Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Someone else connected to my electric supply, now want to disconnect them.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 716 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

I have 2 people connected to my electric supply and they have been for a few years now.  All good and agreed and they have meters so pay for what they use.

 

 

I now want to disconnect one of them as we don't get on.

 

As it is obviously after the meter and from my side of the supply can i just disconnect them.

 

The one i was to remove is in a cabin that they rent from the other person, they have now started to cause problems and refuse to move out.

 

As it is my supply that goes to them, is there any comeback for me if i cut them off.

 

It has only ever been a friend's agreement and nothing ever in writing.

 

I've searched but found nothing like this so if anyone can shed some light on it i would be greatful

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My meter is the main one, they come from a supply after the main meter and have a meter in the cabin, sub meter i guess you can call it.

 

I read their meter and they pay for the units used and then the main bill comes from my bank so it is all above board

 

yes having someone else connected so long as it is after the main meter is legal.

 

I just want to know if i can cut them off with no comeback to myself as i have been letting them use it for a few years now/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of that so if it exists it's a first for me.

 

I think there is a law preventing removing basic services from a tenant without good reason such as non payment of bill, which is not what you have said here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets a bit more complicated, they are not my tennant.

 

It is one of the existing places here that has been connected.

 

there is 2 of them and the smaller one is owned by the other person and they want them out so they can have their cabin back.

 

as they are nothing to do with me and not a tennant of mine i cant find anything that says i can't cut them off but also can't find anything that says i can.

 

I doub't its something that has ever come up on here so not expecting to find the answer but then you never know.

 

And yes, letting someone run off your electric supply is ok to do so long as it is after the main meter as everything from that point is yours so you can do what you want.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you’d be exposing yourself to being accused of trying to unlawfully evict them (by removing a basic and essential utility).

 

You’d open yourself up to prosecution and that would then make it harder to lawfully apply for termination of the tenancy / repossession!

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

Sounds like you’d be exposing yourself to being accused of trying to unlawfully evict them (by removing a basic and essential utility).

 

You’d open yourself up to prosecution and that would then make it harder to lawfully apply for termination of the tenancy / repossession!

Is this even if they are nothing to do with me and i want me electric disconnected from them as it is the other person that runs from mine that connected them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if it is part of a plan to “get them out”

 

You said “

there is 2 of them and the smaller one is owned by the other person and they want them out so they can have their cabin back.”

 

 

So, you know the LL wants them out, and cutting off the electricity to make it less habitable looks like an action in concert with the LL even if you aren’t the LL.


All a prosecutor need ask you is “and what do you think the effect would be on the lawful tenant of cutting off their electricity supply?” Or even “Do you think being without electricity would make it hard for them to live there?”

 

If you say “make it hard for them to live there” : unlawful eviction.

If you say “wouldn’t make it hard” : it’d be hard to believe and their follow up would be “that is hard to believe and supports my suggestion that you knew exactly what the effect would be”

 

Triable “either way”, up to 2 year sentence if it goes to Crown Court.

 

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

An Act to consolidate section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 and Part III of the Rent Act 1965, and related enactments.


Take formal legal advice on how best to achieve this lawfully if you insist on going ahead with it

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, nohope said:

Is this even if they are nothing to do with me and i want me electric disconnected from them as it is the other person that runs from mine that connected them?

 

nohope,

 

Your posts are somewhat confusing !

 

Are you a tenant yourself, landlord or owner of the building, flats, house or what ever it is ?

 

Theses two people you want to disconnect, are they tenants if yes who their landlord, are they friends of yours, lodgers or something else ?

 

Why are these 2 connected to your meter in the 1st place and how long ago was this done ?

 

 

  • Like 1

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

So there are 2 Cabins that are both connected to your mains supply but each cabin has its own meter and both pay you for meter use.

 

The 2 Cabins the smaller one is owned by this other person who wants the present individuals out so they can have there cabin back.

 

You are asking if you can cut the energy supply to this specific Cabin.

 

1. The person the Owns the Cabin will have to go through the Eviction process to Evict this person in that specific Cabin.

 

2. If you cut the Energy Supply to this Cabin i could be classed as you assisting the Owner of that Cabin in an Illegal Eviction and Harassment which you could end up in Court being Prosecuted for.

 

3. Even though it was the Cabin Owner that connected the energy supply to this other Cabin that has a meter and is still supplied by you I assume this was done with that Cabin Owner getting your consent to do this connection if this Cabin Owner didn't get your consent then your issue is with that specific Cabin Owner and not the person in that other Cabin. Again you would need to action via the Courts to get that Cabin Owner to remove that energy supply connection and as it affects that other Cabin you would need to legally notify them of these actions.

 

4. If 3 above was agreed by the Cabin Owner with your consent and you wish to legally cut off there Energy Supply to this other Cabin then you would have to go via the Courts to get a Warrant to do so and if they are up to date with there energy payments you will need a vaild reason for the Courts to grant this.


Cutting off the energy supply you would be party to assisting this Cabin Owner that want that other cabin back in actions of an Illegal Eviction and Harassment in which the individual in this other Cabin can not only involve the Police but take legal action against you for assisting in this illegal eviction and Harassment.
 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...