£10k BILL IS THIS FRAUD
Discussion
garyhun said:
turbo9111 said:
Morning,
This is the letter and contract received from the council last week excuse there spelling there not to good at it !!!,
Unless I'm due a parrot, my irony meter is in the red zone This is the letter and contract received from the council last week excuse there spelling there not to good at it !!!,
Letter looks like a scam. The whole thing smells of con.
If I was speaking to the people wanting money, I'd be asking questions about who they are, where they are etc - and then consider getting in touch with Action Fraud.
Believe me it has been confirmed it is no con it came from WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCILS PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER
i agree the whole thing stinks i,m awaiting my solicitors plan of attack and i have also had contact from someone in the legal profession interested in taking it on Thanks again will keep post updated
i agree the whole thing stinks i,m awaiting my solicitors plan of attack and i have also had contact from someone in the legal profession interested in taking it on Thanks again will keep post updated
SantaBarbara said:
turbo9111 said:
Believe me it has been confirmed it is no con it came from WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCILS PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICER
i agree the whole thing stinks i,m awaiting my solicitors plan of attack and i have also had contact from someone in the legal profession interested in taking it on Thanks again will keep post updated
In the end, if all other attempts fail, you may be able to pay ten pounds per month.i agree the whole thing stinks i,m awaiting my solicitors plan of attack and i have also had contact from someone in the legal profession interested in taking it on Thanks again will keep post updated
Poo says sensible stuff.
Just a couple of things to add, from the letter the Council posted, it appears that Turbo9111's conveyancer may have failed to search for a local land charge.
The Council are asserting that if the search had been done then the charge would have been found. From Turbo's earlier post it reads as if the conveyancer were told about this charge (all be it buried) by the vendor's solicitor.
Given those facts, if the council can't be put off, then in Turbo's shoes, I'd look at pursuing a claim against Turbo's conveyancer for negligence.
Secondly, from the wording of the Council's contract, it looks to me as if the Council have the option of pursuing the original owner for the debt.
IANAL.
Edit to correct grammar & spelling.
Just a couple of things to add, from the letter the Council posted, it appears that Turbo9111's conveyancer may have failed to search for a local land charge.
The Council are asserting that if the search had been done then the charge would have been found. From Turbo's earlier post it reads as if the conveyancer were told about this charge (all be it buried) by the vendor's solicitor.
Given those facts, if the council can't be put off, then in Turbo's shoes, I'd look at pursuing a claim against Turbo's conveyancer for negligence.
Secondly, from the wording of the Council's contract, it looks to me as if the Council have the option of pursuing the original owner for the debt.
IANAL.
Edit to correct grammar & spelling.
Edited by mikeveal on Tuesday 7th November 11:59
Questions to ask your solicitor:-
1. Why do they do Personal Locals, and not get official ones?
2. What was the Seller's reply to enquiries 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 8.1 (especially) 8.5 and 10.1 of Form TA6. All of these, and specifically 8.5 would have given scope to mention the grant and some also the fact that the bund had to be built in the first place.
1. Why do they do Personal Locals, and not get official ones?
2. What was the Seller's reply to enquiries 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 8.1 (especially) 8.5 and 10.1 of Form TA6. All of these, and specifically 8.5 would have given scope to mention the grant and some also the fact that the bund had to be built in the first place.
SantaBarbara said:
Turbo, Was the letter correctly addressed to you or to the previous residents?
yes addressed to us but the original agreement addressed to the selling vendors, also we have a copy of the LAW SOCIETY PROPERTY INFORMATION FORM which the seller completed and signed,Iitem 2.2 is the seller aware of anything which might lead to a dispute about the property nearby if yes give details she chose no as a answer, Item 3.1 Have any notices or correspondence been received or sent (e.g. from a neighbour, council or government department ), or any negotiations or discussions taken place, which affect the property or a property nearby?,if yes ,please give details she again chose no as a answer !!!!!!!SantaBarbara said:
The previous owner ha to pay. It was a charge on them, not the property
SantaBarbara said:
The letter should be ignored.
SantaBarbara said:
Wait until the invoice arrives.
SantaBarbara said:
In the end, if all other attempts fail, you may be able to pay ten pounds per month.
Your posts are unhelpful, you rarely give the impression of paying the slightest attention to the rest of a thread's content - or being able to understand it if you did - and overall, you are just an annoyance wherever you spring up across the forum.OP: I might have missed it, but have you contacted the supposed source of the letter to confirm they sent it?
Rude-boy said:
Questions to ask your solicitor:-
1. Why do they do Personal Locals, and not get official ones?
2. What was the Seller's reply to enquiries 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 8.1 (especially) 8.5 and 10.1 of Form TA6. All of these, and specifically 8.5 would have given scope to mention the grant and some also the fact that the bund had to be built in the first place.
Thanks for this she basically answered no to all apart from 4.1she answered yes and made a small note (stream and pool moved away from house and a bund put in place to protect from flooding) 7.1 she answered yes again with comment work carried out to prevent flooding again,8.5 yes again comment rents the field to farmer for cows, its all looking like she has committed fraud ???1. Why do they do Personal Locals, and not get official ones?
2. What was the Seller's reply to enquiries 3.1, 4.1, 7.1, 8.1 (especially) 8.5 and 10.1 of Form TA6. All of these, and specifically 8.5 would have given scope to mention the grant and some also the fact that the bund had to be built in the first place.
InitialDave said:
Your posts are unhelpful, you rarely give the impression of paying the slightest attention to the rest of a thread's content - or being able to understand it if you did - and overall, you are just an annoyance wherever you spring up across the forum.
OP: I might have missed it, but have you contacted the supposed source of the letter to confirm they sent it?
Hi No but i had a friendly local councillor look into it and confirm OP: I might have missed it, but have you contacted the supposed source of the letter to confirm they sent it?
Looks to me as though she specifically didn't mention it. £10k liabilities for works that will stop a distressing flood to your house happening again are not the sort of thing that you tend to forget in a hurry, especially when filling out forms about the sale of your house that ask questions designed to tease out such gems.
The issue is proving it, and for that i will hand you over to the litigators.
The issue is proving it, and for that i will hand you over to the litigators.
turbo9111 said:
I know where they now live and I'm so so tempted to go round and ask them to pay it or i have no choice but to go legal and also report them to the police as i believe they have committed fraud which i think is a criminal offence
The police will tell you to go away and going direct in the case will not help. You need to find out who should have let you know this amount was outstanding. That could be the seller, her solicitor, the council or even your own solicitor. When you know this you can then go after them. As this is part of a legal process you need to keep it that way. Last, ether you or your solicitor should contact the council, to say liability for the bill is being questioned and so more time will be needed.
nikaiyo2 said:
The TR1 or 2 asks if the seller is transferring full title or limited title, surely if the property has charges held over it then full transfer is not possible?
I agree towards the bottom of first page of the paperwork (was going to call it a contract) it states THE COST OF WORKS IS SET AS A LOCAL LAND CHARGE UPON THE PROPERTY my financial adviser is saying as we have a mortgage on this property there is no way the BS would have given us a mortgage if anyone had a charge on the property, so its getting more complicated.... Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff