Thank you for your reply. I see that the Acts are extremely complicated and to be honest i was not aware that some of the sections are not even in force. What you have listed in the other thread is more than enough for me, i just wasn't sure which Act i should be reffering to when responding to the managing agents. Do you know how i can get a copy of the Landlord and Tenant Act that you refer to in your thread? I have looked on the net but seem unable to get a full copy.

Ed999 or anybody.....I need a copy of the 1985 Landlord and Tenant Act. I cant seem to get a full copy off the net. Could someone please send me a link to the full copy. Really need this before i can go any further

Section 166 (1) again of the above mentioned act noted that a notice should be issued for a demand of ground rent, this has not been done. I have read the sections stright out of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, you have stated some of these are incorrect. How can they be incorrect if they have come stright out of the act. Just looking for a bit of clarification as i need to get this right. So is it better then just to use section out of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Is there by any chance you will know the answer to this question previously posted:- Another question - in the Landlord and Tenant Act it refers to 'Landlord' - now in my case is the landlord the Freeholder of whom i pay ground rent to or the managing agents of whom i pay service charges to? This is will relate to section 47 + 48

Another question - in the Landlord and Tenant Act it refers to 'Landlord' - now in my case is the landlord the Freeholder of whom i pay ground rent to or the managing agents of whom i pay service charges to? This is will relate to section 47 + 48

But as buyers what form of comeback do we have if it turns out the lease should have never been approved. As an owner i dont know if my lease is inadequate or not, the solicitor did not go through the lease with me...i am assuming now he actually read it!

These are some breaches i have found so far in the Commonhold and Leasehold reform Act 2002, i have yet to read the other acts:- Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 · S152 subsection 21.3.a They have never supplied a certificate of a qualified accountant or supplied a summary of rights and obligations of the tenants of dwellings in relation to service charges. · S153 subsection 21B (1) They have never supplied a summary of rights and obligations when demanding service charges. · S159 subsection (2) The admin charges are not reasonable. · S166 subsection (1) They have never issued a notice for ground rent

Ed999 + Aequitas Now i need get concentrating on the breaches by the managing agent. I am reading the relevant acts and will post up here what i think has been breached and why, hopefully you can comment.

The shareholders certificate has now been issued, it was issued in November 2006. I did indeed use a solicitor and it turns out he allowed the completion of sale without the certificate being in place even though i had paid for the transfer. (this was shown on my completion statement) The reason the managing agent gave for not issuing the certificate in my name was the fact that the sellers had not given up thier certificate so therefore the managing agents refused to issue one as they said there cannot be two certificates pertaining for the same property.

The issue about the share certificate has been resloved, it was issued in Novemeber 2006. My problem was that the managing agent said because i did not have a certificate my lease was worthless so why should i pay charges for the period that the certificate did not exist, now i know this is not the case about the lease i am not pursuing that matter any further. Yet i still have the issue of the unpaid charges. If i owe it i will pay it but as previously said it is coming to light that the managing agents have been in breach anyway so they could possibly be in dispute but for other reasons. The other reasons is what i need to establish. Their solicitor has written to me asking for the unpaid charges, this i have put in dispute untill in know where i stand.

That does explain alot thank you....As the shareholders certificate is irrelevant (forgetting the rest for the minute) means i am liable for service charges (i purchased the property last year)...thats ok as long as i know where i stand....BUT the agents have not adhered to most of your points so it may transpire that i do have a defence after all. I'm going to go home forget about the share certificate and concentrate on what they have not adhered to...i will be getting back to you.

Your post came before i had finished mine.... It does help and will be used at a later stage as the agents have failed adhere to most of those points. However i need to get the issue of the share certificate established first....as there are sums outstanding and i am not sure if i am legally bound to pay it, if i am then i will. With regards to monies paid since Nov 06 that is where your points come in.

I have just read the rest of the thread...you might be able to answer this for me...The property is leasehold, all owners own 1% share in the managment company that was specifically set up for the purpose of this building, the management company is managed by a managing agent that maintains the property and looks after the account etc. How does a owner stand legally with regards to the lease when a shareholders certificate had not been issued and not owing that 1% share? If the share certificate was still in the old owners name are they still liable for service charges? The managing agent informed me that because i had not had a share certificate issued i was not bound by the lease. (Note: it is down to the managing agent to issue such certificate) Another note: This is a mortgaged property and the share certificate was not mentioned by my conveyancer.

That is a good post.... i have made the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act and the Law of Property Act my bedtime reading! I have complied a list of sections that the managment co have breached it is just a case of putting it in some kind of order.

I would post all but at the moment i am concerned about giving out too much info. Will have a look at that site though.

I am looking for a member that has sound knowledge with reagards to leasehold properties and the associated Acts of Parliament i.e The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, Law of Property Act. I am in dispute with my management company over various interest and admin charges, these of which are not stipulated in the lease as costs that can be charged to the lessee, but it transpires that the company have breached sections of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act. I will go further into detail if there is anybody that can advise me. Thanks Yaff.

Oh and i hate DDR, you might aswell give them full access to your account!

If the council will not accept montly payments in any other form that DDR you could always attend the court hearing and put your point across. When the council go to court they have a long schedule of people that have not paid and the amounts they owe, they give it to the judge he rubber stamps it and off they go. They dont into the circumstances surrounding these non-payments. I missed two payments with my council tax and i got a summons, unfortuantely i could not attend that day as i was seeing someone in hospital otherwise i would have gone, so i wrote a letter to the court and requested that it be read out i also copied it to the council. The Liability Order still went ahead but instead of it automatically going to baliffs the judge refered it back to the council and told them to contact me with regards to a payment arrangement. After lots of two and throwing the council finally agreed a figure, i also managed to get them to agree to splitting the bill over 12 months instead of 10 and yes i got the 'you will have to pay by DDR to get that' i said no my bank account does not have a DDR facility (little white lie) so i now pay by cash with a giro slip every month. Its worth a try....at the least the judge can see your not just trying to avoid paying.

Actually can you type the particulars of the claim up here....knowing CL it shouldnt be very long!!!! Its not worth dealing with GE Money anymore as they have sold the debt, all enquiries now should be sent direct to CL.

Yes and does it say in the Particulars of the Claim that the debt had been assigned to the claimant on a particular date? If so when did you get your notice of assignment? When did you file your defence? These first two questions could prove important

