Is there a clause is your AST that states "You will be responsible for all reasonable costs in the event you terminate early" or similar?

Guys I apologise now but this is a little long winded but please bear with me. My daughter ran a business from an office that was situated above my shop. I let her have this office space free of charge. A local company came in and asked her to set up a branch of their company with 2 of their directors, which she agreed to and a limited company was formed, continuing her business but now with 3 directors (She was not limited before). We verbally agreed the monthly rent which they paid for the first 3 months. They then failed to pay any rent from month 4 on. This week they moved out and there are issues around that involving the fixtures and fitings. Ignoring those for the time being, do we have an implied contract where they have part performed and can I sue them for the remaining £8000.00 rent that is owed. Before you say it I have been too trusting and stupid, but nevertheless I would like to have some recourse and claim the rent back. Appreciate your ideas and views Regards M

Absolutely correct MrShed!

Wrong only committed when under oath Anyway, if the offence is dated in may and the nip is dated in august they are well outside the 14 days

I use skype for clients all over the country and some that live abroad Never fails me

Presumably you are in Australia? If so then this forum will not be able to help you - You will need to find a similar forum that deals with your countries laws Sorry

Good luck with that one we are still waiting for the conspiracy theory to surface

yes dealt with it hundreds of times and you are in for a long wait!

Yes I did notice but I thought I would post the obnoxious comments for all to see, as you clearly have no courage

didn't you know "were" is northern for "where"

:lol: and so says yet another ctw expert :lol:

...

Presumably you know the commander in charge of the operation on that day and you are privy to the intelligence gained as a result of the national intelligence model, put in place, to deal with the way intelligence is gained and acted on in this country? If you don't know them let me introduce you to them Ridiculous comments made out of mis-informed media hype!!

OK my car is registered to me and I keep it what does that make me? The keeper or owner?

whatever - ownership/registered keeper - lets not split hairs eh?

BT But any isp does as long as you reconnect to the internet In other words close the connection and you get a new ip address on reconnect

isn't there a bit on the back that explains this? haven't got mine to hand to check

Must a be a lot of Dave's where you live

I know this is adding to what has already been said but your slip is like your V5 so pat and gwc1000 are correct - It is valid if you are stopped by Police as proof of ownership as well

Nope - But I have been in law for 24 years and have learnt, very early on, not to make decisions, or opinions, until the full facts are known

Sorry but you are making decisions about the lawfulness about what has happened without knowing the full facts. There may be a clause in the possession order, if there was one, where it says something similar to: "May be assisted by a constable in the recovery of the property" Unless the OP can clarify we need to accept the Police acted lawfully

Let me get this straight, you are agreeing that the Police should have seized the car and allowed the OP to deal with the agent enforcing it directly?

In which case, if there was a warrant in existence to recover the car, they should have just assisted with the seizure of the car and left the OP with no transport, instead of dealing with it sensibly and having the OP deal with the ballifs (Drakes or otherwise)

No she didn't - Sorry - What she actually said was Without knowing the facts we are taking stabs in the dark - There may actually be a possession order, court order etc etc for the car so the OP actually needs to make this clearer