Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Thanks FTMDave, I like the cut of your jib - I'll go with that and obtain proof of postage. Encouraging that NPE have never followed through and seem to blowing hot air, let's see where they go after this Regards -
Please see my comments in orange within your post. -
no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom) -
I understand confusion with this thread. I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles. But a team member merged them all. This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small. Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say? I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder. I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property. The property was great. The issue is not the property. Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help. The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it. House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan. I was a bit short and lender refused. They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back. This was a mistake. The market was (and is) tough. 2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked. It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer. A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately. But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold. He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders. Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times). And they failed to maintain it. So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender). (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold. But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders. This is where matters got/ get complicated. And probably lose most caggers. Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice. The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers. Within 1 month lender reneged. Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control. I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property. Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me. Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court. They never served me properly. (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.) Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service. At this point their ruse to make me B failed. I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension. He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue. The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with. I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver. Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y. It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease. The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice. They destroyed the property. The trustees compiled all evidence. The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder. This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell. That option was proposed to them. This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago. A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed. But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage. A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property. Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself. A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum. The lender and receiver both refused it. I found another offer in disclosure. 6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent. The receiver again rejected it. The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price. Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price. Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest. It's transparently over-priced. And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't. Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender. Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging. And a sign to continue. So I'm going for compensation. I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad. He should have done a deal. Instead further years have been wasted. Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result. If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so. I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement. Similar to my proposal 2y ago. I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me. This is exactly why I do not give up. And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag. -
It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
Yvette v Yorkshire Bank!
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 6071 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts