@bitemarx Not a breach of GDPR because the new tenant is not a "data processor". GDPR doesn't apply to what we do in our everyday private lives, only to, essentially, companies and organisations.

Don't know the answer to your specific question but last time I looked at alternative suppliers (before the fuel crisis) even the suppliers who would let you do that charged you more for your gas/electricity than if you did DD. It was a condition of all their most competitive tariffs that you paid by monthly DD.

I've seen it suggested that this a 'rogue judgement'. Apparently the law requiring bi-lingual signs and documents, the Welsh Language Act 1993, only applies to public and public-funded bodies, not private companies on private land, nor does anything in POFA require it. If that is right it will be no surprise if it is overturned on appeal. No doubt we will find out in due course.

So let us know how you get on @Rayyan111

If he has cashed in his share in his mother's house does that mean he has sold it to someone? (His mother?) If so why is his name still on the Land Registry title? I assume the conveyancing solicitor knows what they are talking about. You can check on the government SDLT calculator here--> Stamp Duty Land Tax Calculator If you enter your details and say that the purcase will result in (one of ) the owners owning two properties then SDLT of £7,110 will be payable (3%). If you do it saying it won't result in the purchasers owning two properties it shows SDLT as Nil.

Someone here may be able to help but not me I'm afraid. I have no experience or expertise in drafting Land Registry objections. Incidentally I assume in your research you have discovered that the wordings of the Standard Forms of Restriction are included in legislation? Schedule 4 of The Land Registration Rules 2003. (I am not guaranteeing that is the latest version.) The Land Registration Rules 2003 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Rules are made under the Land Registration Act 2002 (2002 c. 9) (the Act). The Act repeals the Land Registration Act 1925 (1925 c. 21). These... The expertise is in choosing the correct Form and getting it right in the specifics that you have fill in.

I'm confused. If you have a solicitor working with you already why don't you ask them? They are presumably familiar with what has happened and have read all the documents. And drafting the few sentences needed for the objection shouldn't be a large or expensive piece of work. Bread and butter stuff for them I'd have thought.

Do you have their offer to reimburse your Travelodge cost in writing? AFAIK Airbnb and similar platforms aren't regulated by anybody; it's not a government regulated business.

It sounds like there is a lot at stake here for you and your sister, whether you have retained, or can retain, your share of the house. Personally I would not rely solely on the opinions of anonymous strangers online, none of whom are qualified property lawyers with that amount at risk. Drafting any form of wording to be added to the Land Registry deeds needs professional expertise if you are to get it right. I advise you to consult a solicitor before taking any action. Who has told you that you " have to write an objection to anything else being changed on the deeds"?

Ask Travelodge for an actual invoice and receipt for payment? I would think lots of people ask Travelodge for this as many people will need it to make expenses claims. So Travelodge's systems should be able to provide it.

My suggestion is that the OP makes clear in an FoS complaint that they agreed to repay the £2,860 under duress because the insurer otherwise is proposing to seek to recover £80k of TP claim as well which (I'm guessing) OP could not afford. My view is that Markerstudy could not legally use an FOS complaint (a statutory consumer protection mechanism) to undo a contractual F&F. settlement as FOS doesn't make it's decisions like a court would solely on the terms of the contract but on wider principles of 'treating customer fairly'. Up to OP what to do next. I think we are both agreed he should pay the £2,860 to avoid the risk of being pursued for £80k+

Is there any reason why OP's father can't pay the £2,860 and complain to Ombudsman afterwards? That would be my suggestion.

It isn't acceptable client service for Markerstudy to say they don't have a copy of their own policy and can't, apparently, quote you which Condition has been breached. However, the bad news is that I've found a specimen policy form on the broker section of their website and it does require an MOT to be in force. It's General Condition 3 on page 33 here jn4427_markerstudy-private-cargmsf090519_lowres-006-100719.pdf and reads: "3.Having an MOT certificate There must be a valid Department for Transport test certificate (MOT) in force for the insured vehicle if one is needed by law. In the absence of a valid Department for Transport test certificate (MOT) all cover under sections A and B of this insurance is cancelled and of no effect" Best to assume that the actual policy issued issued to your father contains this clause. So they are putting pressure on you in their second letter to reimburse the own damage amount they paid to your father (£2,860) by 19th June or they will revert to the postion in their first letter that they are also entitled to recover from your father the third party claim that they have paid, which you speculate could be £80,000+. Because of the the clause in the policy if it were me I'd pay them back the £2,860 to avoid the risk of being found liable in court to repay £80k or more. I can see from the gov.uk |MOT site that your father's MOT expired 6 May 2022 and the accident occured 22 May, so it was only 15 days overdue. I would then consider making a complaint to the insurance ombudsman on the grounds that: (1) the expiry date of the previous MoT was only 15 days and insurers should have treated it as de minimis. (2) Insurers knew, or should have known, that the MoT had expired when they paid out the own damage claim so they waived their right to apply General Condition 3. (3) the vehicle was roadworthy and there is no suggestion that vehicle's condition contributed to the accident. (4) insurer's refused to give you a copy of the policy to allow you to check whether there was a MOT condition in it. (5) that you repaid the £2,860 under duress as they threatened to pursue you for £80,000+ if you did not. There was insufficient time to enable you to complain to the Ombudsman before their deadline. I'd be interested to see what other posters think. In the meantime research Insurance Ombudsman decisons on MOT and claims and see if any have similar circumstances to your father's. Ombudsman decisions WWW.FINANCIAL-OMBUDSMAN.ORG.UK Search our database of final decisions.

@Dm47 Don't write anything yet, wait and see what others think. I have had to remove the two letters as both showed your fathers name and registration number of his car, and claims number. And one was posted as Word document, not a pdf. Please can you re-upload with all personal information and identifying claims and reference numbers covered up. Upload as PDFs.

