Thank You. Indeed should have paid on time. But sometimes mistakes happen, unfortunately. Thank you for confirming that "unfair relationship" is not a defence, I suspected that this is a case but was not 100% sure. As for admitting and paying right away and then filing defence, this is a suggestion which is to be expected from any reasonable legal practitioner. I'll think whether I want to go suggested route or whether I want to delay this matter as long as I can and trying to settle at a later stage considering "complications" like having an innocent party as a co-defendant, refusal to settle and consider reasonable F&F offers, inaccurate and estimated bill amount (due to pending meter installation). Also since my financial circumstances are not that stellar It might be actually be preferable for me to have CCJ and pay a token amount per month after there is a court judgement, whatever that is. Also every cloud has a silver lining. On my property there is no meter installed, and the assessed water bill amount is twice as much as what we had previously and it is the same family, same water consumption. I was not aware that I have a right to request meter installation and they have to comply within 3 month. I just became aware of this while doing some research following this money claim. It seems that meter installation will decrease our annual water bill by 200-300£.

Here is the story (numbers are rounded) Yorkshire water billed us for about £600 for year 2012-2013. £300 due in April, £300 due in October. April instalment bill by some reason was not paid. Now they filed money claim for £725, (£600 plus £70 legal fee plus £55 court fee. The same one went to Mrs. Readalot.) Aprently we are whooping 2 month late with the first payment. My actions so far. - Called them and notified them that Mrs. Readalot is not anymore a leaseholder or owner of the property in question (lease was changed long time ago and it is in my name only), they have changed their records accordingly. - Filed acknowledgement of service and defence in name of Mrs Readalot, the defence is along the lines that she is not leaseholder of the property and not liable for the bills. - Filed acknowledgement of service in my name. Now is the most interesting part.. . I called them (call is recorded) tried to negotiate a quick and amicable settlement but they refused to even discuss it and the party line was "you need to file admission form and send it to yorkshire water". Some quotes from that conversation: - "Have you received the paperwork from the court yet" - Me: "Yes I have" - "Well you need to fill the admission form and send to ourselves" - "This is the process that you need to follow" .. - Me: "I want to reach a repayment agreement" - "No you cannot do it now, we've reached the court stage" - "You need to fill the paperwork from the court and send it back to US" - You can fill in the court forms with repayment offer and send it to us and we will look into it and if we accept we will add 40£ to your account. - Me: What 40£ are for. - 40£ will be added for the judgement. Then CCJ will be on your record. - Me: "Please do not try to mislead me" - "I am not trying to mislead you. If you not make payment in full within 14 days you will have a CCJ entered onto your account, onto your credit file" ... - Me: "This is wrong, this should not be like that, what you are telling me is not true " - "This is the process" - Me: "You are lying to me, in my face" ... - Me: "All I want is to settle this matter amicably out of court" - "Unfortunately , if you cannot pay the balance within 14 days, because the court paper have been issued, the CCJ will be entered and you need to make an offer of payment via the court papers" ... - "That's the paperwork that you have received, if you do not pay the full balance within 14 days the judgement will be entered and you will have that black mark on your credit file for 6 years" - "Well, it is a lie.." ... - "You need to send us repayment offer.. if we accept the offer there will be 40£ added to your account and confirmation will be send to yourself..." - Me: "But what will happen with the ongoing money claim then?" - "It will go ahead and you will have CCJ on your credit file for 6 years" ... - "Because you cannot pay in full the only way [to deal with this] is to admit on the admission form and send it to us" - Me: "or defend" - "Sorry? " - Me: "I can admit or defend, is it true" - "Can you repeat this please?" - Me: "I can admit the claim or defend the claim" ... - "You do not have to attend court, all you have to do. The court has already been done, the court has already been done without you being there" - Me: "The court has already been done without me being there already?" [ WTF!? ] - Me: "Are you saying the judgement has been entered without me?" - "The judgement has not been entered yet, we need you to fill the paperwork and send it back to us and once it has been received the judgement will be entered" ... - Me: "do you understand that you are intentionally trying to mislead me." - "I am not intentionally trying to mislead you , I am just advising you on what the process is" - Me: "I do not want your legal advise, you are advising me incorrectly, you are lying in my face and only back off when I confront you. And this conversation is being recorded, transcript of this conversation will go to court to show unfair relationship between us and your breach of OFT guidelines and there will be a claim to OFT. I do not want any of that, I just want to settle this matter out of court now and you are telling me that 'no way'" ... - "You have not responded to our letters... It is not until now that the judgement have been entered that you are trying to contact us" - Me: "The judgement have been entered!?" - "Yes. the judgement have been entered. Now. Whether you admit that claim or you defend that claim. That judgement will strill be entered and you will have that mark on your credit file for 6 years. The easiest way to deal with it would be to admit the claim" - Me: "The judgement will be entered!?" - "Yes.The judgement will be entered..." - Me: "You are confusing me. Will be entered or have been entered? Which one is it?" - "the judgement will be entered if you admit the claim. If you didn't admit the claim and send the admission form then the judgement will still be entered by default. So either way, whether you respond to that letter or not you are still going to have a judgement going agains you and CCJ issued on your credit file. The easiest way to deal with would be send us the addmission form and set an arrangement...so CCJ now is unavoidable but if once you pay your balance in full we will send you a letter of satisfaction which you can present to court and your CCJ will be marked as satisfied" - Me: "haha.. this is so much going to OFT guys... this record is going to OFT to show them how you mislead your customers .. you are telling me outright lies, you are telling me outright lies right now! You lied to me on multiply occasion, when I confront you, you back off a little bit and then keep telling me lies. This is ridiculous" - "We sent you letter we made you aware of the situation..." - Me: "and then when I contact you, you bamboozle me with waffle!" .. - Me: "Well I am calling you now trying to reach a settlement of this matter" - "It has got to a point of no return now" - Me: "Point of no return, ha.." .. There is some more of that but other party sounds very tired and I let her go. If you are still here, it seems I will defend the claim potentially arguing "unfair relationship". Also the water bills insane (we have no meter), I will be requesting them to set up a meter which should reduce the charges in half (based on our consumption in previous house) This will make the claimed money wildly inaccurate. Also since one defendant on the claim is obviously no liable, she will be claiming legal fees. Will see if I can settle this matter the day before court for half the price. Any advise and suggestions are very welcome.

