Thanks both. Totally agree UB that I will be leaving this very much for the insurers to sort out between themselves frankly (in fact, I was very surprised that the loss adjuster contacted ourselves directly in such a way).

I was mainly trying to a) anticipate what liability, if any, may be and b) any issues in mitigation that we should raise with the insurance co.

Hi all,

Not sure if this is the best place but here goes.

We own an upstairs flat, and rent it out. Downstairs is also private rented.

Last week, the landlord from downstairs contacted us to inform us that there is a major mould issue in the downstairs flat, and that they believed it was due to issues with our flat roof (there is an entranceway that juts out which has a flat roof).

Now the loss adjuster from their side has called us and gone on about the disrepair of our property etc (overegged at the very least).

My questions are a couple fold

- There is still a big question to my mind over whether the damage is actually caused by the roof. However, even if it is, we have made immediate action to rectify any repair issues highlighted as soon as we were told. As such, can we be held liable for their damage? My understanding is that you had to be proven to be negligent (e.g. ignoring requests for repairs)?

- The extent of the issue has in no way occurred overnight. Surely we cannot be held liable for any damage that has occurred due to the lack of timely notification from the owners of that property? This issue (if caused by water ingress at all, and if caused by our maintenance issues) must have been ongoing for months as a minimum. In particular they are saying that the mould is a health risk and they may have to move the tenants out. However, as we were never given notification or opportunity to resolve any issue and damage prior to this extensive damage, how could we possibly be told we are liable for this?

It should be noted that due to the layout of the flats, and the specific allegation of maintenance issues, there is no way that we could have known of the issue from either outside, or from our own property.

Thanks very much in advance for any comments!

Hi all,

Strange one.

On the entry to my estate, there are signs in place advising that the roads are resident permit only on match days.

When it is NOT a match day, these signs are locked up and made invisible.

I am a resident but do not have a permit (never got round to it), and I usually park on my driveway anyways.

On the 30th I parked on the street. On the 31st, I woke up to find a PCN on my car for non display of a permit. The 31st was a match day.

My question is - when I parked the car, on the 30th, there were no signs visible pertaining to the restrictions. I do not usually know even when a match day is, and certainly didnt know it was on the 31st (its a rugby ground nearby not football, so its not the huge influx of people you see going to a football match).

Is the ticket enforceable?

Thanks in advance!

I suspect that in your contract there will be a proviso stating that you can be asked to move to another location if business needs dictate. Thats not to say you can't object with valid reasons why its not possible for you to move.

 

My suspicion is that the best course of action would be to raise a greivance through the recognised channels explaining why you feel the request is unreasonable and asking them to reconsider. Thats not necessarily going to give you the answer you require but at least your concerns have been voiced.

 

With regards to refusing to go, I suspect you could land yourself in bother if you do refuse to go. Given how most companies word their contracts, I suspect they'll have clauses that permit them to move you to a reasonable location, and lets face it 20 miles is hardly the end of the eartth.

 

With regards to costs incurred in moving to another office, I would suggest a one to one with your line manager and ask them if they are prepared to assist in your additional costs IF you agree to go. Basically "I don't really want to go, but for the good of the business I will do it, but could you cover the additional costs"

 

Its not a case of saying no and refusing, its a case of making sure that if they insist you do go, you get the best deal out of it, and the best way to get what you want is to show flexibility and willing.

 

You scratch their backs, and I am pretty sure they will scratch yours.

I agree that 20 miles isnt the ends of the earth, but due to the locations in question, it is going to add at least 2 hours onto my effective working day (i.e. traffic). Plus, I have some personal circumstances at the moment that require me to be close to home.

However, you are most probably right in what you say - I have checked my contract and there is a clause about expectation to work in other offices etc. So I suspect my hands are very much tied.

Hi all,

Quick question.

I have been told that as part of a project, in order to have greater "visibility", I am going to be relocated to another (new) office for at least 12 months.

I currently live about 3 miles away from my place of work, and the new office is 20 miles away. So apart from the obvious increase in travel costs, there is also a huge impact upon personal life.

This is not due to a change of job role, or due to any changes in the office where I currently work.

My questions are twofold:

1) Can I refuse to move?

2) Can I refuse to move, if I am told that additional travel costs will be reimbursed?

Cheers!

I wouldnt even bother dragging your heels. Just send what I've put above and be done with it.

I'll quote your own comments: "At that point i was thinking this guy is going to be trouble and the sensible thing to do would have been to slow right down and let him do his thing. But i was almost home so though sod it ill stay where i am." Nuff said. That indicates that you not only had the time to drop back and give the space, you conciously thought about it, and CONCIOUSLY decided against doing so.