Good luck with that.

The reason they can put their meter in your property without paying you is that the gas and electricity companies have statutory legal powers to do so. You can't demand a fee for having it there nor refuse to let them put the meters there. (Well you can, but only if you don't want any electricity or gas in your house!). Basically the government and parliament decided long ago that is how the national elctricity and gas distribution network will operate

I am not familiar with Welsh tenancy law but the contract has clearly been issued without the end date being entered where it should have been. So I'd ask the LL to reissue with it the end date filled in. At this stage, unless you have evidence to the contrary, I would assume that it is just a drafting oversight that the LL will be happy to correct.

I can't think of any reason in law why the LL and tenant can't be related. But many reasons why your son should ensure he deals with you on a proper business-like basis as far as the tenancy is concerned. I'd advise him to leave the EA to manage the property on his behalf. I assume he will be buying the house with a buy to let mortgage. Do b-t-l lenders ask who will be living there or if they are related? I don't think so but I'm not a b-t-l landlord. Is he thinkimg of making an offer to buy it unimproved and improving it himself? If so the scale of the work would need you to move out while it took place. Have you discussed with your son where you would live while the works took place, several months at laest? And what your rent would be afterwards?

This not a common situation. You need to give us more information than this. A bullet-pointed timeline is the best place to start please. And upload the letter you have received , as single pdf, after covering up all names and other identifying information to anonymise it.

I didn't read that into Post #1 but hopefully OP will clarify. I would expect insurers to routinely check all the documentation they considered relevant, eg MOT, before paying a penny of own damage but, unless I misunderstood the OP they have paid and are now asking for reimbursement. If that is what has happened there's an interesting legal debate for lawyers on whether the insurance company is allowed to recover the their claim payment even if the policy does require an MOT to be in force considering that the insurer knew, or could reasonably be expected to have found out, the position about the MOT before paying the claim. Estoppel would be relevant here I suspect, but I'll leave that debate to the lawyers. The insurer's explanation of why they didn't check the easily available, free, public domain gov.uk MOT site before paying out would be interesting to hear! The policy wording will be the key thing for OP to review.

@Dm47 Why on earth did your mother call the insurers when they hadn't raised the issue! Unsurprisingly their call centre took advantage to try and get out of paying the claim. Who is the insurer please. I assume your father's car was roadworthy before the accident, and that there is no suggestion that the vehicle's condition contributed to the accident. In which case the only way having no MOT is relevant is if there is a specific clause in his policy that expressly states that having an up to date MOT is a condition of the policy. Some policies do say that, most I've seen don't. Have you read the policy? What does it say? You need to study the policy wording to see if MOT is mentioned before deciding what to do next. Anyone can check the MOT history of any vehicle on gov.uk [ Check the MOT history of a vehicle - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ] free of charge, so insurers could certainly have done so if they thought it was relevant. Is the position that they have paid your father's claim for the damage to his car, about £3k, and they are now asking him to repay it? Unfortunately what's been said can't be unsaid so this going to have to be dealt with. The insurer should now put that demand in writing and when they do can you post the letter here as a single pdf with all identifying information and reference numbers covered up to keep it anonymous. How to Upload Documents / Images as PDF on CAG - Guides and advice on using the forum - Consumer Action Group Let's see what they say is the reason the lack of MoT makes the claim invalid. If they don't explain ask for an explanation. It is open to your father, despite your mother's conversation, to say that having read their reasons he does not accept the claim is not covered and will not be reimbursing the claim already paid. I assume he has an MOT now?

Is your business and the other business doing similar things? When I've seen court cases about this sort of thing it often seems to hinge on whether customers might mistake the two businesses. So If, for example, both businesses were IT consultants the courts seem more likley to get involved than if, for example, you are an IT consultancy and other is a greengrocers. I don't know the law in detail though.

@FRED O DARE The first thing you should do is insist he gives you the demand to vacate the premises in writing and identifying his name and address. He could be anybody! He could be a fraudster trying to take it over himself. Or a prankster. Just because he says he's the owner doesn't mean he really is. You are in possession of the lock up and if he wants you out he has to follow proper legal process. That starts with a written demand for you to vacate the premises. Once you know who he is you can check who the registered owner is at the Land Registry and see if it is the same person. Assuming he really is the owner I would think he is entitled to ask you to leave. He would have to get a court order if you refused but I expect he would win in the end (sorry, I'm not a lawyer and don't know all the technicalities of this). Do you know what he plans to do with it? Demolition to redevelop the site? Did you ask him if he would agree to rent it to you? Or even to sell it to you? Will he object if you strip out all the improvements you have made?

@Juno50 It's what Manxman says in Post #8. You were importing goods from S Africa to resell for profit - they weren't for your personal use - so you are in business and consumer law does not protect you. It's irrelevant that you were importing as a sole trader not a Ltd company. Sole traders are trading as a business. And your business is large enough for you to have your own warehouse as you say in Post #3 "I had the insurance for transporting them to my warehouse and insurance set up on arrival in my warehouse ". Potentially any of the parties involved could have agreed to insure the stock while it was in the warehouse. You, your import agent, or the warehouse operator. Only the contracts you have with them will tell you which of them was responsible if the stock was stolen from the warehouse. In business-to-business transactions there is no presumption that the warehouse operator is always liable if stock is stolen from his warehouse. Only if the contract says he is. So there isn't any more advice we can give you until we see the contracts. You may need to get professional legal advice if the contracts are not clear. Approximately what is the value of the stolen goods?

I have a view on this but I don't know for sure (as I'm not a qualified lawyer) so in the light of that comment I won't bother to post it. That sort of demand is not a good way to get help on a free online forum run by unpaid volunteers. If you want definitive answers pay a solicitor.