Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I feel that people are focusing too much on the OPs property being a council house and putting responsibility on the council to resolve this.   imagine for a moment that the OPs house is privately owned, now what powers would they have to take action on the trees? Pretty much none without taking the tree owner to court right. Well as the trees are privately owned, that is the same power that the council have right now.   the information with the £375 will be inline with high hedges legislation as this will be the only power the council will have and it is common for there to be a charge for this.   this is not a social housing issue, but a neighbor dispute with a private homeowner.   i used to work as a tree officer for a local authority and from experience have seen that people’s idea of dangerous and what is actually dangerous are two different issues. A councils power to enforce tree works are also limited and will usually only be where a private tree poses a risk to the highway, not to another property as that is a civil matter (even where the council own the 2nd property).    With regards to risk to underground pipes, this is something you will be unlikely to successfully argue as various studies have found that unless a tree is planted on top of the pipe and crush it, the roots will not cause damage, but rather only enter through already damaged areas as they are opportunistic, any tree roots in drains are usually a secondary issue where a pipe had existing damage and to resolve it will require a permanent repair to the pipe to prevent recurrence.   the only options i see here are to calculate the height allowed under high hedges legislation (it varies depending on what direction the property faces , the location of hedges etc) and try to enforce that which will involve the fee. Otherwise there is little you can do as the private homeowner has a right to have trees in their garden although they may be liable if they were to cause damage to your property (such as a shed) or the councils property in the future.
    • Served on 16 Feb.   On reviewing the MCOL website today for an updated, I noticed that 1) Hermes has aknowledged the claim, but not yet filed a defence, and 2) that I there was a glitch / error on the form. Essentially, it looks like I had accidentally left the "I will send detailed particulars of claim" box ticke (I thought I had unticked it), with the result that the claim section has been truncated, and some extra text has automatcially been added - in red below):   "...Claimant seeks £XXX, plus I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of..."   This is obviously not ideal. Is it better to try to amend the claim somehow, or to just submit a brief POC that a) clarifies that I am seeking £XXX plus costs (which was automatically truncated), and b) sets out my calculation of the £XXX?  
    • Hi   It amazes me how they pass the buck as they don't want to deal with a private homeowner but if the shoe was on the other foot they would be hammering down on you for breach of tenancy.   As this is council housing you need to make a Formal Complaint in writing to the Council Housing about this (as a social housing landlord they have a complaints process they have to follow). you need to exhaust their complaints process. Make sure and title your letter Formal Complaint.   From what you have posted this tree is not just a nuisance but also a Health & Safety risk:   1. The tree being overgrown is now a danger to the occupants/Guest/Visitors to your property   2. The tree has overgrown into the Council Housings Boundaries your property causing damage/endangerment to the occupants/guest/visitors.   3. As the roots of the tree are also overgrown into your property you have concerns that these may be causing/damaging to any underground pipework that may be within the boundray of the property.   4. So far the Councils actions have been to treat their Council Housing tenant as a third class citizen with a private homeowner aloud to cause endangerment/possible damage due to these overgrown trees which are encroaching on your council house property/bounderies.   You also require clarification why you were sent the Healthy Neighbourhood Information which states I have to pay £375 to make a complaint. (make sure and attach a copy of the response that states this cost)   You also require copies of the following:   1. Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Customer Service Standard (not the leaflet) 3. Health & Safety Policy (not the leaflet) 4. Public Liability Insurance Policy. (not the leaflet) 5. Clarification from you if their is any underground pipeworks running through the bounderies within the garden area (you should have full knowledge of this it being your property/plans) 6. Compensation Policy (not the leaaflet) 7. Equality & Diversity Policy (not the leaflet)   When you get the above policies sit with a pen/pencil/highlighter and take you time reading them and just think to yourself 'DID THEY DO THAT' if not mark it then leave it for a while then do the same again this way you can basically throw/write back stating the haven't followed x policy with which part of that policy and your reason. (you are building evidence to use against them using their own policies. I would also like to refer you to The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/57/part/I/crossheading/dangerous-trees-and-excavations     You need to remember yes it is the Council but the Council Housing is a separate entity and is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL)   Is the Council Housing classed as a registered Charity? (what is their registration number whether charity or RSL?)   Also have a wee look at this CAG link:     
    • @rocky_sharma   Fame at last!!   Dunno how much help it would be in your case, but I could try digging out the txt of my defence if you think it might be relevant to your defence. We might hafta do this via PM, then e-mail though if ya wanna go down that route.   Good luck with yours anyway mate.
  • Our picks

srfrench

French v. Abbey (3) - Into the breach once more my friends!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3590 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Come on Frenchy, arent you back yet - i tell you this man is ALWAYS late !!!;)


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there was @ 120 of us peeps in the Merc Courts today in Leeds and whilst the Judge agreed the arguments made and made a special reference to mine and a few others, he honestly could not give anything other than an individual stay on all claimants - not a blanket!!! that's important.

