that

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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not??

 

 

 

it is not against any law, in fact it is what all tenants should do as soon as they move into a new property..

I am not a solicitor :!::!:

 

Most of my knowledge came from this site :-D:-D

 

If I have been helpful in any way at all .............. Please click my star..... :-(:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2016/10/18/tenant-penalties-breaching-tenancy-rules-changing-locks/

 

It is the tenant’s right not to be disturbed or harassed while living in the property. Landlords are not entitled to enter the tenant’s living area without written permission as they have the right to use the property as their home. However, as mentioned, the landlord has the right to ‘reasonable’ access to carry out repairs for which s/he is responsible, but s/he should always ask for the tenant’s permission, and should give at least 24 hours’ notice (s11(6) Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).

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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but the op wants to stop the LL showing potential TT round whilst he is out... and is well within his rights to dissallow the LL to do so, and if the LL will not stop doing so, then TT is within rights to stop this.

 

 

also this method is better than TT's dog being destroyed for attacking the LL and viewers.

I am not a solicitor :!::!:

 

Most of my knowledge came from this site :-D:-D

 

If I have been helpful in any way at all .............. Please click my star..... :-(:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alternatively you can change the locks until you leave and then change them back..

 

 

That way no one can enter whilst you are not there, and if they ask why you have changed them, you know that they have tried to enter without permission.

 

 

I agree, changing the locks would be the best way forward, then changing them back when OP final leaves.

 

Just to point out.

 

Section 11 of 1985 Landlord and Tenant Act refers to landlords Repairing obligations in short leases and not showing new tenants around.

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog remains resp of T (guest) at all times,) if approved by LL. Dog cannot be a T.

Irrespective of TA Conditions, the LL can apply for an Access Order. If T does not comply they

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...