Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Also, in respect of these recent developments concerning the rights of leaseholders and their lessors, I haven't followed it too closely, but aren't you mixing up service charges on one hand with ground rent. I do understand that it seems that landlords are pretty unfettered in terms of the level of ground rent they can apply – but I would have thought that service charges – which represent actual expenditure have to be accounted for. Have I got this wrong?
    • Thank you for all of this information. However, I can imagine that most people won't be able to go through it all – partly because there is so much of it but also because it is presented in a tightly packed block of text. It would be much easier if you would space it properly so that it was presented more accessible way – but then put into a PDF document which could be uploaded onto the forum. That means that people could have a look at it by downloading it and then sizing it to suit their own computer screen and their own convenience. I did ask you how much you had paid in the first cheque which was eventually returned to you – and I'm not sure that you have answered this question yet. If they come round to issuing a claim against you, it could be very important to know this. If you have answered this question already then I'm afraid it's lost in the large bulk of the information you have provided.  
    • FREEHOLDERS BE AWARE!   I have discovered the answer to my question - please read because anyone else out there - until this legal loophole is changed take great care before thinking you will have justice regarding leashold overcharging. Most leases check yours! have a clause whereby they can charge the leasholder whether they win or loose. So like Mr Barclay you might, even if you win the case, have to pay the freeholders legal charges! Criminal ! I am so pleased i spotted this before I defended myself against the unjust bills.    Put simply until the law changes (especially if you are non residential and have no tier tribunal) there is no facility to challenge unreasonable leasehold charges.   Leaseholders to benefit from closure of legal loophole According to figures in The Times 5.3 million (21%) homes in England and Wales are leasehold, meaning the property is not owned outright but is instead ‘leased’ from the freeholder, typically for a lengthy term.   In a leasehold arrangement there will usually be a contract between leaseholder and freeholder which sets out the legal rights and responsibilities of each party. Generally these will be that the freeholder maintains the common parts of the building and the leaseholder pays maintenance fees, service charges and a portion of the buildings insurance.   But what happens if there is a dispute as to those fees or some other matter?   Currently if a leasehold property owner takes the freehold owner of the building to court, a legal loophole means they could be burdened with the opposing party’s legal costs – even if the leaseholder wins. The legal bills involved can amount to tens of thousands of pounds, adding a sting in the tail to any victory.   However, after the Sunday Times launched an investigation and uncovered legal bills being levied of up to £60,000, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government James Brokenshire MP has pledged to take action and close the loophole.   The loophole is contained in the majority of leases which typically allow freeholders to recoup their legal costs from leaseholders, even if the freeholder loses the case. There is no parallel right for leaseholders to claim costs back.   The Times reported that last year leasehold owner Richard Barclay successfully recovered £1,200 of a £10,100 service charge from the management company in respect of his central London Flat. But the victory soon turned sour when Barclay was hit with a bill for £61,300 in legal fees by Quadrant Property Management who takes care of the building.   Barclay challenged the costs and the bankruptcy court reduced these by £12,500, but tribunal has ruled that all other costs being challenged are reasonable.   Back in 2015, a similar situation arose when the leasehold owners of 30 flats in West London took the freeholder to court and won a £29,000 discount off their service bill. The managing agent’s bill for legal fees in that case amounted to more than £44,000.   According to the Times, in 2014 / 2015 A2Dominion housing association who managed the block charged its leaseholders £24,167 for legal costs. One year after, FirstPort billed leaseholders of the wider estate £20,160 for what was thought to be the same legal costs.   The Times further reports that in 2017, two leaseholders took A2Dominion to tribunal regarding £12,500 claimed through their service charges for roof repairs. Those costs could have been recouped instead through the buildings insurance policy. This time the money was refunded just before the hearing – but this time the tribunal banned the association from issuing the claimants with a legal bill.   When presented with the details of two of these cases, James Brokenshire responded by stating: “It is the secretary of state’s intention to close the legal loopholes that allow freeholders to unjustifiably recoup legal costs from leaseholders. This will form part of our broader package of leaseholder reforms. We will do this as soon as parliamentary time allows.”   His promise is one of a number put forward by the government – it has also pledged to ban the sale of new build leasehold homes, and to cap ground rents on new leases.   t believes: “… when someone buys a house, it should feel truly their own. House buyers should not be faced with a depreciating lease or a ground rent charge for any other purpose than to pay for the privilege of living in the house they havealready bought.” (October 2018 Consultation)   The Law Commission is currently conducting three sub consultations in this area and the reforms are likely to follow their completion. These are: ·        Leasehold enfranchisement ·        Right to Manage ·        Commonhold   James Brokenshire said he wanted a leasehold market where people were able to challenge. He showed concern for  an inequality of arms that was preventing people from getting the outcomes, fairness and justice that they require.   What can I do if I have a dispute? The first place to look if you have a dispute regarding a charge is your lease. You can only be charged for items listed in the lease so if, for example, there’s no mention of management fees or the cost of improvements, you won’t be liable. If you’re not sure whether your lease allows the charges you’re disputing, ask a solicitor to check it for you.   If you’ve received a service charge demand, check it carefully. It should state the name and address of the landlord at the top (not the managing agent, unless they are also the landlord). The exception to this is if the managing agent is a party to the lease. It should also contain a summary of your rights and obligations which can be found here.   If you believe the certain items are excessive, request a summary that shows how the charge has been worked out and what it will be spent on, with receipts. The freeholder cannot refuse to supply this – to do so can attract a £2,500 fine.   If an item seems too high, get comparable quotes. This will help you demonstrate that the same services could be provided at a significant cost saving. By law the landlord must behave in a ‘reasonable’ manner with regard to its expenditure on the building.   Whilst there is no duty to minimise costs, service charges must be ‘reasonable’ and where the charges relate to works or services, the works or services must be completed to a reasonable standard.   Before you consider making a challenge, speak to neighbours who are in the same boat. They may consider bringing the challenge with you.   You should not stop paying the charges. Instead, write to the management company and provide evidence such as quotations to show that the charges are not reasonable. A solicitor’s letter may carry more weight, particularly as it can set out in legal terms the landlord’s duties regarding charges.   If the management company does not agree with your challenge, mediation may be a good way to resolve the dispute. This involves sitting down with the other party and trying to find a way forward, with the help of a trained mediator. It is typically far cheaper than litigation.   Another option may be to take over the right to manage the development. Speak to a solicitor about whether this may be possible.   The final option is to apply to the first-tier tribunal (England) or the leasehold valuation tribunal (Wales) for a ruling on whether the fees are payable. There’s a £100 application fee and £200 hearing fee in England, or a £50 – £350 application fee and a hearing fee in Wales.   If you are successful, you can ask the tribunal to limit the landlord’s ability to recover its legal costs through the service charge. However, they don’t have to agree to this and you may face a substantial charge.
    • I think you could usefully telephone the Sunderland County Court during the week – maybe Wednesday to find out the progress of the warrant and what date they imagine that they are going to go round and execute it. They might also tell you whether they are preparing to make a visit or whether they are going to do it by letter initially. This kind of information is available – because about 10 years or so ago, we sent the bailiffs into the Royal Bank of Scotland in Camden Town and we managed to get the data in advance and we had the press waiting to report.     https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/customer-sends-bailiffs-in-to-seize-bank-s-computers-7197321.html oh how we laughed    
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4979 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

