Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Ade,   Stop speaking to them by phone and keep contact in writing only, which you've said you prefer.   Send TT a SAR by post immediately. The data you get back should enable you to see what they think you owe, and how it's made up.   Also write to BW Legal confirming you dispute the alleged debt owed to TT and have written to TT seeking data, so BWL must stop demands until TT have replied to the SAR you've sent them.
    • Please do although obviously I don’t know the facts from your side but at least I can tell you how much of a cut and paste job it is.
    • Please check back for a full reply tomorrow. However, it would help if you would introduce pergo spaces into a story full stop it's very long and especially for people with small screens it's very difficult to follow when it is so compacted.   I think this straight has become rather confused because of the third party account which we received at the outset. I think it will probably be helpful if you could repost your story but on a new thread and more openly spaced please.   Then we can start to have a closer look at it. However, as I've already suggested, I think there are two issues. The question of your liability in the accident and the problem of how you have been persuaded to take a rental car at such a high rate.    I would suggest that you hold off telephoneing anyone until we have had a closer look.before you do anything on the telephone. You have obviously had some very important conversations but you don't have any evidence of them. Although the other side may say that they have recorded them, you you may find it difficult to get hold of those recordings if in fact those recordings incriminate them in any way. for instance if they have promised you that you don't have to pay anything for the hire car, that would be an extremely useful conversation to have but you may find that it is difficult to get hold of.   please start a new thread it will be much easier to continue from there                                
    • When I sadly lost my job a while back, i reportd it immpediately to DWP as you are supposed to, but didnt realise at the time that the day I reported to them was the day before I was paid out for the last month. I was actually paid extra whem I left as it was cheaper than redundancy fort the business and at the time it was a good financial move (so I thought).   I was paid on Fri 26th Jan, they paid me out 2 months in one go. I reported to DWP on the 22nd of Han that I was made unemployed, had the letters and evidence. As they spun the story, because of their assesment dates and that, my first payment was on the 1st May and reassured that it works the other way around. That when work starts again, if I dont actually receive money from the company during the assesment period, there wont be an issue as it balances up.   Can I believe this or was it another spun story? I'm concerned that as I'll be paid monthly, (Starting on the 15th paid on the last day of the month), assment ends on the 22nd. Tha they'll take that money into consideration.   I'm just concerned due to the disparity it would cause between 4 odd months I endured with zero income because of how their system works and whatever they ahe in place to counter at this end of the claim.   Anywa, it's just awonder.   Cheers,   Ade    
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Flat above shop, all on one meter, tenants charged commercial rates.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 764 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

As a landlord I am continuously surprised at what tenants will allow them selves to be conned into, this tale hurts my sense of fair play to tenants and I hope you guys can help.

 

My friend is the 4th tenant T4, in a shared flat above a shop in south London (shop also owned by LL). It seems to be on individual contracts. The LL assigned my friend T4 with the responsibility of paying the metered supply water bill to the water company (lets call them WC as I am not sure who they are as yet).

 

She calls WC and they arrange 1/4ly DD of £300. Although they did not change the name on the bill it remains the name of the previous tenant even though now T4 is paying the DD and collecting the other shared contributions from the T1, T2, and T3

At some point it is discovered that the shop below, with a loo and a kitchen, are on the same meter, and that the WC has them on a commercial rate. T4 asked the WC to come and see what was up and they confirmed single meter, commercial rent, and that meter had not been read correctly since june2018 and they in fact owe 2K in back charges.

So T4 and her pals have been paying the water for the shop since June last year, the LL knew this but did not tell T4 or her buddies.

They have spoken to resolver who have said because the water comes in via the shop, then they must pay commercial rates - its about twice what a normal water bill should be - now I think resolver probably cannot think outside the box here...

 

Anyway what to do?

 

I am tempted to advise T4 to just stop paying and give the WC the LL name and address as the bill payer. I feel like LL has committed a fraud by a) not telling them they were paying for the shop, and b) not paying to have a 2nd supply added to the flat.

 

T4 is moving out at the end of April 19 and wants to try and resolve it so that she does not have to pay these ridiculous water charges.

WC seem ambivalent, (as you would expect, they are making the dough right now) LL said tough **** sort it out with shop below. T's 1-3 are spineless and my friend T4 is trying to sort it out.

 

Any advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inform the WC and let them sort it. It very much sounds like a dodgy landlord.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31 March 2017 the commercial water supply market was opened up to allow businesses to choose their water company rather than be automatically supplied by whoever operates in that area.

 

Any premise with a commercial element like in this instance is classified as a business regardless of the supply being shared and all occupiers of the business and flat will share a joint and several liability to the charges.

 

The water company will likely not change the charge basis to for example an assessed charge as these only apply to households rather than a business.

 

Options as I see it, get the name(s) of the business owners and have them added to the bill so they then will enjoy joint and several liability also.

 

Secondly and likely unrealistic is the landlord pays for the internal supply to be split so each property get its own bills based on their usage however this of course costs the landlord hence it hardly ever happens.

 

Lastly get an agreement with the other occupiers about contributions to the bills which again may be easier said than done.

 

I suppose an action against the business directly may be possible to recover their portion using the same legislation the water companies use and which deems occupiers liable but how you’d work out their exact liability would be impossible so half and half perhaps..

 

This would be the Water Industry Act 1991 (s) 144 a and b.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that the meter has apparently not been read properly since June of last year. Can you tell us more about that please

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...