Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • 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

Another 3UK Hutchinson nightmare!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6293 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

Hi,

 

I have a quick query regarding my 3UK contract. I was called by Mob4free, an agent for 3UK in Feb 06 offering me an 18mth contract. As I am in the Armed Forces and go away quite often, I explicitly asked the dealer if, after the obligatory 6mths, I could change the tariff to one of my choice.

I explained that as I go away at short notice sometimes, I need to be able to change the tariff to the lowest one for the duration of my time abroad as I don't want to pay the full whack for a service I'm not using.

 

The day prior to deploying last Aug, I called 3UK to change the contract to the lowest tariff. They informed me that it would only come down in increments and that I would have to call in each month to change it down to the next one. I pointed out that as I would be in an operational theatre, this would be a little difficult.

 

Obviously this didn't concern them. I told them that I was promised by the dealer that I'd be able to change the tariff to whatever I wanted after the 6mths and I believe that I've been mis-sold the contract.

 

The woman apologised for this, informing me that they didn't deal with that dealer anymore and advising me to contact the dealer.

I asked what use this would be as they no longer dealt with them, to which she replied that it wouldn't be any use!!

 

I haven't turned the phone on for roughly 6 months now. I sent a letter in October informing them that I considered it as a breach of contract as the sole reason I took the phone out was that I was informed that I was able to change the tariff to one of my choice.

 

I heard nothing. I sent another copy of the letter in Nov/Dec time.

 

I heard nothing back. The next thing I get are incessant phonecalls from DCA asking for the balance of the account. I informed them that I was awaiting contact from 3 as I had a dispute with them.

 

 

I then send, yet again, a copy of the original letter along with a covering letter voicing my disgust at the appalling treatment that they haven't even deemed my letters worthy of a reply. I also mentioned going to the media to highlight their appalling treatment (having read these threads though, I can see it's no secret!)

 

THEN I get a response. Phonecall from the indian call centre telling me that they have my letter etc and will I pay the balance and the termination fee.

 

I reiterated the fact that I considered it breach of contract etc but the woman just basically ignored it.

 

I told them that I would clear the current balance if the contract ended there and then and I didn't pay a termination fee. After consulting with someone, apparently this is not an option for them.

 

Now, my question is, that I took the contract out purely on the basis of being able to change the tariff to what I wanted - which I then found that I couldn't.

 

Is this breach of contract? As I move about rather alot, I can't find the paper contract now but I do know that I didn't receive it within the 14 day return period.

 

Should I bite the bullet and pay the bloody thing or have I got a leg to stand on??

 

Any advice greatly appreciated. :smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest ian cognito

You won't get any joy from them, you will have to go to the OFT or to court to settle this matter I should think, they will just keep referring you back to the third party - and I doubt you will get any joy from they either - keep your eye on your credit record as the communications companies a really good at applying defaults in cases like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice.

 

I am curious as to what exactly the process with the OFT what the court process involves.

 

The thing I'm curious about is do I have a leg to stand on? Is what happened i.e. being told I could do one thing to get me to take a contract only for me to find out that I couldn't?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all hinges on the judge and the day. You'll get a high score for your employment, but at the time you took out the contract you at least COULD change the tariff incrementally, these days you cannot even do this from last October.

 

The reasoning is the price you pay for the phone (Free?) is based on your commitment over 18 months. If you modify this, then the cost of the phone increases. It would be most unfair if an associate actually paid £99 for their phone, and agreed a 18 month contract at the tariff you WANT to be on, whilst you get the phone for noting and then switch to a cheaper tariff, meaning your switch disadvantages your associates more pragmatic view of phone usage!

 

It could be argued - irrespective of employment - that if you are unable to use the phone as aupplied for 18 months, it would be silly taking out a countract, but far better to be a PAYG customer instead. Therefore the error was in accepting the offer from the sales call in the first place.

 

There is a risk your credit file may be trashed over this, and no action you can take - even if you resort to court - will fix this. It may be better simply to complete the contract and use all the benefits it provides (to a firend or family member) or even transfer the rest of the contract to someone else, which you are allowed to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice.

 

I guess it looks like, either way I go, my credit record is trashed!

 

The thing that winds me up, is that I sent a letter last year and - as far as I was aware - I was waiting for a reply.

 

Yet - as far as 3 are concerned, I have defaulted and they sent it to a DCA - the first indication of which was shen I received a phone call from them!

 

Surely they're not allowed to refer it until any dispute is resolved?!?!

 

If I do agree and pay the money (for a service which I don't use!) will there still be a blemish on my credit record?

 

I received a letter from the DCA today stating the whole 'collect money owed on behalf....etc etc'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they principally deal by phone - if they cannot contact you this way, things can slide... however you would have received monthly bills to show what was happening until they suspended the account ant billing.

 

As you now know of the dispute, you can challenge it, but they'll just point out that you could not do what you really wanted to do (suspend your contract) and the single move was all they'd permit (at that time).

 

There's no point paying for a service you don't receive - you can bring your account up to date and the phone - and the free call bundles will be reactivated. The default with then simply transform into a late payment and drop off after 12 mnoths. SON'T deal with the DCA. You're task is to negotiate with the organ grinder, not the monkey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...