Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • 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
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2134 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

Hope someone can help with this?

 

I have lived in my house since 1976.

Never had a demand for this rent until now.

 

The demand from Linder Myers Solicitors says made payable by a conveyance dated 6th December 1898.

 

Executors of Mrs Marjorie Wilkinson Dodd Rent owner under a conveyance of 24-12-1990

I own the Freehold which I purchased in 2001 so I don't pay any Ground Rent and I know this is a separate charge.

 

On the document from the Land Registry under Charges Register it states:-

1.The land in this title is with other land subject to a perpetual yearly rent charge of £27.14s .0d created by a Conveyance dated 6 December 1898 made between

(1) Mabel Newton Taylor and

(2) Thomas Whitehead.

 

The said Deed also contains covenants.

NOTE: Abstract filed under LA127521.

By the Conveyance dated 22 November 1933 referred to below the land conveyed was informally exonerated from this rent charge.

 

2. (24.04.1986) LEASE dated 10 May 1929 for 999 years from 10 May 1929.

Note : Lesee's title registered under under GM94593.

 

3. The land in this title with other land is subject to a perpetual yearly rent charge of £8 created by a Conveyance dated 22 November 1933 made between !9 Joseph Warburton and William Albert Downs.

 

The said Deed also contains covenants.

NOTE: Copy filed under GM408242

 

There is no mention of conveyance dated 24-12-1990.

Bit long winded I know but any advice appreciated

 

Also they are claiming arrears from 2012 to date

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting

so they suddenly found that since the Executors - Mrs Marjorie Wilkinson Dodd Rent owner - became so in 1990

they have just discovered its not been paid...and to date have not demanded it.

 

they have used the statute of limitation [6yrs] as they cant claim it back past that date..

 

haven't a clue.

 

but just thought i'd outline it..

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

now any covenant has to be enforced to be lawful so as they havent enforrced since 1976 then it is dead and gone.

 

You will need to ask a property lawyer about the class of freehold that your house falls under and you may need to contact the land registry to claim this for yourself under adverse possession rules that would have been in place between 1976 and 1988, the 12 years you need to occupy to claim the freehold possession. Buying the freehold in 2001 may have killed any claim anyways

 

That is why the lawyers are trying their luck,

they are trying to create a condition that no longer exists and if you pay them you are acknowledging that you dont want the freehold as an absolute title. Worth spending a few hundred fighting this as you will get that back when you win.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 OTHER

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...