>you mind sharing the name of the culprits they refused to introduce themselves.

I had very similar experience with these clowns. They are chasing some old unenforceable debt, no CCA, a written admission of no CCA, a bunch of old unfair charges, bad DN and eventually accepted by me unlawful contract termination. Now these clowns went out of woodwork, they: - went in person to my workplace, an Innovation Centre run by local council and harassed receptionists demanding that I call them immediately about some urgent matter whle not forgetting to say that they are JBDR and it is one google search away from knowing that they are a debt collection agency. - They sent to my workplace letters with demand to call them urgently - They left multiply voice mails to receptionists (effectively employee of my business landlord, a local council) - They called many times them demanding that I again contact them urgently. - They called my home many times, I demanded all communication in writing etc... - Eventually I got fed up and called them (had a good record of this whole conversation). Explained that they are breaking the law by harassing me at work and that they shall stop it. Told them the only phone number where I can accept their phone calls (0871... number routed to skype). Asked them to send me (gave address) all the information about the debt, CCA's, full statement of account and how exactly they arrived to alleged debt etc... They offered F&F right away at 50%. I declined coz want to see the proof of debt first. Promised to send via RM signed for. A a few days later received a call to my work phone number (which I told them to not call) which was as described above on the same script as OP. However, they claimed that they have sent me all the documents and have my signature. The fact is that nothing was delivered and nobody have signed for anything on my side. So I told them, the guy told me that I am lying. I said no way it must be ither you lying or was delivered to a wrong address and just send it again. Then he told me that I am a director of so many private companies (gave me a list actually, surprise surprise, it's a public info) and that I can pay and just do not want and that I "did every trick in the book" and now he will do seizure of my bank accounts and that he will recommend "enforcement action". At this point I told him to go to do bad things to himself and hang up. This is a quick a very accurate report of my last encounter with these mappers.

Here is my story. One business is pursuing me for debt which I do not oww. Well, there is some disputed invoice for a company which I am director of, but I surely do not owe any money pursuant to Salomon vs Salomon. Anyway long story short a few phone call I have received went like this: they: "yadayada yada you need to pay about 800£ to this company or else" me: "What is your name and which company do you represent?" they: "we are bailiffs and if you do not pay we will come to your home and take some goods to sell on auction" me: "could you please confirm that you are a bailiff and what is your name?" they: "yes we are a company of bailiffs" me: "stop calling me on this phone number all communications must be in writing" they: "we will call you all day long every hour on the hour until you pay up" ... unfortunately, my truecall for some reason failed to record this. However, I right away sent an email with a complain to the company who hired those cowboys quoting that conversation and demanding to stop criminal activity. that guys also came to my home twice the same day after I on a number of accasions told them that all communications must be only in writing. Now they are still coming after me personally for company's disputed invoices and I just have filed a defence online denying existence of any contract between me and those thugs . Is there anything I can do to bring this up in the court, given that I have no voice recording?

