Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since. I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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

£50 goodwill gesture!! whoopee woo!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6228 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,

am new on this site,as i stumbled across it today,looks exactly like what i need though...Anyway,back to the matter in hand,myself partner and 4 children took a holiday to menorca last year,wow,the holiday from hell,i can tell you,first off 3 days into the holiday,we moved hotels,as the first one had flys all over the food,all the staff were obnoxious and rude to our children,and didnt make us feel welcome at all..

the hotel pool was used by people living across the road,who liked to sit and watch all the young girls in their swimwear,and talk to each other in spanish whilst doing so.

day 3,we are told we are moving to a 4 star hotel,woooooo,only to find that when we get there it is a 3 star,but we had paid 150 euros to do so.

the room,well,it was damp,there was mould,paint peeling off the walls,so we head off down to the reception and go see our rep.she tells us she willl get the hotel to inspect the room,and see if they can rectify the situation.

yep,you got it,no-one comes at all,so we wait only to remain waiting for the final 11 days of the holiday!!!!!!

it dosnt stop there,my son had 2,yes 2 accidents,in the second hotel too.

first of all,hes walking in between 2 tables at mealtime when he slips on some food which had been discarded earlier that afternoon,during snack times(we was all inclusive),so,a young boy,11 yrs of age,on his back after hitting his head after slipping lying on the floor crying,what do the staff do??,they ignore him,and find a dustpan and brush,and sweep the food up pretty sharpish!!

may i add,that we were 60 seconds behind him,so when we walk in it was another holidaymaker tending to him(oh,did i not tell you.....there wasnt no qualified first aiders working in the hotel)

the second incident was when we were coming back from an evening out at the marina(god the food was awful at the hotel),and my son ran ahead,as he wanted to get back for the entertainment,he goes through the door as we enter the carpark,and as we get through the lobby door,there he is(my son) at the reception blood pouring out of his finger,"whats happened" i asked,"he's had his finger trapped in the door",another holidaymaker who is tending to my son,the lobby door had slammed shut on his finger,as the arm to the door,which is supposed to slow the door down when closing had broke.because cruella de vill(the receptionist) was constantly telling the children off for letting the door slam,he had tried to hold the door so it closed slowly,but it trapped his finger.again,no first aider,but anothr holidaymaker and myself tended to my son,who was screaming in agony.

the following morning,the doctor turns up,and the hotel tell us they are paying for her to call round,paying for our taxis to hospital,their and back,and also covering alll medical expenses that occur,surely,admission of guilt!!

anyway,when we're back in the uk,and put all this n writing to airtours,we are offered £50 "goodwill gesture":rolleyes:

nope,we told them in no uncertain terms where they can put their £50:D

anyway,is there anywhere we can go,and further our complaint,i have a little lad 11 yrs old,saying to me now"dont worry dad,i not ruin the next holiday",because thats what he actually thinks,that he did ruin it........no son you didnt,the hotel and tour operator did a good enough job themselves!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me that some of your expectations are unrealistic.

 

You say that you were unhappy with the first hotel because you had concerns about food hygiene, you did not feel that the staff treated you appropriately, and the swimming pool was not for the exclusive use of holidaymakers.

 

As far as the food is concerned, Airtours will no doubt have ensured that the hotel meets the appropriate local regulations; any concern should have been raised with the staff and/or the Airtours rep - did you do this?

 

The question of staff attitude is subjective, and again should have been brought to the attention of your Airtours rep, who should have dealt with it with the hotel management. Did you do this, and was there any change?

 

Quite a few hotels allow non-residents to use facilities; locals living nearby may have such an arrangement. However, it would probably not be unreasonable for Airtours to mention this in their brochure, or for the rep to explain to you when you brought it to his/her attention. You say that these locals looked at young girls in swimwear - does this mean that they were children, and you thought that the activity of the locals was inappropriate or suspicious? If so, did you report the matter to the police?

 

To complain about Spanish people were speaking Spanish in Spain is absurd.

 

When you arrived at the second hotel, you list a number of complaints about the room, and say that whilst you brought these matters to the attention of the rep, who raised them with the hotel, but that nothing happened for the remaining 11 days of the holiday. You do not say what you did when nothing seemed to be happening. Did you keep the rep informed, and ask him/her for progress reports? Did you photograph the offending aspects of the room, and forward the images to Airtours?

 

Moving on to the incidents involving your child, a significant feature of your description of both incidents is that the child seems to have been insufficiently supervised. If you were aware that the door slammed, why did you allow your son to go ahead by himself?

 

No first aider? You weren't in UK, and cannot expect UK standards to apply. Health and safety legislation is different, too. Accidents do happen, and it isn't always possible to blame someone for them.

 

Thankfully, it is clear that in neither episode the injuries sustained were minor, in that they did not require immediate medical attention.

 

Under EC arrangements, hospital treatment is free in Spain, so there should be no medical costs.

 

Did you report the accidents to the Airtours rep at the time?

 

In summary, you may have had some cause to complain about some aspects of the accommodation, but you will probably find that within the terms and conditions of the booking is a clause that says you must make all complaints to the reps at the time rather than waiting until you get home. It is unreasonable to expect Airtours to assume liability for things outside their control, such as your own parental responsibility or the locals failure to speak a language you understand.

 

In the circumstances I think Airtours gesture is reasonable, but you can take it up with ABTA if you think you still have a case. What would you expect to be a reasonable outcome?

Link to post
Share on other sites

re the food hygiene,and the staff,this was reported to the airtours rep,and the hotel manager,and he was having certain staff in the office,this was the reason why we were moved hotel,because we knew once they had had a talking to,our holiday may not of been the same if we had remained there...

 

re the girls in the swimming pool,yes,they were girls,as young as six,2 men sat at the pool,ogling girls of this age,talking in spanish to each other,c'mon,even i can see what was going on there!!

 

re the 2nd hotel,the rep was informed within an hour of our arrival about the room,and everytime we seen the rep,we told her,as we didnt get anywhere with the hotel staff.

 

photographs were enclosed to airtours,when the initial complaint was made to them back in october,a week after us arriving home

 

our son is a normal 11 yr old son,yes,the incidents may of happened without us being right next to him,but we was in close proximaty of him on both occasions

 

a hotel of the size we was in surely have a contingency plan for all accidents,wether it be a first aider or a lifeguard,neither were available,at this hotel

 

all accident reports were filled in for which i have copies of them

 

all complaints were made in resort,as well as returning home and doing so

 

a reasonable outcome,would be a letter of apology,and them to review hotels they offer,as standard when some seem to sub-standard..

 

im just glad my son has no lasting injurys

Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of the additional information about your reports to reps and so on, I suspect that you may be able to take this further. However, I think you need to stick to this and not be distracted about the side issues of Spanish-speaking Spaniards and minor accidents. These may be irritating, but Airtours weren't responsible for them; the accommodation was a constant problem, had a significantly detrimental effect on your enjoyment of the holiday, and was Airtour's responsibility.

 

I'd be inclined to write to Airtours again, highlighting the fact that you followed their procedures whilst in the resort, but without success. I'd be specific about saying that whilst you appreciate them acknowledging (with the £50) that things were not right you would like them to apologise and provide an undertaking to look into the hotels in question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...