Waste Dumped in Communal Bin Store - Tenant Denying Was Him
Discussion
kev1974 said:
It looks like they keep a lot of days or weeks worth of data on the fob usage (possible angle of GDPR there!) so I would ask the tenant to make a number of entries to the fob controlled doors and bin store over a few days using both fobs that he has, and get him to record very precisely the times and which fob he used at which door on each occasion. Then tell the management that you want to audit that his accesses are indeed his fobs and ask the management company for the logs again for those few days, and compare again, just to be sure that his fob use matches what they say (don't provide them the times, let them provide the full log again). If anything doesn't match then ask them to provide the CCTV for the mismatches. Bear in mind that we're in British Summer Time now which may throw the timestamps in the logs off by an hour depending how they have it set up.
There is a risk that since timestamps have been mentioned already, the management company will have corrected any discrepancies. Could backfire.
Thanks for all your replies so far. Speaking to a family member this morning the following has been suggested to avoid interest.
Paying the invoice, but re-invoicing them for unfair charges, for the same amount. This way I've made payment and they cannot charge interest, but they then owe me money.
Is there a way this would work? I'm very very reluctant to have to pay interest unfairly on what is already an extortionate charge.
Paying the invoice, but re-invoicing them for unfair charges, for the same amount. This way I've made payment and they cannot charge interest, but they then owe me money.
Is there a way this would work? I'm very very reluctant to have to pay interest unfairly on what is already an extortionate charge.
Interesting thread.
Firstly, the correspondence back from the MC posted a few pages back was shocking and made my blood boil just reading it as an outsider! Not only was it riddled with spelling and grammar errors but the tone was disgusting and would certainly be frowned upon should the case go to court given the perfectly reasonable questions put to them by the OP.
In my opinion :
You need to look at this from both sides. The argument put forward that it isn't your tenant would not hold up in court because there's every possibility he could have lent the fob to friends or - more likely - a neighbour (given the CCTV footage of the washer emerging from inside the building). From the MCs perspective they have logs that your tenant's fob was used to access the bin store and they have CCTV proof of a washer being dumped there. They don't care about the semantics and - quite rightly - are not going to get embroiled in an argument over who the people were in the footage.
Likewise, the argument that it wasn't your washer because it's a different colour and "here's a photo of it still in the flat" would also not stand up in court for much the same reason. How do the MC know that the washer in the flat is the same one that's been there since the start of the tenancy? Anything could have happened in that period and you've no way of proving any of it. Again from the MCs perspective, a washer was dumped in the bin store and it was your tenant's fob that opened the access to it. They don't care about the colour or any random washer photo that you send them.
It's worth noting that the argument about the car park access reader actually works against you. The tenant does not have fob access to that area so the CCTV proof of the fob not working on the reader is - as far as the MC are concerned - further evidence that it was your tenant's fob, however I would expect to see an entry on the log showing that the fob was scanned but access was denied.
Your proof is the 14 second time difference between the bin store access and the main building access. Both individuals are right there on CCTV about to walk into the bin store with the washer at the time the main entrance access was triggered, so it's impossible that it was the same fob as the guy had it in his pocket at the time. The only question mark here is what does the log show for the actual fob IDs for those two time stamps? You have blacked them out on your photo. You have said that the tenant has 2 fobs but how is the MC indexing them on the log? Is 23* ID in the end column a reference number for the tenant or flat number, or is it the specific fob serial number? If it's the latter and the numbers are the same then tell them no payment will be forthcoming until they can provide you with an explanation and you shall be considering the matter closed.
If the log IDs are not the fob serial numbers or, they are but the 2 access logs have different IDs then you have a problem on your hands as you have to consider that your tenant is being somewhat economical with the truth or outright lying knowing that he'll have to stump up £264 if the truth comes out.
Unrelated observation from the log record : your tenant didn't take any rubbish out to the bins in 14+ days?
Firstly, the correspondence back from the MC posted a few pages back was shocking and made my blood boil just reading it as an outsider! Not only was it riddled with spelling and grammar errors but the tone was disgusting and would certainly be frowned upon should the case go to court given the perfectly reasonable questions put to them by the OP.
