Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton   MCOL Northampton N1 ? Manual Claim CCMCC (Salford) ? New beta WWW.MONEYCLAIMS.SERVICE.GOV.UK ?   If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form.   This has been uploaded in my previous messages in the bundle of documents     Name of the Claimant ? Asset Link Capital (NO5) Limited   How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to./   14/02/2020   ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total Not relevant as his claim was set aside, and has now been brought to the court again by the claimant       Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? Please see bundle of documents in previous thread   What is the total value of the claim? £10,734.1    Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  Yes - this is one of the grounds for getting it set aside   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?  Apparently 2000   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? I do not recall entering into an agreement with Barclays   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ?  It was, but it is not anymore   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned to Asset Link   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No - although they have provided a copy of the assignment notice in their bundle of docs for the hearing   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I don't remember - but again a copy of a letter has been provided (see bundle on previous thread)   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No    Why did you cease payments?  2015   What was the date of your last payment? December 2015   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved?  I wrote to Barclaycard back in 2015 to ask them to send proof of the original agreement but they just sent me a reconstituted document which had no personal deals on relating to me   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? yes - step change took control and set up payments of £1 pm
    • I have had no such luck getting the tickets cancelled. So more help would be greatly appreciated. I have debt recovery letters now. I guess I ignore these and only respond when there is court proceedings?
    • On MCOL there are 2 times the case stay is lifted. Once between filing the defence and them submitting a DQ, and then again between them submitting the DQ and the court issuing one to the defendant.   Is that normal or is there anything I should be aware of?   Thanks as always 
    • It's difficult to advise what to do because there are so many ifs and buts. In the majority of cases where a PPC start a court claim they go all the way to the final hearing. However, in a minority of cases, and by no means a tiny minority, they have no real intention of going all the way to a final hearing. They know their case is rubbish and they know it will cost them a hefty wad to send a solicitor to court (remember solicitors' costs are capped at £50 at small claims).  They pretend they are going all the way to court to intimidate the motorist into giving in.  Yes, the pretence often includes paying the hearing fee.  Yes, UKPC often do this.  And no, they haven't produced a WS (so far). I suppose it depends on how much you have spent on flights (and accommodation?) and if this is refundable v the approx £250 at stake if you lose the case.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6355 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

Situation:

 

DD took flat with another 3 girls in August, rent is split 4 ways. 3 girls pay equal amounts, 4th has smaller room, so pays less. Rent agreement is for 1 year, renewable yearly. Lettign agents made it very clear that they are jointly liable for the rent, and that if someone leaves, that is not their problem and the remaining girls would be liable for the totality of the rent, and it is one contract, which they all understood and agreed to.

 

Now one of the girls is leaving to move back with her parents and is saying that she is not liable for any of the remaining rent after she goes (never mind council tax, etc...).

 

I think that she is, as far as I am concerned, there is a verbal contract between all 4, and there is no reason the other 3 should be penalised because the 4th has decided to leave. In order to mitigate the loss, the girl in the smaller room will move to the bigger one and take over that larger share of the rent.

 

Now then, here come the questions:

1 - Obviously, the rent money is not due until each month comes up. Can the girls sue their ex-flatmate now for the amounts still due to come, or can they only do so once the year is up retrospectively? I mean, usually, if you breach a fixed term contract, all monies become due immediately, don't they, so would the same apply here?

'2 - They don't necessarily want the girl to be completely strapped for cash, so if they were to obtain a court order, could they request it to be made so that the girl would have to pay her share monthly until the end of the lease year?

3 - Do they indeed have a case in the first place to go after the girl for the money? (that shd have been the 1st question, really! lol)

4 - The 4th girl said that she had been to the letting agent and "they were going to draw a new agreement", which I don't believe is true, but if it, surely, it can not be drawn unilaterally on one girl's say-so, and without the others' agreement? And even if they did, it wouldn't be valid without the remaining 3's signature, and they could refuse to sign, right? After all, it's no skin off the agent's nose, so I can't see it being true...

