Cheers, i've calculated their specified interest in the leasehold, and they've way over calculated. It's a total of £79 for all 3 payments for the duration of each individual outstanding one (i.e. 1 for 793 days, one for 427 days, 1 for 62).
Checking the leasehold (its about a billion pages long!) for any mention of transfer fees, can't see anything so far. Checking leasehold, only says "reasonable costs" and since they've not had to enter property or anything else (and legally they can't as original isn't approaching point where court could rescind leasehold), the amounts are excessive. Their costs are sending a few letters by the looks of it.
The lawyers as far as I can make it, have sent 1 letter with a few photocopies of documents attached for their £480.
There's a form to contest and state what you think you should pay. I'm going to phone offering the full ground rent, the correct interest, and outline my points about the rest. I'm more than happy to go to tribunal to judge whether their costs are "reasonable".
Ranty McRant Thread 2
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
Also (forgot to add earlier) try to make sure they've not passed anything to any credit reference agencies - and if they have, demand that they get it removed. That could be the worst thing of all in the long run.
Rapier - The Orifice of all Knowledge
Godwin's Law is not one of the Forum Rules.
Search just the forum with Google
Godwin's Law is not one of the Forum Rules.
Search just the forum with Google
According to the leasehold agreement, any proceedings around late payment/outstanding payments - then I pay for their legal bills.
Literally - if I fight anything, even if I am right and win about unfair costs being tacked on to otherwise legitimate bill, I have to pay for their legal representation.
Searched and found people being taken to court to pay for legal cost bill up to £14,000 in similar circumstances. I've given up, I will pay, the risk is greater than any possible reward.
They could literally make things up knowing that if I won I would still be financially worse off than just paying. It is not worth the potential pitfall. I will be paying claiming I do not agree to the debt though, just incase retrospectively I find out I wasn't liable in the first place (i.e. they had correct address (home) to send it to, instead of apartment, and therefore they served the notices wrong from the start).
Literally - if I fight anything, even if I am right and win about unfair costs being tacked on to otherwise legitimate bill, I have to pay for their legal representation.
Searched and found people being taken to court to pay for legal cost bill up to £14,000 in similar circumstances. I've given up, I will pay, the risk is greater than any possible reward.
They could literally make things up knowing that if I won I would still be financially worse off than just paying. It is not worth the potential pitfall. I will be paying claiming I do not agree to the debt though, just incase retrospectively I find out I wasn't liable in the first place (i.e. they had correct address (home) to send it to, instead of apartment, and therefore they served the notices wrong from the start).
I presume that they have to justify those "legal expenses" and that those expenses have to be "fair and reasonable."
In the US, one can't claim their legal expenses in such a situation are extravagantly high. It's about what is standard for the sort of work required, not "how much were they charged by counsel."
Also, while you may be "at fault", it sounds as if they're running pretty close to "usury" when it comes down to these fines and fees. I don't know the law in the UK, but if what they are asking in their contract is illegal, as in illegally exorbitant fees, then the whole contract becomes a bit suspect.
It could be that they wouldn't want to go to court because a judge would look at them and say "Shame on you" after reading how high those fines and fees are and slap them with a criminal charge.
Up to you, though. It's your neck and you're the only one in charge of whether or not you should risk it. As always - Seeking the advice of legal counsel would probably be a good idea. If you can afford the fines you've listed, I would assume you could afford a one-time consulting fee for a half-an-hour consult with a qualified attorney that specializes in these matters.
In the US, one can't claim their legal expenses in such a situation are extravagantly high. It's about what is standard for the sort of work required, not "how much were they charged by counsel."
Also, while you may be "at fault", it sounds as if they're running pretty close to "usury" when it comes down to these fines and fees. I don't know the law in the UK, but if what they are asking in their contract is illegal, as in illegally exorbitant fees, then the whole contract becomes a bit suspect.
It could be that they wouldn't want to go to court because a judge would look at them and say "Shame on you" after reading how high those fines and fees are and slap them with a criminal charge.
Up to you, though. It's your neck and you're the only one in charge of whether or not you should risk it. As always - Seeking the advice of legal counsel would probably be a good idea. If you can afford the fines you've listed, I would assume you could afford a one-time consulting fee for a half-an-hour consult with a qualified attorney that specializes in these matters.