In my opinion :
You need to look at this from both sides. The argument put forward that it isn't your tenant would not hold up in court because there's every possibility he could have lent the fob to friends or - more likely - a neighbour (given the CCTV footage of the washer emerging from inside the building). From the MCs perspective they have logs that your tenant's fob was used to access the bin store and they have CCTV proof of a washer being dumped there. They don't care about the semantics and - quite rightly - are not going to get embroiled in an argument over who the people were in the footage.
Likewise, the argument that it wasn't your washer because it's a different colour and "here's a photo of it still in the flat" would also not stand up in court for much the same reason. How do the MC know that the washer in the flat is the same one that's been there since the start of the tenancy? Anything could have happened in that period and you've no way of proving any of it. Again from the MCs perspective, a washer was dumped in the bin store and it was your tenant's fob that opened the access to it. They don't care about the colour or any random washer photo that you send them.
It's worth noting that the argument about the car park access reader actually works against you. The tenant does not have fob access to that area so the CCTV proof of the fob not working on the reader is - as far as the MC are concerned - further evidence that it was your tenant's fob, however I would expect to see an entry on the log showing that the fob was scanned but access was denied.
Your proof is the 14 second time difference between the bin store access and the main building access. Both individuals are right there on CCTV about to walk into the bin store with the washer at the time the main entrance access was triggered, so it's impossible that it was the same fob as the guy had it in his pocket at the time. The only question mark here is what does the log show for the actual fob IDs for those two time stamps? You have blacked them out on your photo. You have said that the tenant has 2 fobs but how is the MC indexing them on the log? Is 23* ID in the end column a reference number for the tenant or flat number, or is it the specific fob serial number? If it's the latter and the numbers are the same then tell them no payment will be forthcoming until they can provide you with an explanation and you shall be considering the matter closed.
If the log IDs are not the fob serial numbers or, they are but the 2 access logs have different IDs then you have a problem on your hands as you have to consider that your tenant is being somewhat economical with the truth or outright lying knowing that he'll have to stump up £264 if the truth comes out.
Unrelated observation from the log record : your tenant didn't take any rubbish out to the bins in 14+ days?
Edited by Lemming Train on Thursday 25th April 08:56
Genuine chortle at that!I'm assuming you've showed the CCTV footage to your tenant?
Given that out of him, you and the Management company, he's presumably the only one who is actually in the flats on a daily basis, surely there's a much greater chance of him recognising the people in the footage than you or the MC. If he says "Oh, that's the bloke from number 23", you're a lot further down the line to finding out what's going on.
Given that out of him, you and the Management company, he's presumably the only one who is actually in the flats on a daily basis, surely there's a much greater chance of him recognising the people in the footage than you or the MC. If he says "Oh, that's the bloke from number 23", you're a lot further down the line to finding out what's going on.
A fine of any description can not be applied without full evidence . Is this not the case ?
Just tell them to stop messing around . They either come up with full legal proof to show who they are and who they where acting for etc . And until such time you are not interested
Or to go away and stop been “wide boys”
Just tell them to stop messing around . They either come up with full legal proof to show who they are and who they where acting for etc . And until such time you are not interested
Or to go away and stop been “wide boys”
Lemming Train said:
Interesting thread.
Firstly, the correspondence back from the MC posted a few pages back was shocking and made my blood boil just reading it as an outsider! Not only was it riddled with spelling and grammar errors but the tone was disgusting and would certainly be frowned upon should the case go to court given the perfectly reasonable questions put to them by the OP.
In my opinion :
You need to look at this from both sides. The argument put forward that it isn't your tenant would not hold up in court because there's every possibility he could have lent the fob to friends or - more likely - a neighbour (given the CCTV footage of the washer emerging from inside the building). From the MCs perspective they have logs that your tenant's fob was used to access the bin store and they have CCTV proof of a washer being dumped there. They don't care about the semantics and - quite rightly - are not going to get embroiled in an argument over who the people were in the footage.
Likewise, the argument that it wasn't your washer because it's a different colour and "here's a photo of it still in the flat" would also not stand up in court for much the same reason. How do the MC know that the washer in the flat is the same one that's been there since the start of the tenancy? Anything could have happened in that period and you've no way of proving any of it. Again from the MCs perspective, a washer was dumped in the bin store and it was your tenant's fob that opened the access to it. They don't care about the colour or any random washer photo that you send them.
