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

Son buying parents' rented home, becoming their landlord - two basic questions please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 330 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

 

We, the parents and in our 80s, live in a private rented house (1970s and sound but unimproved, good area, okay rent), the tenancy aranged via an Estate Agent/personal friend. We've been there almost 6 years and have a good relatiionship with the landlord who has always behaved fairly and promptly.

Landlord notified us they will be selling the house at the end of our current term (10 months).

They first offered the house to us at a small discount - easiest exit for them, avoids upheaval+ for us. This did get our attention though we already knew our circumstances made it impossible - no assets/savings after business collapse, income now only state pension + benefits, no chance of mortgage/loan at this age + zero prospect of change now.

Landlord/EA have since been exploring investor-buyers first so we might remain and continue, but no interest to date. Local EAs I've spoken with separately say there's significant investor caution, with only *clean* new/newish houses that can fetch top rent and make the numbers work getting a look-in.

The house is now planned to go on the open market in Spring if not sold to an investor before, and landlord is looking at modernising options (Kit, Bthrm, flooring, fireplaces, conservatory, CH, datapoints etc.) to make an attractive sale (current val 280, improved 345-365).

Which brings me to  ...

Recently and without letting us know our son has looked at stepping-in and buying it, initially so that we can stay and be secure, plus whichever of us outlives the other has no worry ahead. Afterward it continues as an investment in whichever way he then prefers.

He let us know this just yesterday "to avoid the upset of another move and stop the worry and uncertainty", and feels from his broad conversations that in coming days he will have decided which of a couple of mortgage options he feels suits him best, and will be able to set the wheels in motion.

I have just two questions :

First Q - can landlord and tenants actually be close relatives? It occurs to me that there could maybe be some formal/legal/title aspects that have a bearing? Just to emphasize, it wouldn't be purchased as a gift for us, he would become our new landlord and we would continue our tenancy, all properly contracted.

2nd Q - he may well have discussed mortgages in the context of us still living there not he himself, but in case not I am looking for some insight in to whether mortgage lenders would consider this any differently and he might need to reassure himself accordingly with further words?

Any other pointers I/we should be aware of would also be gratefully received, it is all a bit nervous-making.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of any reason in law why the LL and tenant can't be related. But many reasons why your son should ensure he deals with you on a proper business-like basis as far as the tenancy is concerned. I'd advise him to leave the EA to manage the property on his behalf. 

I assume he will be buying the house with a buy to let mortgage. Do b-t-l lenders ask who will be living there or if they are related? I don't think so but I'm not a b-t-l landlord.

Is he thinkimg of making an offer to buy it unimproved and improving it himself? If so the scale of the work would need you to move out while it took place. Have you discussed with your son where you would live  while the works took place, several months at laest? And what your rent would be afterwards?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Ethel for your thoughts.

I too can't think of a logical reason against related parties, it just crept in to my wonderings because occasionally something you never imagined to be relevant to something turns out to be a factor after all, or even a requirement. Best to have no surprises!

I have done a little research since I posted, and it appears not to be  a problem as long as the relationship is entirely proper and under contract, just person B renting from person A.

And in this specific case, yes for sure, neither of us would wish to continue unless on a proper business-like basis anyway.

I don't believe he was asked about relationships when exploring his mortgage options, however thanks for raising that and I will be speaking with him later and will suggest a without-prejudice check conversation to be sure.

Regarding condition, the house is in good order just gently tired because of its age. In a perfect world it would benefit from a new kitchen, totally facelifted bathroom, replacement windows to the newest standards and a couple of other touches making it today-new not '70's new - much has advanced in all of those things over 40-plus years.

But it is still a good house today and comfortably offers what we long-pre-1970s folks need :)

Maybe our son would choose to make upgrades at some point(s) in time, and no doubt for-sure before eventually selling it if/when that comes along later. Right now however nothing is broken so there are no plans to do any fixing :) just get this change of owner/landlord in place if actually achievable, and be able to relax and breathe. He really is a Saint!

Thank you again for your thoughts, I will add them to our words when we compare notes later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...