Yep, their charges all have to be "reasonable". However, asking for a breakdown = paying about £50 for that. If I contest it, it's a day in court charge of their lawyer... which at £480 for whatever work they've done already will pail into insignificance with actual court or tribunal appearance fees.Morkonan wrote:I presume that they have to justify those "legal expenses" and that those expenses have to be "fair and reasonable."
They don't throw away the supposed costs if "unreasonable", they'd just moderate it to something acceptable. So it'd never vanish, it just may reduce (in a tribunal).
Fighting to be proven right / correct can, and will, cost more than I'm already charged - because it won't remove all charges, just reduce perhaps the arrears fee and possibly the transfer charge fee because they're legally entitled to charge those reasonable fees. So unreasonable -> reasonable is still a fee. It may, for example, reduce the arrears by 2/3, it may reduce transfer fee. But it may add a lawyers court/tribunal appearance fee.
So I'll still pay some charges. Only if they'd made a fundamental mistake would i not be liable for the charges. However, I would still liable to pay for the lawyers fee (and the ground rent, no matter what, that + interest is owed).
It's a wonderful system :/ I've combed through several sections of relevant laws and contact several agencies about it. I have the original conveyancing solicitor who is digging out what they did to ensure this is all legit to start...
Pay some qualified property/lease attorney 200 for an hour or so to sit down with you and go over your contract. Ask them about the fines and if they're reasonable or what your recourse is. Ask them about the basis of this particular contract law so you'll have a good handle on it for the future. Fit in whatever other questions you've got, too.
Then... charge your friends for relaying this information when they find themselves in a similar fix. Just to recoup your costs, though, but without giving any specific advice or offering "legal counsel." Surely you've got four friends who are going to screw up their own lease issues over the next few years that you can charge 25 to help them go over their lease contract before you refer them to the attorney that helped you. (Maybe you'd get a referral fee, too?
)
Then... charge your friends for relaying this information when they find themselves in a similar fix. Just to recoup your costs, though, but without giving any specific advice or offering "legal counsel." Surely you've got four friends who are going to screw up their own lease issues over the next few years that you can charge 25 to help them go over their lease contract before you refer them to the attorney that helped you. (Maybe you'd get a referral fee, too?
)
I'd agree that close communication is usually a key point in mitigating fines. But, it may not always help when it gets to the point where an attorney is involved. The original creditor is more likely to reduce fines and fees in an effort to resolve the situation amicably. Attorney's are generally adversarial and may have a vested interest in collecting the most money for their client.Santi wrote:Another option is to call them, and tell them you willingness to pay your debt, but your inability to pay all the "extra" charges, and try and find an agreement.
But, if there isn't a true attorney yet involved, there's still a decent chance some fees may be waived. Maybe?
In any event, paying the principle and coming to an agreement on fines and fees to be paid off over time might be possible if the creditor won't wave them.
One thing I really dislike about situations like this is that some creditors/contract holders actually look at fines and additional fees as part of their normal means of generating "income." Whenever that's the case, it's almost impossible to deal with these sorts of people, even when one shouldn't be liable for such charges.
Well, I paid up and now my Solicitor is admitting an error and reimbursing me the fines/charges added on - then they'll contact the company and see if they can't argue to recover some of that.
I wish them luck, but I doubt they'll have any. It's a good result for me, but it's still a nasty result overall - those charges are ridiculous. £30 to send a letter indeed.
I wish them luck, but I doubt they'll have any. It's a good result for me, but it's still a nasty result overall - those charges are ridiculous. £30 to send a letter indeed.
Why do people keep calling my days when I'm working from home 'my days off'?
Those days always, and I do mean always, start at 8 in the morning, and I sometimes have trouble finishing by six at night.
Sometimes I resent having to go into the university for just meetings, because it loses me so much time I could get things done in.
Where possible, for good students who I know it suits, I'll do skype meetings, but only where it suits them.
It doen't often, so that means I have to fit them in around teaching. Which means days I go in are packed with teaching and meetings, no coursework development occurs.
So having those days when I can finally pile into updating my coursework and seeing whether my stuff is matching what industry is doing 'a day off' rather irritates me. It is so far from easy it ain't funny.
My son did it last week, and I snapped at him somewhat....