It's worth noting that the argument about the car park access reader actually works against you. The tenant does not have fob access to that area so the CCTV proof of the fob not working on the reader is - as far as the MC are concerned - further evidence that it was your tenant's fob, however I would expect to see an entry on the log showing that the fob was scanned but access was denied.
Your proof is the 14 second time difference between the bin store access and the main building access. Both individuals are right there on CCTV about to walk into the bin store with the washer at the time the main entrance access was triggered, so it's impossible that it was the same fob as the guy had it in his pocket at the time. The only question mark here is what does the log show for the actual fob IDs for those two time stamps? You have blacked them out on your photo. You have said that the tenant has 2 fobs but how is the MC indexing them on the log? Is 23* ID in the end column a reference number for the tenant or flat number, or is it the specific fob serial number? If it's the latter and the numbers are the same then tell them no payment will be forthcoming until they can provide you with an explanation and you shall be considering the matter closed.
If the log IDs are not the fob serial numbers or, they are but the 2 access logs have different IDs then you have a problem on your hands as you have to consider that your tenant is being somewhat economical with the truth or outright lying knowing that he'll have to stump up £264 if the truth comes out.
Unrelated observation from the log record : your tenant didn't take any rubbish out to the bins in 14+ days?
The fob number blacked out matches that on one of the fobs the tenant holds and is the same throughout the log sent by the MC. It's the specific fob serial number. That's the question I've asked the MC and which they have avoided.Firstly, the correspondence back from the MC posted a few pages back was shocking and made my blood boil just reading it as an outsider! Not only was it riddled with spelling and grammar errors but the tone was disgusting and would certainly be frowned upon should the case go to court given the perfectly reasonable questions put to them by the OP.
In my opinion :
You need to look at this from both sides. The argument put forward that it isn't your tenant would not hold up in court because there's every possibility he could have lent the fob to friends or - more likely - a neighbour (given the CCTV footage of the washer emerging from inside the building). From the MCs perspective they have logs that your tenant's fob was used to access the bin store and they have CCTV proof of a washer being dumped there. They don't care about the semantics and - quite rightly - are not going to get embroiled in an argument over who the people were in the footage.
Likewise, the argument that it wasn't your washer because it's a different colour and "here's a photo of it still in the flat" would also not stand up in court for much the same reason. How do the MC know that the washer in the flat is the same one that's been there since the start of the tenancy? Anything could have happened in that period and you've no way of proving any of it. Again from the MCs perspective, a washer was dumped in the bin store and it was your tenant's fob that opened the access to it. They don't care about the colour or any random washer photo that you send them.
It's worth noting that the argument about the car park access reader actually works against you. The tenant does not have fob access to that area so the CCTV proof of the fob not working on the reader is - as far as the MC are concerned - further evidence that it was your tenant's fob, however I would expect to see an entry on the log showing that the fob was scanned but access was denied.
Your proof is the 14 second time difference between the bin store access and the main building access. Both individuals are right there on CCTV about to walk into the bin store with the washer at the time the main entrance access was triggered, so it's impossible that it was the same fob as the guy had it in his pocket at the time. The only question mark here is what does the log show for the actual fob IDs for those two time stamps? You have blacked them out on your photo. You have said that the tenant has 2 fobs but how is the MC indexing them on the log? Is 23* ID in the end column a reference number for the tenant or flat number, or is it the specific fob serial number? If it's the latter and the numbers are the same then tell them no payment will be forthcoming until they can provide you with an explanation and you shall be considering the matter closed.
If the log IDs are not the fob serial numbers or, they are but the 2 access logs have different IDs then you have a problem on your hands as you have to consider that your tenant is being somewhat economical with the truth or outright lying knowing that he'll have to stump up £264 if the truth comes out.
Unrelated observation from the log record : your tenant didn't take any rubbish out to the bins in 14+ days?
Edited by Lemming Train on Thursday 25th April 08:56
romeogolf said:
Thanks for all your replies so far. Speaking to a family member this morning the following has been suggested to avoid interest.
Paying the invoice, but re-invoicing them for unfair charges, for the same amount. This way I've made payment and they cannot charge interest, but they then owe me money.
Is there a way this would work? I'm very very reluctant to have to pay interest unfairly on what is already an extortionate charge.
