Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

deposit refund query


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1379 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

Thanks stu007. It's just a working draft whilst I gather all info.  Hadn't considered rics only applicable to LL - as agent told tenant to contact rics!!  Will relook at this

Can add an SAR page too.

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

No you do not add a SAR to the letter, this must be done as a completely separate to the letter, you can do both separate but enclose both at the same time as posting ensuring to get free proof of posting from the post office.

 

Make sure with the SAR irrespective if you want to ask for specific dates to always add this simple phrase 'ALL DATA' as that covers whatever format they may hold it in whether it be, phone calls, emails, written, digital etc.

 

Just me being me but where you have mentioned ARLA I would also add that specific link  mentioned that would be of interest (note it contains the code and membership rules they should abide by):

https://www.propertymark.co.uk/working-in-the-industry/member-requirements/

 

 

 

 

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been pondering the issue of whether the Tenant is also a client??

Surely the Agent is the middle vehicle between LL and T? 

Agent is the stakeholder of the T Deposit funds - so wouldn't that mean that T is  client?  Agent holding T client's money?  I agree if there is a problem that the funds are attributed to LL.  But not willy-nilly.  There's a legal process, as per the TA, before the T (client) funds are released to the LL (client) account.

 

Also - as want to add in paragraph about arbitrator awarding compound interest - what would be a suitable % rate to use in the spreadsheet example?  8% stat int? Or something like 4% + base??  Any suggestions?  I can't find examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hp Mum

 

Just to be clear with RICS payment protection you are not the CLIENT.

 

Why you ask well let me explain, it was the Landlord that Employed the Service of this Estate/Letting Agent to Rent their Property and are Registered Members of RICS, therefore the Landlord/Property Owner entered into a Contract with the Estate/Letting Agent to carry out this work so their CLIENT under RICS is the LANDLORD/Property Owner not you the TENANT as the Estate/Letting Agent is acting on behalf of the Landlord.

.

Basically the RICS protection is for the Landlord/Property Owner as it is protection in place with that specific Estate/Letting Agent being a Registered Member of that specific Scheme.

 

 

 

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Stu

So to understand this properly:

due to TA being contractual the Deposit is not protected by TDS.

The Agent is the 'stakeholder' and responsible for safe-guarding the Deposit - but RICS Client protection is not valid for Tenant

So - what body or process does protect the Deposit?

 

The Agent is in breach of the TA - they broke contractual time-limits to return Deposit.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Update on this

Letters been sent to Estate Agent. Demanding they repay the deposit. Highlighting they sold the property for the Landlord. Quoted clauses which prove they and LL are out of contractual time to dispute and that they can not hold on to deposit.  And asking for interest.

They basically have refused to return the deposit.  They say they must get approval of the LL to return it.  Even though both are out of time for any deliberation.   No idea where the LL is or if he'll communicate 

They have also refused to acknowledge paying any interest 

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Further update on this.

Agent has now paid almost full amount back to Tenant. 

Agent stated they must get LL approval to return the deposit - despite both Agent and LL being years out of contractual date to repay.   They stated they needed to follow such steps.

They deducted £1k from the deposit on the basis they thought they ought to appease the LL. 

In essence Tenant very happy to finally have a refund.    Yay !!

 

However, Agent has not really acted correctly.  Despite their insistence they must.

The contract was for 2 joint Tenants (A, whose been chasing the Agent & B, their ex). 

The deposit originally paid from A & B joint bank account. 

Tenant B (the ex) was the Lead Tenant. 

He currently owes a fortune to Tenant A and their family. 

The Agent should (I assume legally) have returned the deposit to the joint account.  And the deposit proceeds would have immediately been swallowed up by debts accrued by Tenant B on the joint account.   

But  because Tenant  A was doing all the hassling and letter writing over this extended period - the Agent returned the deposit into the sole personal account of Tenant A. 

Tenant B doesn't yet know the Agent has done this.    But if and/or when he does -  would he have a valid claim against the Agent?

(For the record, Tenant A immediately used the deposit refund to repay a separate joint A&B debt.)

 

Additionally, could Tenant A still claim compound interest?   The Agent sat on the deposit for years.  The contract didn't allow for interest on the deposit - but given the Agent should have repaid years ago I am wondering if there still could be a subsequent genuine enforceable claim for compound interest???

 

 

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just following up on this.

 

Can Tenant A still claim compound interest?   

 

The contract didn't allow for interest on the deposit - but Agent sat on the deposit for years/  should have repaid within stated time in contract.

Is it worth putting in a claim due to the length of time - way outside the contractual period -it took the agent to repay?  Or will Agent stick to what the contract says - 'no interest payable on deposit'

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...