Those days always, and I do mean always, start at 8 in the morning, and I sometimes have trouble finishing by six at night.
Sometimes I resent having to go into the university for just meetings, because it loses me so much time I could get things done in.
Where possible, for good students who I know it suits, I'll do skype meetings, but only where it suits them.
It doen't often, so that means I have to fit them in around teaching. Which means days I go in are packed with teaching and meetings, no coursework development occurs.
So having those days when I can finally pile into updating my coursework and seeing whether my stuff is matching what industry is doing 'a day off' rather irritates me. It is so far from easy it ain't funny.
My son did it last week, and I snapped at him somewhat....
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. ... Niccolò Machiavelli
So, Firefox's "Pocket" automagical article suggesterizer suggesterized an article for me, today.
It's the most terribly written mess I've ever read from a respectable, supposedly, source:
New York Magazine - Thirteen Reasons to Believe
It's about UFOs, aliens, pop-culture belief systems, etc... But, I have no issue with the subject matter, it's the writing - It's atrocious!
Imagine me, drunk, if I drank, and deciding that I had something to post on the forums. So, I go to my clone machine and clone-up a bunch of drunk copies of myself. We all sit around a table and each type out a sentence. Then, one of us, drawn by lot (The one who hasn't yet passed out), copies and pastes all the sentences together, at random, and then runs a macro that inserts random "kitschy" words into every darn sentence and then posts it for your reading pleasure.
That's this darn article. It's... horrible. It's an eyesore. Sure, it's got seven darn co-authors, but some editor passed on this and allowed it to get a page!
SOMEONE GOT PAID TO WRITE THIS!
Never underestimate how bad an article written by committee can read.
They... got paid to write this pile of crap. Again - I don't care about the subject matter. All I care about is how it's written and this is @$%$ writing.
It's the most terribly written mess I've ever read from a respectable, supposedly, source:
New York Magazine - Thirteen Reasons to Believe
It's about UFOs, aliens, pop-culture belief systems, etc... But, I have no issue with the subject matter, it's the writing - It's atrocious!
Imagine me, drunk, if I drank, and deciding that I had something to post on the forums. So, I go to my clone machine and clone-up a bunch of drunk copies of myself. We all sit around a table and each type out a sentence. Then, one of us, drawn by lot (The one who hasn't yet passed out), copies and pastes all the sentences together, at random, and then runs a macro that inserts random "kitschy" words into every darn sentence and then posts it for your reading pleasure.
That's this darn article. It's... horrible. It's an eyesore. Sure, it's got seven darn co-authors, but some editor passed on this and allowed it to get a page!
SOMEONE GOT PAID TO WRITE THIS!
Never underestimate how bad an article written by committee can read.
They... got paid to write this pile of crap. Again - I don't care about the subject matter. All I care about is how it's written and this is @$%$ writing.
-
Alan Phipps
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 30433
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
I think it was a "We need content" article that they were assigned, or decided to put together, and then someone sat on their hands until the day before the deadline before actually writing it.Alan Phipps wrote:@ Mork: Perhaps they mistakenly ran it 10 days early and this was really meant for 1st April?
It's fookin' crappy. I don't care about what it's saying, only how it's saying it. It's like a group of drunk hipsters recorded their ramblings in a hookah-bar and just decided to push the "transcribe" button. I really do hope that no professional editor or copy-editor signed off on it. It's.... terribad. It makes my eyes hurt and is an affront to my delicate sensibilities...
A separate rant, but one I wanted to introduce as a sort of illustration for some unfamiliar with US healthcare and it's "costs."
So, I had a CT Scan not long ago.
I went to the hospital, where it was to be administered and where my doctor had his offices, and where he had prescribed me to go, and sat in front of the counter, going through all the "registration" crap.
"I see you are "self-pay," she said. For reasons I wasn't using insurance that won't go into, I replied "Yes."
So, she starts with her spiel...
"Well, the cost is going to be $12,500 for the scan."
And, before I could declare her insane and call the cops, because she was obviously a hazard to others, and herself, considering how many times she was about to be punched in the face...
"But, since you're self-pay, you get a big discount of around 85%! If you are paying today, you'll get an additional discount of %20. That brings the final cost to around $1,300 and some change..."
...