 

Anyway, any answers, thoughts and suggestions are all welcome. DD and the other 2 are really distressed at the moment, so the sooner I can give them some more definite answers, the better. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this will help but when i was renting with friends many years ago. We made it a condition of leaving that whoever left would be responsible for their portion of the rent until they could find someone to take over the remainder of the lease.

All flatmates had to agree to the new tennant and any exsisting house rules stayed.

Just a thought but did the agent not ask for a guarantor for all or each girl as it was their first time letting?

 

HTH

 

Stuart

If I have helped then please click on my scales.

 

Ulster bank

---------------------------------------------------

05/10/06 DPR letter sent

06/11/06 Request of repayment sent £1186.06

20/11/06 Repayment deadline

21/11/06 LBA sent

25/11/06 £90 goodwill gesture letter received

06/12/06 LBA deadline

09/12/06 Received final response to claim

I will register smallclaim in new year once Jan paycheque is in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookworm,please answer the following questions:

 

1.Is there a "breaking clause" in the existing tenancy or not?

 

If yes,what is the exact wording?

 

2.When does the current 1 year tenancy expire?

 

The answers to the above questions should hopefully enable me to assist you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Situation:

 

DD took flat with another 3 girls in August, rent is split 4 ways. 3 girls pay equal amounts, 4th has smaller room, so pays less. Rent agreement is for 1 year, renewable yearly. Lettign agents made it very clear that they are jointly liable for the rent, and that if someone leaves, that is not their problem and the remaining girls would be liable for the totality of the rent, and it is one contract, which they all understood and agreed to.

 

Now one of the girls is leaving to move back with her parents and is saying that she is not liable for any of the remaining rent after she goes (never mind council tax, etc...).

 

I think that she is, as far as I am concerned, there is a verbal contract between all 4, and there is no reason the other 3 should be penalised because the 4th has decided to leave. In order to mitigate the loss, the girl in the smaller room will move to the bigger one and take over that larger share of the rent.

 

Now then, here come the questions:

1 - Obviously, the rent money is not due until each month comes up. Can the girls sue their ex-flatmate now for the amounts still due to come, or can they only do so once the year is up retrospectively? I mean, usually, if you breach a fixed term contract, all monies become due immediately, don't they, so would the same apply here?

 

No they would need to sue retrospectively - you cannot sue for money that "will be" owed

 

'2 - They don't necessarily want the girl to be completely strapped for cash, so if they were to obtain a court order, could they request it to be made so that the girl would have to pay her share monthly until the end of the lease year?

 

No, for same reason as above.

 

3 - Do they indeed have a case in the first place to go after the girl for the money? (that shd have been the 1st question, really! lol)

 

Basically what will happen is that the remaining tenants will become liable for the entirety of the rent. However, the remaining tenants can then sue the leaving tenant for her share - there is no question that they will win this.

 

4 - The 4th girl said that she had been to the letting agent and "they were going to draw a new agreement", which I don't believe is true, but if it, surely, it can not be drawn unilaterally on one girl's say-so, and without the others' agreement? And even if they did, it wouldn't be valid without the remaining 3's signature, and they could refuse to sign, right? After all, it's no skin off the agent's nose, so I can't see it being true...

 

If I were them I would not be agreeing to any agreement which kept the (total)rent the same but only had 3 on the agreement - it removes her liability. The tenants have no obligation to agree to/sign a new agreement.

 

Anyway, any answers, thoughts and suggestions are all welcome. DD and the other 2 are really distressed at the moment, so the sooner I can give them some more definite answers, the better. :-)

 

Answers above in red. Basically, the remaining tenants will have to take the hit for the rest of the agreement, then sue the leaver at the conclusion of the tenancy.