I have complained to the ICO regarding various creditors that have admitted they do not hold credit agreements which resulted in myself sending a section 10 request under the Data Protection Act 1998 to cease processing my data as it was inaccurate and furthemore not had my permission to process it in the first place, this is the ICO's response (with the boring bits left out):- CCA 1974, request for credit agreement. It may be helpful to explain that sections 77 and 78 of the CCA state that a creditor must give a Consumer a copy of their executed agreement within 12 working days of receiving a request in writing and the appropriate fee. Regulation 3(2) of the CNCD Regulations allows the following to be omitted from any copy: a) Information in the original which relates to the debtor, hirer or surety or is included for the use of the creditor or owner only and which is not required to be included in the original agreement by the Act or by any regulations as to form and content. Therefore it is not necessary for the copy to repoduce, for example, details of the business or occupation of the debtor, the name and address of the employer or bank details of his income etc, b) Any signature box, signature or date of signature. Therefore there is no requirement for an organisation to send you a copy of the original agreement. They may simply send you a copy of the Terms and Conditions of the agreement. Although i appreciate that you do appear to be disputing the existence of these debts, it may be helpful to explain that the failure of a creditor to produce a copy of the signed credit agreement is not, on its own, evidence that the debt does not exist and should therefore not appear on your credit file. If the credit grantor can supply some other evidence of the agreement and you have no evidence to contradict this then it is likely to be proper for the debt to continue to be recorded on your credit reference file. Section 10 notice and consent to share your information You have complained that the companies are passing information to the credit reference agencies. Your argument is based on the assumption that the credit reference agencies need consent to process account information. This is not the case. As you may be aware the first data protection principle states that "Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular, shall not be processed unless: At least one the conditions in Schedule 2 is met: and in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions in Schedule 3 is also met" One of the conditions for processing in Schedule 2 is that the individual has given his consent to the processing. It is our view that consent is not easy to achieve and that organisations should consider other conditions for processing before looking at consent. No one condition carries greater weight than any other. All the conditions provide an equally valid basis for processing. Merely because consent is the first condition to appear in both Schedules 2 and 3 does not mean that organisations should consider it first. Consent is not defined in the Act and so it is helpful to look back at Directive 95/46/EC which defines "the data subjects consent" as: "....any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed" In the context of applying for credit, consent to share information with the credit reference agencies cannot be freely given. This is becuase if you dont agree to your data being shared then your application will simply be rejected. In other words you have no choice. It is our view that the condition for processing below covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond. "The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject" We take a wide view of the legitimate interests and we consider that it is in the interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions. It is important to note here that the fact that the processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular individual (for example, someone with an adverse entry on his credit reference file may not be able to obtain credit facilities) does not necessarily render the whole processing operation prejudicial to all individuals. The Act does not prescribe the period for which information is retained by credit reference agencies. However we understand that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit 1971 expressed support for the view that a statutory time limit should be considered and suggested a period of six years should be adopted. At the time this was already the practice common to some of the major credit reference agencies. The Younger Committee on Privacy considered that as the prevailing practices of the agencies were cooridinated, there was no immediate necessity for statutory recommendations to be made but prepared the ground for the Data Protection Act 1984 by recommending that periods should be specified beyond which the information should not be retained. Finally i hope the above information helps to clarify why we do not intend to undertake any further action in this instance. Your cases will now be closed. Well that is a bit long winded but in the short of it all....'No credit agreement, tough, they still have a right to process your data' Nearly all of my creditors have failed to produce agreements, so therefore in my eyes not having permission to process my data but the ICO clearly feels differently. I am sad to say i will NOT be contacting the ICO again as it seems clear they are a huge waste of time. Thoughts.......

Ok...Littlewoods have written to me today and here is what they say:- I can confirm that we will not be pursuing the above account for the outstanding balance of £119.16, the debt remains unsatisfied. This will be noted on our internal file for future references. This information will also form part of your records at the CRA's where we share information. As from today 30/7/07 i can verify that your details have been removed from our mailing list. Well, well.....that took a bloody long time. I am quite relieved that i dont have to contact Littlewoods again for the mo. The debt is no more. I have written to the ICO with regards to incorrect info being processed on my credit file but heard nothing back im not holding much hope. So for the time being i will put this to the bottom of the pile and come back to the processing of incorrect data another day!

Ginnever......there is alot of help on here that can help you with this. It is probably best to start you own thread i wouldnt want your messages getting lost amongst mine. Good Luck, i will be suscribing.....

This is for a small council tax debt which will be paid off next month. I have been paying it by debit card over the phone, thats what annoyed me becuase they said i authorised the payment, i even got the bloke to confirm the amount which he did £59.14....little git lied through his teeth!

I have been flighting creditors and DCA's for so long now and you do have to keep your head up and not let them get you down but sometimes they find a way of getting in and really making you feel worthless! It is just thier attitude... i just want pick them up, slap em, shake em and make them realise they are the worthless ones not us! I mean if all they can do is bully and intimidate people that doesn't say much for thier intelligence

You see one little thing like this means i now have to empty the bank account, inform the bank not to let them take anymore money etc etc. I just dont have the energy to do this anymore...oh god getting all welled up now. Its not just equita it is all my creditors. I have them all in hand and am currently having the last laugh, but one set back like this however small, feels massive. If you know what i mean. Give me a few hours and after i written my letter will feel happier