With all those "discounts" the price is still about three times more than I paid when I had an emergency CT Scan done in the hospital's own CT Scan room, presumably directly by the hospital servicing the E.R. But, this wasn't the "Hospital." It was a physician's group that just happened to be IN the hospital...
I suppose their CT Scanner is "more betterer" than the other CT Scanner, justifying the increase in costs.
And, I ended up not having a "contrast" done, which is a second sort of CT Scan done at the same time, using a different tracer, that is used for.. "contrasting" the two scans.
But, did I get any money back for them not having to go through that second stage, which was decided during the scan, itself, and only after I had paid.
@$$@^ no I didn't.
Get fifty-bajillion stupid "discounts" before I pay, because, of course, nobody has ever paid "list" price for any medical service in existence in the US, yet I can't get refunded for services I paid for, but didn't receive, because those monies really matter, since they're already in their pocket.
I could have gotten the scan done with an outside agency for a few hundred bucks. Would the doctor have approved me doing that instead of in the facility he directed me towards? Probably not.
The whole darn health system is going to friggin' implode one day soon. I'll be there, handing out free marshmallows to roast over that fire.
So, I had a CT Scan not long ago.
I went to the hospital, where it was to be administered and where my doctor had his offices, and where he had prescribed me to go, and sat in front of the counter, going through all the "registration" crap.
"I see you are "self-pay," she said. For reasons I wasn't using insurance that won't go into, I replied "Yes."
So, she starts with her spiel...
"Well, the cost is going to be $12,500 for the scan."
And, before I could declare her insane and call the cops, because she was obviously a hazard to others, and herself, considering how many times she was about to be punched in the face...
"But, since you're self-pay, you get a big discount of around 85%! If you are paying today, you'll get an additional discount of %20. That brings the final cost to around $1,300 and some change..."
...
With all those "discounts" the price is still about three times more than I paid when I had an emergency CT Scan done in the hospital's own CT Scan room, presumably directly by the hospital servicing the E.R. But, this wasn't the "Hospital." It was a physician's group that just happened to be IN the hospital...
I suppose their CT Scanner is "more betterer" than the other CT Scanner, justifying the increase in costs.
And, I ended up not having a "contrast" done, which is a second sort of CT Scan done at the same time, using a different tracer, that is used for.. "contrasting" the two scans.
But, did I get any money back for them not having to go through that second stage, which was decided during the scan, itself, and only after I had paid.
@$$@^ no I didn't.
Get fifty-bajillion stupid "discounts" before I pay, because, of course, nobody has ever paid "list" price for any medical service in existence in the US, yet I can't get refunded for services I paid for, but didn't receive, because those monies really matter, since they're already in their pocket.
I could have gotten the scan done with an outside agency for a few hundred bucks. Would the doctor have approved me doing that instead of in the facility he directed me towards? Probably not.
The whole darn health system is going to friggin' implode one day soon. I'll be there, handing out free marshmallows to roast over that fire.
So a couple days ago, my boss told me to update our Vcenter infrastructure with a new dedicated server and removing two old servers.
Taking advantage of the parcial shutdown for the change of servers, decided to upgrade the VCenter to the latest release, A.K.A 6.5
And, for goods shake, what in the name of hell is vmware thinking to develop the release to work embedded on a internet browser WITH FLASH.
Really, it's 2018, FLASH IS DEAD, why they keep developing such things?
Taking advantage of the parcial shutdown for the change of servers, decided to upgrade the VCenter to the latest release, A.K.A 6.5
And, for goods shake, what in the name of hell is vmware thinking to develop the release to work embedded on a internet browser WITH FLASH.
Really, it's 2018, FLASH IS DEAD, why they keep developing such things?
Hi folks
Litter....everywhere I go in my area I see piles of litter everywhere. It's starting to get on my nerves.
While on a walk I decided to count the amount of litter...there was various bits of litter about every ten yards in some places!
Going down to Cambridge on the A14 I noticed that there was various types of litter by the side of the road from old lorry tires to polythene/plastic bottles tin cans and just about every type of junk you could imagine.