  • Haha 1

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had similar (flatmate did a runner) we chased them up and finally ended up in court. As long as the girl leavings signature is on the contract their will be little problem. Depending on the mood of the court that day you may also get her share of all the utility bills awarded as well. Only trouble is as Mr.Shed says you have to pay first and then take to court after.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Is there a "breaking clause" in the existing tenancy or not?

 

No.

 

If yes,what is the exact wording?

 

N/A.

 

2.When does the current 1 year tenancy expire?

 

28th July 2007.

 

 

Tenancy agreement is fairly standard, the relevant part to the current situation says:

 

"Where the landlord or the tenant consist of more than one person the covenants on ther part in this agreement shall be joint and several."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be a silly question (and I apologise in advance if it is) but are the three remaining girls contemplating replacing the (soon to be leaving) fourth? If not, would they as this would possibly solve the problem?

Jimbo 44 - always happy to help, but always willing to learn from being corrected too!!! Whilst any advice given may be based upon personal experience, please always be sure you seek guidance from a professional in the particular field.

 

Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark, but a large group of professionals built the Titanic.

 

A 'click' on the scales is always appreciated if I have helped. Many Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BW, your answers reinforce my answers I put above. But yes, assignment(as Jimbo has mentioned) would be a good idea in this situation.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they're not. TBH, at the moment, they are very hurt by the betrayal and selfishness of their friend and I think will take a long time to trust anyone again... They'd rather swallow the difference in cost themselves, and will until such time they can go after the money. Besides, gettign s/one else needs to be approved by landlords, etc... and I think they've had a bellyful of complications at the moment...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookworm in reply to your posts and in my opinion:

 

Yes,I am around to rescue!lol!

 

Now on a more serious note:

 

1.The rent is owed in FULL to the landlord regardless of the disputes between the tenants themselves - whether it be 1 tenant or the 4 tenants for that matter.

 

2.As you have been told by Mr.Shed,the three existing tenants would have to sue after the money was spent.

 

3.As this 4th girl ceases to reside in the property there would be no way to compel her to pay any of the bills or council tax apart of course the rent itself.

 

4.Should there be the desire to house a 4th replacement tenant - brushing aside the landlord's permission the remain three tenants would need to obtain the 4th previous tenant's consent to remove her name from the tenancy agreement and put the new tenant's particulars on the agreement instead.

 

The reason for doing this would be that:

 

What would happen say 3 months down the line and the previous 4th tenant turns up on the doorstep of her previous accommodation housemates and requires to be housed again?

 

She would still be legally the tenant of the 4th room.The new number 4 tenant would have to give up the room at least.So there would clearly be a bit of a confusion there.Apart of course for any further hassle and potential costs that the other three tenants could potentially be burdened with.

 

5.The best way forward is for the existing three tenants would be one of the three following options - personally I prefer the third:

 

1.To have to pay for the property at the moment and sue later for the difference in the rent

 

or

 

2.Approach the landlord with the view of housing a replacement tenant.

 

or

 

3.Request from the ex-4th tenant to pay her share for the rent owed now.

 

Why go to the bother later regarding suing her etc?

 

Because...

 

I think it is well worth the try plus it will help the remaining three tenants ability to pay the landlord the full rent on time.Also as you said because they have been let down and the last thing the three existing tenants would want is a 4th tenant at the moment.

 

Also....

 

The other three tenants should give her a bank account number(avoiding no cheque in the post bull**** excuses!), so that she can credit it in cash on a regular basis.If she is strapped for cash - they should take what is on offer because a court would have the same approach anyway - based on what she can afford.

 

If she does not pay at all this would be totally a different matter.Totally justified to sue her plus should this matter go to court it shows a judge that the other three tenants have been understanding,

patient and kind towards the ex-4th tenant(maybe against their wishes!) which should give the three existing tenants a better more favourable case.

 

Update us with the facts and figures around July next year to decide the best course of action then.Who knows?Maybe the ex-4th tenant will have paid in full!

 

Anyway,I hope you find this information/suggestions useful.

 

If you have any more questions,just ask.