You're at the point where you need to book a session with a solicitor. They can tell you what you lease allows the MC to charge you & if appropriate send a stiffly worded letter to them (maybe they're now harrassing you like debt collectors after the wrong address scenario - your solicitor will know if it's a possible option). They'll pay more attention to that than an email from you.Paying the invoice, but re-invoicing them for unfair charges, for the same amount. This way I've made payment and they cannot charge interest, but they then owe me money.
Is there a way this would work? I'm very very reluctant to have to pay interest unfairly on what is already an extortionate charge.
Don't piss about thinking you'll get anywhere re-invoicing them.
I think if I were in your position I would get a written statement from my tenant saying that their fobs have never been out of their possession.
Send this, along with your statement that the CCTV images are not of your tenant, nor your washing machine and that you will not be making any payment.
Send this, along with your statement that the CCTV images are not of your tenant, nor your washing machine and that you will not be making any payment.
I love that the management company are threatening further admin charges if the invoice is not paid within 48 hours. How do they think they're going to enforce that? I invoice my clients for the services I provide them (which I can really cause them trouble if I were to start withholding said services so the ball is in my court) on 30 day terms, but some of them have decided they pay on 60 day basis, it's just the way it is, its fairly routine. When most of the business world in practice works to 30 or stretches things to 60 day payment before getting antsy how amateur are they to think they can start applying random fees after 48 hours? If it did go to court that sort of nonsense would just help show them to be fools.
Some irony that the whole thing has only come about because the two Washing Machine Bandits dumped the thing in the access controlled bin store where they probably thought was the right place for it. Had they just dumped it outside or left it in the lift lobby like proper carefree shysters then the access control "evidence" that they're basing the case on would not have existed. Is the bin store equipped with proper signage that makes it clear that it's only for bagged rubbish etc and not for dumping appliances and telling tenants to book appliance collections with the council (or pay Currys their £20 to take the old one away when they deliver the new one). After all the managing agent said that this sort of dumping has happened before so have they taken steps with signage to make it clear it's not allowed.
has the place got a residents' facebook or whatsapp group (a lot of developments like this do). If so could ask on there who the woman might be to see if she can shed any more light. Although I would hold off from sharing the CCTV or screenshots from it, could be a GDPR issue there.
Some irony that the whole thing has only come about because the two Washing Machine Bandits dumped the thing in the access controlled bin store where they probably thought was the right place for it. Had they just dumped it outside or left it in the lift lobby like proper carefree shysters then the access control "evidence" that they're basing the case on would not have existed. Is the bin store equipped with proper signage that makes it clear that it's only for bagged rubbish etc and not for dumping appliances and telling tenants to book appliance collections with the council (or pay Currys their £20 to take the old one away when they deliver the new one). After all the managing agent said that this sort of dumping has happened before so have they taken steps with signage to make it clear it's not allowed.
has the place got a residents' facebook or whatsapp group (a lot of developments like this do). If so could ask on there who the woman might be to see if she can shed any more light. Although I would hold off from sharing the CCTV or screenshots from it, could be a GDPR issue there.
So, the tenant has been "helpful" and sent me a selfie to prove it's not him in the CCTV. He's wearing glasses, which he didn't when I met him and wasn't in his passport when I checked it... and now I have my doubts as to whether it's him in the second clip in the car park.
It pisses me off that I'll never get this money off him (and for the sake of a happy tenant for another 9 months, a 1-off £260 isn't huge) but I think I'll have to swallow my pride on this, pay the management company, and move on.
I'm considering writing to them to say that the payment has been made on the basis that they have been unable to provide me with suitable information to verify the identity of the individual or the accuracy of the fob access records, but that I do not wish to incur further interest/admin charges while the issue is discussed. Therefore, the payment is made with no admission of wrongdoing, but I would like them to provide me with two additional access fobs at their cost, and for the previous ones to be blocked on their system as I have concerns over block security.
Thoughts?
It pisses me off that I'll never get this money off him (and for the sake of a happy tenant for another 9 months, a 1-off £260 isn't huge) but I think I'll have to swallow my pride on this, pay the management company, and move on.
I'm considering writing to them to say that the payment has been made on the basis that they have been unable to provide me with suitable information to verify the identity of the individual or the accuracy of the fob access records, but that I do not wish to incur further interest/admin charges while the issue is discussed. Therefore, the payment is made with no admission of wrongdoing, but I would like them to provide me with two additional access fobs at their cost, and for the previous ones to be blocked on their system as I have concerns over block security.