Years ago our local shopkeepers used to sweep/clear up litter from outside their shops. They don't seem do that anymore, In the river and on the river bank in my immediate area there are plastic bottles/litter strewn about, washed down by floods I presume from the local supermarkets/shopping areas. I even saw an old mattress (bed) floating by one day. Near to the Tesco's supermarket (the river flows through the shopping area which has other big stores/eating places and cinema etc) I counted eleven shopping trolleys dumped in the river. There's also regular fly tipping in some of the entrances/gates to local farmland.
It's just so sad and infuriating to me, as I remember in these places there were once lovely fields and countryside that had virtually no litter at all.
It's as if people don't seem to bother anymore about their environment. Some do, but they usually say there's nothing they can do so why worry about it.
Oldman
Litter....everywhere I go in my area I see piles of litter everywhere. It's starting to get on my nerves.
While on a walk I decided to count the amount of litter...there was various bits of litter about every ten yards in some places!
Going down to Cambridge on the A14 I noticed that there was various types of litter by the side of the road from old lorry tires to polythene/plastic bottles tin cans and just about every type of junk you could imagine.
Years ago our local shopkeepers used to sweep/clear up litter from outside their shops. They don't seem do that anymore, In the river and on the river bank in my immediate area there are plastic bottles/litter strewn about, washed down by floods I presume from the local supermarkets/shopping areas. I even saw an old mattress (bed) floating by one day. Near to the Tesco's supermarket (the river flows through the shopping area which has other big stores/eating places and cinema etc) I counted eleven shopping trolleys dumped in the river. There's also regular fly tipping in some of the entrances/gates to local farmland.
It's just so sad and infuriating to me, as I remember in these places there were once lovely fields and countryside that had virtually no litter at all.
It's as if people don't seem to bother anymore about their environment. Some do, but they usually say there's nothing they can do so why worry about it.
Oldman
The why worry about it thing is just another way of saying I don't want to be the person who fixes this.
Litter is bigger problem in some parts of my town than others, but the ares where its more of a problem seem to take the attitude that someone else should be fixing it.
Around our area we, and our neighbors will go out and clean up mess in the street, because it only gets worse if you don't.
If you keep a base level of tidyness you also seem to have a reduced problem of littering. That's how it appears. Most of our problems come from bins blowing over. There's also no graffiti. That used to be endemic across most of our town. Now it mostly aflicts the area's that are happy to let their streets stay messy.
Not entirely, but mostly. It's helped that the council have legitimised the practice and sponsored the better taggers to produce works.
Litter is bigger problem in some parts of my town than others, but the ares where its more of a problem seem to take the attitude that someone else should be fixing it.
Around our area we, and our neighbors will go out and clean up mess in the street, because it only gets worse if you don't.
If you keep a base level of tidyness you also seem to have a reduced problem of littering. That's how it appears. Most of our problems come from bins blowing over. There's also no graffiti. That used to be endemic across most of our town. Now it mostly aflicts the area's that are happy to let their streets stay messy.
Not entirely, but mostly. It's helped that the council have legitimised the practice and sponsored the better taggers to produce works.
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. ... Niccolò Machiavelli
-
Alan Phipps
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 30433
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
There's an elderly couple that occasionally walk our local area using pickers and a black bag to pick up minor litter on the grassed verges and pavements. I had considered that they probably acted as a bit of a role-model or even a source of shame to some of the largely teenage group of locals that have tended to drop the litter.
Talking to the couple recently, they told me that the other day a group of youngsters on bikes deliberately chucked fresh rubbish onto an area that the couple had just cleared and one of the youngsters gave the old couple the finger too.
I don't think the littering part is the actual root of the problem, but more that some people like to show off and 'act big' in front of their mates. This usually appears to involve behaving in some form of antisocial manner.
Now don't get me started on dog poo! Especially the dog walkers who feel forced by witnesses to pick up and then throw it, bag and all, into a garden or hedge at the first unobserved opportunity.
Talking to the couple recently, they told me that the other day a group of youngsters on bikes deliberately chucked fresh rubbish onto an area that the couple had just cleared and one of the youngsters gave the old couple the finger too.
I don't think the littering part is the actual root of the problem, but more that some people like to show off and 'act big' in front of their mates. This usually appears to involve behaving in some form of antisocial manner.
Now don't get me started on dog poo! Especially the dog walkers who feel forced by witnesses to pick up and then throw it, bag and all, into a garden or hedge at the first unobserved opportunity.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.