 

Keep us posted.

 

All the best!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for the information, I am very grateful.

 

It all seems very reasonable in writing, doesn't it... And I quite agree with you... except that girl no 4 came over on saturday, collected all her belongings (she obviously had been planning this, as she was cleared out within about 1/2 hour), and said that she had to look after herself first and the others weren't her problem. Hence the very negative reaction of the others, which I personally understand.

 

Girl no 4 is pregnant, you see, and the saddest thing is that if she'd just sat the other 3 down and said: "Look, you guys, I'm moving out now (she was going to later anyway closer to when baby was due) because bla bla, I'm very sorry", her 3 friends would have hugged her, understood and taken on the additional rent without thinking twice about it... But because she's gone in with the "I'm pregnant, therefore anything and anyone else is not my problem, ficon_censored.gif you all", now the other 3 are not prepared to let her get away with it... Very sad... :-(

 

Ah well, I'll pass the news on to the young ladies, and take it from there.

 

Thank again to everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have potentially one issue here. If the tenants do not ask the landlord for permission to get an extra tenant in, and then actively seek replacing the leaving tenant, any claim may fail(or at least partly fail), as they have not attempting to mitigate their loss. Unfair, yes, but the court will look at it as the cost to the leaving tenant could have been reduced.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is already being reduced, as one girl will take on the bigger room and therefore larger part of the rent. This should prove mitigation enough.

 

Besides, I think it could be argued that with all 3 of them working f/t, it's not up to them to go looking for someone else, they have been inconvenienced enough as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

Girl no 4 sent cheque for her share of this mont's rent direct to agents, so that leaves the others a bit of a breathing space until January, thankfully. (In fact, she made a mistake, as the rent is paid ahead, so in fact, she has paid for December.)

 

DD contacted the letting agents, and they have confirmed that the contract remains unchanged, and they note that no 4 is gone, and sent a form for a potential new tenant to fill in, should it be needed. So all is well from that point of view.

 

I suspect that once the hurt and anger have subsided, by the time the end of the year's tenancy comes, they won't bother going after no 4 for the money, but we'll see...

 

Thanks again to all who have had some input here. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

BW I think the leaver could argue, if a claim against her is started, that they could have let her room in order to mitigate their losses & disappointing though it is she may only be held liable by the court for a shorter term than the contract has to run.

 

For example she could claim that the room could have been let within days or weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BW I think the leaver could argue, if a claim against her is started, that they could have let her room in order to mitigate their losses & disappointing though it is she may only be held liable by the court for a shorter term than the contract has to run.

 

For example she could claim that the room could have been let within days or weeks. They need to have a good case for leaving it empty & being unhappy ain't going to cut it I'm afraid

Link to post
Share on other sites

But if that's the case, I thought it would have been the leaver's responsibility to find a replacement tenant for herself...the day-to-day stresses of life can be excuse enough for the other three, IMHO. I also saw an episode of Legal TV (the documentary series about court proceedings) where a leaver had to replace herself. Don't know if that counts :D

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

We know they're unhappy. As far as the legal argument goes, I'd argue that it wasn't their responsability to find a suitable alternative tenant. And by suitable, I mean someone that the letting agents will accept as well. Which may mean more than one attempt.

 

I'd also argue that by the 3rd girl taking up girl no4's room, and therefore taking on the higher part of the rent, they have mitigated their losses, and would only be reclaiming the smaller share of the rent.

 

As I said, it's moot at the moment, and I think with time, they will probably let is slide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that its a bummer but what I'm saying is whilst the tenant who left will probably have to pay something & maybe the whole amount if the lease only has a short time to run. Unless that's the case I cannot see a court allowing a full amount award unless some attempt is made by the remaining tenants to let it.

 

It occurs to me that if the lease does only have a short time to run then that might be a better argument for not being able to let it. After all any new tenant is going to want to have the comfort of knowing they ain't goona get kicked out after only a few weeks or months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...