I received a parking charge notice yesterday from the car park I always park in.

 

My company pays for our spaces, and we have parking permits that are fixed to our windscreens. On this occasion, I had left something obscuring the view of the parking permit and subsequently received a parking charge notice for £80!

 

I really don't want to pay this extortonant amount, being I haven't got it, and the fact that I do have a valid parking permit, albeit it was partly covered. Has anyone got any suggestions of what I can do. I have been parking here for well over a year now, so they see the same car, in the same spot (we have bay numbers) every day, and they have done this to quite a few people who work here lately.

 

The ticket is from a management company who deal with all parking permits for the people who own the ground.

 

Thanks

Dani

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly the people who check the tickets do not have psychic powers to read obscured tickets or the mental capacity to remember the thousands of vehicles they check each week. One of the conditions of a ticket/permit is that it is displayed clearly to show expiry and vehicle details. If this is not done you may as well have left it in a drawer at home because it is useless without having the details visible.

If this is your first offence you could try asking forgiveness and give any mitigating circumstances but sadly the charge is for not displaying the permit clearly as opposed to not having one, which you admit to doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sadly the people who check the tickets do not have psychic powers to read obscured tickets or the mental capacity to remember the thousands of vehicles they check each week. One of the conditions of a ticket/permit is that it is displayed clearly to show expiry and vehicle details. If this is not done you may as well have left it in a drawer at home because it is useless without having the details visible.

If this is your first offence you could try asking forgiveness and give any mitigating circumstances but sadly the charge is for not displaying the permit clearly as opposed to not having one, which you admit to doing.

 

However, this is a private car park and the ticket is no more than an invoice to the driver. It relies on contract law rather than parking legislation and is effectively unenforceable. There can be no offence in any contract in this country. Neither may unfair penalties be applied.

 

IHAPJ, you have to date posted 8 times on this forum, and each time I have had to correct your assertions. The majority of people come here for support and correct advice - something sadly lacking from the authorities charged with making as much money as possible from DPE. It is seen by councils working with a DPE regime as an income flow, not a parking issue.

 

As such, posters responding to these threads should do so accurately and in a position to cite statute law, case law and/or adjudication cases to back up the advice given.

 

You may be genuinely trying to help. OTOH, you may just feel that you want to spew nonsense across the forum or you are, in fact, simply trolling.

 

Please take a moment to reflect before posting and provide support rather than condemnation and bigoted opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...