Thoughts?
romeogolf said:
The fob number blacked out matches that on one of the fobs the tenant holds and is the same throughout the log sent by the MC. It's the specific fob serial number. That's the question I've asked the MC and which they have avoided.
In that case call their bluff. Armed with this knowledge you should absolutely NOT be paying their invoice and you would be a complete fool to do so. It's up to them to explain how the same fob could be used 14 seconds later on a different access point when the CCTV shows it to be in that guy's pocket. Don't let them threaten and bully you.However this doesn't explain how a fob with the same serial has been used on a different access point unless it's been cloned. But is it even possible to clone one and give it the same serial number? If so then you cannot rule out the possibility that the tenant is spinning you a yarn and is involved in it. Have you presented the CCTV footage to him for his comments? Does he recognise the people? Personally I don't see why he would need to clone his own fob as that doesn't make any sense to me when he has a spare unused one already. Cloning his own and then giving it to a neighbour to use to access the bins makes no sense either as they would have their own fob already. Cloning his own and giving it to a white goods delivery crew to access the bins also makes no sense when it's not his washer. What would potentially make sense is that a neighbour had a washer to get rid of but couldn't be arsed taking it to the tip so decided to recode their fob with the next serial number up/down from their own so that it doesn't link back to them and then used that to access the bins to dump the washer. But again, that still doesn't explain how the same fob serial was triggered on another door 14 seconds later unless the tenant happened to be coming back home from somewhere at that exact moment, which I'm sure you'll agree seems way too coincidental.
Seeing as the MC hold CCTV footage of all the access points to the building then it should be a trivial matter for them to review the 'tape' for the access door where the fob was used 14 seconds later to solve this conundrum. Their apparent unwillingness to do so and avoidance of answering perfectly reasonable questions would make me extremely suspicious.
romeogolf said:
So, the tenant has been "helpful" and sent me a selfie to prove it's not him in the CCTV. He's wearing glasses, which he didn't when I met him and wasn't in his passport when I checked it... and now I have my doubts as to whether it's him in the second clip in the car park.
It pisses me off that I'll never get this money off him (and for the sake of a happy tenant for another 9 months, a 1-off £260 isn't huge) but I think I'll have to swallow my pride on this, pay the management company, and move on.
I'm considering writing to them to say that the payment has been made on the basis that they have been unable to provide me with suitable information to verify the identity of the individual or the accuracy of the fob access records, but that I do not wish to incur further interest/admin charges while the issue is discussed. Therefore, the payment is made with no admission of wrongdoing, but I would like them to provide me with two additional access fobs at their cost, and for the previous ones to be blocked on their system as I have concerns over block security.
Thoughts?
Why the juddering fIt pisses me off that I'll never get this money off him (and for the sake of a happy tenant for another 9 months, a 1-off £260 isn't huge) but I think I'll have to swallow my pride on this, pay the management company, and move on.
I'm considering writing to them to say that the payment has been made on the basis that they have been unable to provide me with suitable information to verify the identity of the individual or the accuracy of the fob access records, but that I do not wish to incur further interest/admin charges while the issue is discussed. Therefore, the payment is made with no admission of wrongdoing, but I would like them to provide me with two additional access fobs at their cost, and for the previous ones to be blocked on their system as I have concerns over block security.
Thoughts?
k would you do that? Are you completely off your trolley? Give your head a shake man. 
Lemming Train said:
Why the juddering fk would you do that? Are you completely off your trolley? Give your head a shake man.
Because the time it's taking me to work this out and stress about it is worth less than £260. If we assume my hourly rate is £20 it's only 13 hours of my time before it's costing me more than I'll save (and let's face it, if this goes legal it's gonna be a lot more than 13 hours and a lot more than £260!)k would you do that? Are you completely off your trolley? Give your head a shake man. romeogolf said:
Lemming Train said:
Why the juddering fk would you do that? Are you completely off your trolley? Give your head a shake man.
Because the time it's taking me to work this out and stress about it is worth less than £260. If we assume my hourly rate is £20 it's only 13 hours of my time before it's costing me more than I'll save (and let's face it, if this goes legal it's gonna be a lot more than 13 hours and a lot more than £260!)k would you do that? Are you completely off your trolley? Give your head a shake man. Just pay it then and close this dumb thread. Your loss.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff