Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • When we did a mutual exchange (last year for me), both parties had to go to either the housing association premises or at one of the houses to sign paperwork. You need to see what they have signed, have both properties had an inspection, house efficiency and electrical test done?
    • Include that in your witness statement along with that letter as an exhibit.
    • Yup, well so far they have lied to me about responding to a CCA,  are threatening me with a default notice that they don't have, produced a knocked up version of my NOA, sent me 29 pages of spew for an agreement. No wonder they pay 5 p in the pound for that crap.
    • Paragraph 2. I think there should be further down and also you should make the point that the payment to was made unilaterally and without the imposition of any conditions. Paragraph 3 – this is unnecessary because you are not claiming as an entitled third-party. This worries me because it makes me feel that you haven't fully read around because this is a paragraph which you would include where you were suing EVRi as a beneficial third party because you had actually made your contract with Packlink or some other broker. I think you need to revisit and do some more reading. I'm afraid I have a sense that you have simply copied this from somebody else's witness statement without understanding that it wasn't necessary. Please can you post the amended draft. Other than the suggestions above, it looks okay – but let's see it again for a further appraisal. In terms of the evidence, parties bundle, I think it might be an idea to start off with the correspondence with EVRi and then go onto the other evidence. You will have to amend the index page accordingly. You could shorten this bit. Take 19 is pretty well blank and you may as well miss it out also, there seems to be some repetition of emails and the email chain. I think will be worth going through and getting rid of duplicates if you can. 49 pages is a bit long and it would be a good idea to try and reduce the number. I have a feeling that 50 pages as the County Court limit anyway. The judge will be happier with you if the bundle is smaller. Maybe you could reduce the size of some of the images or messages et cetera. You have got several messages which straddle onto a second page so that things like sign off information and standard confidentiality information become orphans. A bit of manipulation and they could be joined to their parents I think. Page 31 as an example. So is page 19. You may only be up to shorten the whole thing by 56 pages – but I think it would be a good idea. 56 pages is, after all, 10%. If you can do more then so much the better
  • 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

Repairs needed v Houseing Ass


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6185 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

Need a little help please. One of my daughters is in a house owned by Riverside Housing Association. She has 4 kiddies , 2 are 4and 2 yrs old.Her problem is that her back fence is an absolute disgrace. Its awooden one with slats but there is spaces between where the kids from other houses on the estate can climb up. It is full of jagged edges where bits of wood have been broken off , the result of climbing.

She has lived there for 6 years and not once has she had her repairs done when she requested them. I think their motto is "Make do and mend"

I am sure I have heard or read somewhere of a law for the entitlement to safety regarding children in their own back gardens, but I cant find it anywhere.

Her two little ones are always trying to climb ,as kids do and when the Inspector came out last year to see the fence he told her to keep a better eye on the kids and that he would put it on his work sheet to be "Patched up".

Workmen came and made a botched job but it is vertually falling down now and she called them up again about a week ago and the same inspector came on tuesday , took a look at the fence and said it would be again patched up.

He said that because she is in rent arrears,( which she is paying off weekly) she is not really entitled to have repairs done. When she tried to argue and tell him her children are hurting themselves on it , falling and getting splinters everytime they go near the fence he again said watch them more closely then. How can anyone be expected to watch 2 lively kids 24/7. Isnt it a right for them to be safe in their own garden without the risk of damage just because the landlords are not bothered to do repairs. The rest of the house is in a bad way also cracks in the ceiling , radiators coming off the walls, lights not working properly , she has just had her downstairs W.C. repaired after reporting it over three weeks ago the sink was nearly off the wall and all they have done is put silicone round it.

Riverside are a joke , her estate is full of junkies and down and outs but unfortunatley she cant get off it. The druggies sell their wares openly on the corner of the streets but even the police dont seem to be bothered.

just not a nice place to bring kids up so she doesnt like them going out but then again they cant even be safe in their own back.

Sorry to waffle on but this situation has fired me up after all they are my grandkids and I dont like to see them get hurt.:mad:

Is there anything she can do ? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

Regards :)

30-12-2006--Requested statements from Local Halifax.

02-02-2007--Statements Recieved.

18-04-2007--Prelim sent.

20-04-2007--Reply , Thanks , give us 8wks letter.

02-0502007--Sent L.B.A. & Schedule of Charges

11-05-2007--Recieved reply ,still investigating.

17-05-2007--Sent Amended L.B.A. for Contractual Interest this time.

14-06-2007--Received standard Bog Off letter.

13-06-2007--Took N1 to Local Courts.

26-06-2007--Copy of N1 from Court, issued 21-06-2007. to Halifax, Deemed Served 25-06-2007

Have till 09-07-2007 to file Defence.

05-07-2007--Note that Acknowledgment of Service been Filed on 29-06-2007.

Have 28 days from date of Service to File Defence.

07-07-2007--Offer from Halifax.

09-07-2007--Rejection letter sent to Halifax. Next day delivery.

10-07-2007--Money put in Account:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...