Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have previously posted about a dispute my parents have had with LL who has had little to do with the property they have rented for the last 35 years.   Fast forward to today, LL has applied for fair rent which was registered and the LL has finally brought the property to a safe standard following involvement from the local council.   We have received a new bombshell.. that the LL has applied for a possesion order under a notice of seeking possesion of a secure tenancy (NOSP).   Under grounds 3, 4 and 10.   I googled and found below:   Ground 3 –  Deterioration in the condition of the property The tenant, or anyone else living in the property, must have caused deterioration in the condition of the property or common parts. If damage is caused by a lodger or subtenant of the tenant (without the tenant's consent), possession will not be granted if the tenant has taken reasonable steps to evict that person. Ground 4 –  Deterioration in furniture provided The tenant, or anyone else living in the property, must have caused deterioration in the condition of furniture provided by the landlord in the property or common parts. Where damage is caused by a lodger or subtenant of the tenant (without the tenant's consent), possession will not be granted if the tenant has taken reasonable steps to evict that person. Ground 10 – Demolition or major works Where the landlord intends either to demolish or reconstruct or do works to the property and needs possession in order to do so. The landlord must prove that it intends carrying out works and such work cannot reasonably be carried out without obtaining possession.[2] If the tenant agrees to vacate the premises temporarily while the works are carried out then there may be no need for possession. The displaced tenant will normally be entitled to compensation.[3] See Problems during repairs for information on compensation for loss of home.   My question is, following the fair rent register and an agreement that parents were covered under the 1977 rent act we were under the impression this is a regulated tenancy, not a secure tenancy?? or is there no difference?   Its a private rent, not through housing association and the property has just been deemed as safe under by the council.   We have also never been approached by the LL to say they felt that my parents have caused any damage or deterioration in the condition of the property. If anything, over the years it has vastly been improved by my parents. We raised safety issue to the council following repeated attempts for LL to repair the dangerous electrics and blocked drains.   If there is no difference in the tenancy types, what should our next step be? any thoughts?   More info if needed in my original thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421879-major-repairs-to-letting-of-a-sitting-tenant/?tab=comments#comment-5064284          
    • Keep in mind also that the companies in administration are currently at the moment putting plans in place to change reporting depending on IRR Claims etc / Criteria set out by the Administrators. 
  • 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 4885 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



sent of the DSIR as recommended


they sent a letter back saying I hadn't sent a cheque, I had and I stapled it to the letter (wife's a lawyer and that's 'how it's done)


ah well, sent them another on Saturday


They are prompt, I'll give them that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contractual Interest - Precedent - LOST


In the light of 12 June 2007 binding ruliing in the High Court, best not to mention "Contractual Interest" anywhere now.


Simply reclaiming the debit interest shown on your monthly statement as actually levied due to unlawful charges should be ok. If debit interest was accrued partly due to charges and partly due to lawful purchases, then I would suggest reclaiming debit interest in proportion. An even thornier question could be asked, when you pay into Egg card, does the payment wipe out existing charges first, or purchases first, or your payment is split to reduce both in proportion, or in sequence of transaction date.


In recent settlements Egg has shown an enlightened and co-operative spirit on charges and interest (long may prompt, conciliatory settlements continue), so I very much doubt Egg would split hairs on interest computation for any purpose of stalling or saving pennies on payout. In several recent cases delighted claimants have reported that Egg volunteered to add on 8% Statutory Interest where claimants never even reclaimed interest.





Link to post
Share on other sites

High Court, what were they doing there? (off to actually be bothered to read it in a minute anyway)


I'm aware CI is a bit dodgy in front of a judge at the mo, this won't have helped clearly, thank-you for the link


again, my other claims have stat in the variance, NW and B have been served now with full on CI anyway :eek:


Wait for the statements and see what's what anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites

skimmed it


the was offered charges plus stat, I' think I'd have settled for that if offered, I certainly wouldn't have proceeded to court on the CI element alone


let alone appealed to the High Court


thanks again, been offline for a while


fingers crossed they don;t defend due to being busy then



Link to post
Share on other sites

I discovered the aforesaid landmark thread entirely by accident, because I happened to have time to browse around aimlessly. It is the reality of this 140,000-member site that you stumble across critical news and info as best you can.


When Dave's filofax-style Wikipedia is up and running, the situation ought to improve.



Link to post
Share on other sites

yep and thanks again


it's quite a cluttered thread isn't it, which doesn't help


I admire his spirit appealing to the high court with a simple CI case, and with the suspect M&R argument it appears, that's been firmly slapped down a month or so ago hasn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By dad's account, his CI claim was dismissed from county court in February 2007, his appeal to High Court was dismissed on 8th June 2007, and on 12th June 2007 dad made a postiing which attracted little attention. I have seen no posting reporting press coverage of this landmark ruling in the High Court.


Had I not stumbled on the aforesaid thread by accident, then to this day I would not have known about it. Fom posts reporting a recent court hearing, a judge was quoted as saying "We talk to each other, you know". It is conceivable that he was trying to say, judges do homework on recent rulings, and bank barristers do the same, that judges get irritated by claimants who come before him not having done as much homework, to repeat arguments previously thrown out.


Not to suggest in the least that Hippo v Egg will end up in court. You only need to roll over to flatten them. icon10.gif



Link to post
Share on other sites



getting out of the water is a problem though


I'm never ever going to go to court as long as I've been offered core charges/interest plus stat


appeals to the HC? oh my sides


I wouldn't dream of it unless I had no end of time to really prepare, I quite sympathise with judges having people stand up in front of them with cobbled together arguments they don't fully understand, if that happens

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

dsir response arrived recorded delivery during the week, picked it up this morning, quite the bundle, statements plus a record of every time I phoned them up, makes the other banks a look very shoddy, no time to do more than skim so far, doesn't look like it's going to make me rich

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

oops, seemed to been missing this one


grand total of less than £200


the lady wife insists it's not worth going after


prelim and then LBA sent


a letter back from Egg was not the expected offer but a ploite explaination that their charges are fair and yada yada


they're apparently calculated by dividing the cost of their administration by the number of contraventions of the account conditions


fancy that


LBA has now expired so I've now got to decide whether to initiate proceedings


principle says yes, ag factor says no




perhaps I'll fill out the N1 and send it to them to try and poke them into settlement

Link to post
Share on other sites

67 claimants did not take no for an answer, and all were refunded. As far as unlawful charge went, not one reclaim was refused by Egg. By convention and form, Eggployees HAVE to talk coy in their first letter to make you try harder, much like that principle of yore that girls do not do it, ahem, on the first date.


Your response differed slightly from the conventional Egg template saying £16 was lawful re OFT etc, but the same principle. If you ignore Egg's deviation, and send the moc1982 letter now, should do the trick.


But be quick, the tide is flowing against claimants nationwide. A few courts have now outrageously stayed credit card hearings which are not bound by the forthcoming OFT test case against banks -- and have rejected claims to lift the stay!



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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...