 

His argument as I would have expected was sound and just and he gave a cut-off (without exception) that in Feb 2008 it will be lifted regardless of the decision made by Justice David Steele (Judge in the OFT Test Case).

 

That is significant! :D

 

Costs for the day is given to the parties. In my case it amounts to an extra £83.

 

My 2 Credit Card Claims were a joke (with diff providers) and they have 6 weeks from today to settle/provide a defence, but the JUdge does not want to see a another Case Management Hearing dealing with these. A Stay was applied for in the case of both but were quickly dropped!

 

All in all an exhausting, interesting day and one that will keep me in cigars through winter!

 

Roll on Feb 2008!! :cool::D hink of the interest that is continuing to mount on a daily basis.

 

Oh...... and the Barrister and Solicitors were tornoff a strip a little by the Judge and I was informed by one of the Claimants that when I was presenting my case to have the Stay removed, she blanched! (She was also dealing with me!)

I approached her later as she indicated settlement, but realised I was going the full hog and claiming costs to. She tried to intimidate me a little with the fact that no way would I get costs, to which I replied, "of course I will...... have you actually read my POC as you will see that even as you have demonstrated at sneakily trying to put monies into my account, which the Judge frowned upon and ripped into her, it also asks for a legal declaration that the level of levied charges imposed was unlawful and unenforceable. In other words, settle the monetary side and the claim still carries on darling!" I also told her to smile a little, she didn't which is a shame, because she was quite attractive........ methinks it's either PMT or she needs a holiday!

 

So that's it in a nutshell peeps, I will post the full orders and resoning as and when I am a party to it from the Court.

 

No worries.......... :rolleyes:;)


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now.... bugger off I want 40 winks!


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL you old tart, tell em where you were sitting!!!! and if you go to sleep now, you wont sleep tonight


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sat where the Barristers normally sit! ;):D

 

It was only because it was standing room only :o


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had our little nap have we? :-)


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup....... now I'm raring to go as I have to be up at the crack of a Sparrows fart!


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh....seems like an absolute age since I last posted on here.

 

Anyway, little development this morning. I received a letter from Ashursts stating they have served a notice of Change of Solicitor with the Courts.

 

Si, in effect then, Abbey are stopping the handling of claims and transferring them to Ashurts. (Are they the in-house solicitors anyway?)

 

I wonder why the change and wonder why now......ideas anyone? 8)


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as i understand it, Inga, et al have all repaired back to the mothership and i suppose they can't be bothered to go and pick up the post - unless of course anyone thinks that this might be due to something else?


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that the Abbey are preparing the sacraficial scapegoat!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm dont reallyk now, could be that they are now working on other stuff until the test case, unless that is what they are working on


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at my letter, it seems that "Ashursts" are now replaced by "Ashursts LLP". They put the old address and the new address as the same, not mentioning the Triton house address at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope that's standard for Solicitors or practices with a number of "Partners". LLP stands for Limited Liability Partnership. :cool:


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it must be great to be so brainy :D


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PMSL.................I have my moments :p

 

Do you realise that since the stay was imposed on this claim I have "earnt" another £1000+ in Contractual Interest............ oh please dont lift it yet Ass Hurts! :D


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

money magnet :D


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or as another wag in the CAG forums so subtly put it.............. KERCHING!! LOL ;)


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 days to go and the slumbering beast stirs......................:lol:


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope payday comes early this month to us all.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL............ any news yet from the Press or the Courts?


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how long is the Justice Andrew Smith going to take for his hols?

 

Whilst the interest has been mounting on a ridiculous scale, just when will the historical T&C's judgement going to be made ......... 2008 or 2009? :-?


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol patience Penfold :D


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the judgement?


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we now have the second Judgement go our way.

 

The Banks in the coming weeks will be applying for permission to Appeal. However, IMHO, it won't be granted and therefore game over for the Banks.

 

All that is really left is for the OFT to publish officially their findings on the unfairness of the Bank Charges.

 

All that this will do whilst the stays remain frozen until the above 2 events are concluded, is that interest continues to accrue!

 

Either way, because now it is fairly well proven that the charges were UNLAWFUL you can get the full amount claimed back plus interest.

 

It doesn't matter what the OFT sets as an acceptable charge, it can only be applied from the current or future date.

 

At the very least, the Banks will have to disclose their ACTUAL costs if they want to lessen the eventual payout. This they won't do, period!

 

So for everyone out there, sit tight, submit your claims and rest assured in the coming few months all will be on the table!

 

Views expressed in this post are purely mine and mine alone. I do not speak for all on CAG and am not a moderator. However, all I am intending to do is give a little stability to a rumour fest of supposition. STOP IT! :p


srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What rumour fest? did I miss something? errrrr :D


Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...