I dont mean this in a derogatory fashion, but perceived as your fault - legally, IMHO, it WAS your fault. You had a responsibility to ensure you left enough space between yourself and the vehicle in front to stop without making contact, if they were to do an emergency stop. Whether he braked for a specific reason, or not, is IMHO immaterial.

Because the agent has repaid the deposit and is hence out of pocket themselves? Perhaps?

Well but on the form itself it actually says to include the v5 slip in the same envelope!

Hi all,

Just a quick one - dont need to perform any action yet, but I am curious/slightly concerned.

I recently traded cars, and sent back my tax disc to be refunded. As per the terms on the form, I enclosed the relevant section from my V5 to inform them that I had sold the car.

I have had a letter today stating that they cannot process the refund as they do not know the reason for the application (6 weeks on I should note).

I called them, and they said they had received no such notification - I obviously expressed my disbelief at this, as it was in the same bloody envelope..!

They have now opened a case...

What should I expect? My main two concerns are:

1) The car is still currently registered to myself...!

2) I have now (on paper) lost two months of tax refund due to their c**k up..!

Guys I think you are off on what appears to be a needless tangent. This is a case of a mistaken payment via bank transfer to the OP, nothing more. We can remove the tenant aspect from it in its entirety at this stage IMHO. If the OP comes back and says that the tenant has NOT yet been repaid the deposit, that may be a different matter.

Small claims court, so basically you would be responsible for court fees alone, with maybe some small arbitrary charges on top. Not legal fees. You wouldn't end upwuth a Ccj as long as the judgement is paid in full at the time. But...it's a long long way from there. If they proceed to court, come back to us. I doubt they will.

It does state (or at least heavily imply) in the original post that the money would be held by the scheme.

MPs tend to be interested in this level of disrepair from a HA/LA as well by the way...

I agree with Papasmurf. The treatment given to others is immaterial. A reasonable adjustment was given to you to allow for your condition, not to give you some kind of benefit over other candidates.

Outrageous. Easy throw away comment for me to make, but I would be shocked if that happened in my HA. I would suggest escalating this to the TSA/Housing Ombudsman: http://www.tenantservicesauthority.org/server/show/ConWebDoc.16267

:O

Have you brought the damp issues up via the formal complaints process? Could you name the HA please? (simply as I cannot advise anything that directly involves my employer). And - you are welcome.

OK. In my opinion, cleaning charges COULD be enforceable, but obviously it very much comes down to the subjective position (in other words, impossible for us to tell without having seen the property and proof of the cleaning required). The onus is on them to prove, which will be difficult. £1000 for a flat clean is an utterly outrageous figure (more or less outrageous depending upon where in the country you live I guess). You will be jointly liable as you signed a joint tenancy agreement. The guarantor agreement, without a witness, isnt worth the paper its written on and is utterly unenforceable. I would be inclined to send them a simple yet polite letter - state that you have considered they comments, but you believe that the dilapidations claimed are wholly unjustified. Further state that if they feel they have a legally enforceable claim, that they are entitled to proceed to take the matter to small claims court to be decided by a judge, but that any such claim will be fully defended. Then state that you will not enter into any further correspondance with them on the matter. I suspect you'll never hear anything again.

Thats fair enough Andrew, was merely laying it on the line what I would say (and this is far too business like for my liking, as it is unfortunate that it is as a result of someone passing away), but the fact that the new tenancy is an assured tenancy will be beneficial for you financially. You also will no longer have the concern moving forward of future succession. Best of luck.

Andy thats not entirely true - if the matter proceeds to court and the OP loses that doesnt automatically result in a CCJ that stays on your file for 6 years. That would only occur if the OP failed to settle the judgement in full within the allowed time following judgement (cannot remember for the life of me what that timescale is!). Anyone has an absolute right to defend a civil claim without the fear that a CCJ will stay on their records!

It really depends on what the deposit was for - as Ed likes to trot out regularly (but hes not wrong), a holding deposit is often a charge made for a service - i.e. to take the property off the market. Not to guarantee a tenancy. However, in this case, it would appear that the property was remarketed in any event. What was the verbal conversation you had at the time of paying the deposit? In writing would be great, but guessing that didnt happen!

And - only quick as I apparently have nothing better to do tonight

In that case, the partner has a right to succeed the tenancy if they so wish. The tenancy would become an assured tenancy, not rent act.