Exactly. If there is an agreement the tenant is liable to pay rent and the lanlord is liable for damages if the property is not available. But note that in court of law it is not what has happened is important what you can prove has happened (or sometimes other party cannot prove what has happend). i.e. it is not truth matters but what can be proven. In practice, as far as I understand, this makes verbal agreements irrelevant unless you are recording every word and even than it is a question if such recording/transcript could be admitted as an evidence. Considering the above as well as the fact that nearly always whatever LA gives to a prospective tenant in writing is "subject to contract", in practice until both sides sign the agreement nothing is really binding since either party can pull out of the deal without being liable to pay rather serious money. Once agreement is signed both parties are liable to play the ball starting on the first day of the AST's fixed term or pay up. As a rule of thumb, even if I am mistaken on some point of law, as a tenant I will never give notice to quit on current tenancy until I have signed by other party agreement on the next tenancy in writing and I have paid at least some money like security deposit (consideration). There might be some theory on binding verbal agreements, but I will not take any chances of my 3 young kids and pregnant wife being homeless without at least someone having to pay for that many thousands of pounds in damages eventually, and even than it would be not a very nice prospect. And this is why I essentially brought up this issue here in the first place.

MrShed, Thank You for confirming that my understanding of this was more or less correct (and where I was wrong as well). Most likely they indeed do it as a matter of course due to their own risks they try to mitigate, as you have described. Though, I never before encoutered anything like this, all the previous agents I've dealt with were fairly courteous when it came to signing the contracts. Anyway, in this case the agent just contacted me and told me that we can sign the lease at anytime I want. In this case the landlord is living in this house and they are going to move out to another one. I've just had a chat with the Landlord directly about this matter and a few other things and everything got sorted out. It looks like (at least for now) that we are going to have a very nice tenancy for all the parties concerned. Well.., maybe, except the agent. It turned out that the Landlord wanted to secure the lease ASAP themselves and had no idea about agent's silly games. So... holding finger crossed, to get things done and dusted quite soon. Thanks All.

Of course, I cannot force them to enter into a contract, but I can walk away or they will have to negotiate if they have any intention of renting the house out. Or, better yet, if I decide to rent another house between now and 15th of October, I could simply tell them nothing utill the last second and let them taste the taste of their own medicine and without any risk for me (except being blacklisted by this LA untill the end of days However, this is a trap they've laid into which it is very easy to fall for someone who has not got even a vague idea about contract law, risk management etc... Moreover, this trap was placed after they've taken "application fee" money. Does it not look like "byte and switch" practice? By the way, in my case, they have now backed down and happy to sign the lease right away. Thefore this is rather an academic debate for me now. But I still feel a bit insulted and I find that such practice is amoral and should not be allowed.

Ok, I can see your point on overreacting, particularly given that this would be a double edged sword to handle things this way, because until the lease is signed I can as well pull out at anytime and these matter always can be negotiated. At least if I manage to have a word with someone with a bit more brains than that poor illiterate girl at the LA. MrShed, could you please clarify for me one thing. You said Fair enough, if both parties have signed the contract (AST) and I've paid, for example, security deposit (the consideration) let's say today. This would mean that we have a valid contract. Should one party pull out of the contract after the contract is signed and the consideration is paid, but before the tenancy is in place this would be a breach of this contract and injured party would have a valid claim for damages (which would be in area 2000-3000£ or even more, it depends). In other words there is no tenancy but there is a contract. Correct? Moreover, this would be rather different scenario as compared to potential tenant coming to sign the contract on the first day of the tenancy just to find out that the landlord does not want to sign the lease anymore and tenat having no recourse whatsoever as result. I assume that a letter from LA saying that "the application is succesfull, please come to sign the lease on 15th of October with money in hand (subject to contract)" does not by itself a binding contract at all and merely an "invitation for negotiation". I hope you see where I am coming from and why I was OVERREACTING. What do you think about it?

Well I migth be wrong, but minor incovenience!? I beg to differ. We are not talking here about a one bedroom aparment or bedsit for a student this is about a detached 4 bedroom house for a family of 5 (soon to be 6). Here is a scenario: Today, 15th of September (just an example), I give my courrent Landlord, 1 month notice, arrange for removal company to come with tracks and people to move stuff and arrange with all the phone companies and utilities to switch the services effectively let's say 16th of October. Then on 15th of October I come to the Letting Agent to sign the lease (which also starts on 16th of October), which is no doubt loaded with all kind of unfair terms and whatever surprise fees they will spring on me at the day. Nevertheless,. they than tell me "oh... sorry... we decided that we do not want to sign the lease with you after all, have a nice day". End result, I am homeless, without phone, internet, gas and electricity with bills from removals company, emergency storage fees etc.. etc.. and of course agents keep 200£ they have taken from me. Of course, this would never happen to me, because no sane person would get in such a trap. But some naive soul actually may end up like this if such practices are common practice in use by Letting Agents and is not big deal like you say. I agree that there are ways to mitigate such risks, but these are expencive as inevitable if one does not want to take risks of being homeless and disconnected or sleeping with kids under a bridge he/she will have to pay for two properties for some considerable period of time (like one month). Do you think I am still overreacting? If this is normal, guess I shall more seriosly consider my emigration options.

I am wondering if it just I am failing to understand how things work or is this completely off the charts. The story so far: I am currently renting from a private landlord. Want to move to another house. Found a more or less decent property to rent from a private landlord, Reed Rains is an agent. Put an application in and after lots of documents provided on their request (copy of passport, bank statements, utility bills etc..) and about 200£ paid for this the references went thru ok. Now I have received a letter from Reed Rains saying that references and credit check is fine and I welcome to come to their office to sign the lease and that appointment is set to, let's say, 15th of October .(let's assume that today is 15th of September) The thing is the tenancy is supposed to start on 15th of October as well!!! So they want me to phisically come and sign on the exactly the same day when the tenancy starts. Anyone, who, ever moved house would understand how ridiculous it is. I called the agent and asked to move the appointment to sign the lease for lets say tomorrow. They explained that it is their policy to always sign the lease on the first day of the tenancy and insisted that it is their policy and they do it for all letting agreements. I cannot beleive this. This simply cannot be the truth. Does anyone has encountered this? Any advise and suggestions? I do like the house and would like to rent it but this is beyound belief.

You are incorrect here. If you were correct, than creditor would be able "simply issue" DN adressed to Santa Claus, North Pole and be done with it and everything would be hanky dory for them. However, in the real world, in the same place where there is a requirement for 14 clear days to be given on DN and the prescribed text is specified there is also a requirement for DN to be properly addressed. If the debtor has informed the creditor about the change of address and creditor nevertheless persists in sending DN to the old adress it would not only make such DN invalid but also surely would be some kind of violation of Data Protection act. Makes it rather important to inform creditors about the change of address though, is it not? Preferably by a registered post. I personally have a case where a well known creditor who generally keeps CCAs and DN's up to scrutch, after being informed about change of address by me, have sent me a letter acknowleging the new address and than sent me othervise perfectly valid DN to the old address. A little mistake which will cost them north of 10k. I must confess that I have timed the move to new home and defaulting to occur at about the same time. But it was rather long shot. For creditor, another hidden cost of ditching UK programmers and hiring lots of monkeys from Asia to their IT stuff, I guess.

Mr Shed, Planner, Thank you very much for your help on this 's21(1) expiry date is before the end of fixed term makes this notice invalid' issue. I think we both agree that common wisdom and advise available from large variety of sources states that such notice is indeed invalid. I had difficulty to finding authority for this. It was not clearly obviuos based solely on section 21 of Housing Act 1988. However, the matters get much clearer when reading HA1988 s21 together with s5. The key is s5(5) HA1988 This basically means that the s21 notice which has expired (i.e. came into effect) during the last day of the fixed term is "unenforceable and has no efect" once fixed term AST is converted into statutory periodic tenancy. This is why all the advice to Landlords is to have section 21 notices to expire AFTER the last day of fixed term. This is also why s 21(1) notice which expires within fixed term is invalid. Please let me know if you see any flaw in my analysis.

The notice has a section 21(1)(b) reference, therefore we shall not consider 21(4) because if we need to consider section 21(4) that the notice is invalid due to incorrect reference. ??? However, 21(4) is 'without prejudice' to rights under 21(1) and therefore it is possible that both may be applicable. also assuming 'at the time of the hearing': at the time of the hearing AST has come to the end ----> check at the time of the hearing SPT is in force ----> check at the time of the hearing no other AST or AT is in force ----> check therefore conditions of 21(1)(a) are satified. not less that two month notice has been given ---> check therefore conditions of 21(1)(b) are satified. therefore possession order shall be granted. There must be some other statutory instruments relevant to s21 notices. Going only by s21 HA1988 a notice expiring on any date within fixed term with more than two month notice period is valid and a possesion order shall be granted at any time after the end of fixed period i.e. as soon as AST becomes SPT. There must be something that I am missing, i.e. at the time of switch from AST to SPT all notices get invalidated or something like that...

nice one, particularly considering that the 'lunch lady' has actually given this leaflet to T.