Waste Dumped in Communal Bin Store - Tenant Denying Was Him
Discussion
Richie C said:
They look to be wearing the same colour shirt, and you can clearly see one is wearing an ID tag, possible that they may be delivery guys?
Was about to post the same thing as this, they look like delivery guys to me, try to find the company and contact them about it for the number they delivered to?thebraketester said:
OP... go and read Mangos thread regarding the 144quid plumbers bill.... Ask her if she wished she had just paid it (even thought I am sure she will win)
Not worth the sleepless nights and stress IMO. The hours you have pissed about already and the hours of stress and paperwork that are ahead of you if you want to take them to court is simply not worth it if you value your time.
No, they’d have to take the op to Court. They would need to provide evidence to prove their case.Not worth the sleepless nights and stress IMO. The hours you have pissed about already and the hours of stress and paperwork that are ahead of you if you want to take them to court is simply not worth it if you value your time.
silentbrown said:
bad company said:
Invite them to sue you if they think otherwise.
They won't sue, they'll just do this.nyt said:
I would have happily gone to court but it never got that far because they disabled my tenant's keyfob, denying him access to various areas of the building. This effectively forced me to capitulate because it wasn't worth losing a tenant.
They just rely on people folding and paying. Sadly it looks like the op will do just that, I wouldn’t.
bad company said:
thebraketester said:
OP... go and read Mangos thread regarding the 144quid plumbers bill.... Ask her if she wished she had just paid it (even thought I am sure she will win)
Not worth the sleepless nights and stress IMO. The hours you have pissed about already and the hours of stress and paperwork that are ahead of you if you want to take them to court is simply not worth it if you value your time.
No, they’d have to take the op to Court. They would need to provide evidence to prove their case.Not worth the sleepless nights and stress IMO. The hours you have pissed about already and the hours of stress and paperwork that are ahead of you if you want to take them to court is simply not worth it if you value your time.
Okay, plan...
Send email 1 and make payment.
Send email 1 and make payment.
email 1 said:
G,
Following our recent correspondence regarding the attached invoice, I have today made the payment of £260 without prejudice and in order only to avoid any interest on the sum while it is in dispute.
I intend to lodge a formal complaint with (PMC) in line with your published complaints procedure under which I will request the evidence you have neglected to provide to me in previous correspondence along with a full refund of this sum.
I also request that you assign two new access fobs to the property at your cost and leave them in the post box to the flat at your earliest convenience, blocking the use of the existing two.
Kind regards,
R
Followed by a complaint.Following our recent correspondence regarding the attached invoice, I have today made the payment of £260 without prejudice and in order only to avoid any interest on the sum while it is in dispute.
I intend to lodge a formal complaint with (PMC) in line with your published complaints procedure under which I will request the evidence you have neglected to provide to me in previous correspondence along with a full refund of this sum.
I also request that you assign two new access fobs to the property at your cost and leave them in the post box to the flat at your earliest convenience, blocking the use of the existing two.
Kind regards,
R
complaint said:
G,
In line with your complaints procedure I outline the below sequence of events which fall far short of the service you should provide to all clients.
On 14th April a washing machine was deposited in the bin store at (building), which you advise me was left by my tenant based on your fob usage records. I have outlined that the individuals captured in the images are not my tenant and the machine is not the one from my property which remains in place.
The first aspect of my complaint relates to the withholding of evidential information regarding the usage of the assigned fob. I requested further evidence from you that the machine was left by my tenants and you provided the below usage log for the period 3rd to 15th April to support the CCTV images provided.
(log as in the post on page 1 with the extra entry boxed in red)
On this log I have highlighted an entry which occurred during the time that the individuals on CCTV were still in the bin store. This entry, showing fob use at an entry point off-camera, when the supposed fob holder was clearly still in shot requires an explanation if you are to consider your records an accurate representation of my tenant’s actions. I requested an explanation of this from you in writing on 17th April, and twice on 18th April. I also requested this by telephone on 24th April. This explanation was not forthcoming on any of these occasions. The best I received was an email on 17th April which simply provided a revised list with this item removed.
On 18th April you requested that I ask my tenants how they or their visitors gained access to the underground car park. Quite the reverse, if you claim them to be my tenants or their visitors, the onus is on you to prove they gained entry and would again highlight the lack of security and accuracy of the fob system.
On 18th April I requested original copies of the CCTV footage to better identify the individuals captured and a description of the machine removed. One of them appears to wear a jacket with a company logo and lanyard which could help both of us with identifying them, but again this request was ignored, and to date I have only received mobile phone footage of the CCTV monitor.
The second aspect of my complaint is the extortionate value of the removal charge in addition to the lack of notice that the item is to be removed. A reasonable request would be for the evidence of the issue to be provided and a short time frame allowed for me to organise the removal of the item myself with the notice that failure to do so would incur a charge of no more than £100. Instead, only an inflated charge was presented for immediate payment with no opportunity for dispute. This was then added to with the threat of further administration charges and interest if full payment was not received within 10 days of the initial invoice. Invoices, by law, are payable within 30 days unless another date is agreed. No date was agreed in this instance as I had no warning of the charge being levied until it had already been issued.
Thirdly, the attitude with which I was spoken to by J was nothing short of disgraceful. I called to discuss these issues in detail and request the information you had neglected to provide but was told that “all the evidence has been given” and that it was “clearly” my tenant. Both statements are demonstrably false based on the above-noted items. The tone of the call escalated quickly when J insisted on speaking over me and refusing to listen before culminating in the comment that I should “call back when I’ve calmed down” before she terminated the call. It goes without saying that this is not the professional standard of service any leaseholder should expect from a management company.
To close this complaint, I expect of (PMC) either of the following:
1) A full refund of the £264 charge and an apology for the distress and time-consuming nature of this complaint along with confirmation that it has been closed.
or
2)
a. An explanation of the fob entry showing access at a secondary door while the fob holder was in-shot on CCTV
b. A full and unadulterated download of the fob records for both fobs associated with my property for the 14th April, and also for the week of 4th to 10th February including all access points used even where entry was denied and contact details for the source of this data so I can verify it independently if necessary.
c. Original copies of the CCTV, especially that within the basement car park where the face of one individual is most visible
d. CCTV footage of any other usage of the fobs associated with my property on the 14th April
e. Your explanation for how my tenants would have gained access to the basement car park and from where the washing machine was removed, as it was not from my property.
f. The clauses of my lease which permit you to charge this cost directly to me, the associated administration charges, plus any interest.
I understand from your complaints procedure that a written acknowledgement of this complaint will be provided within 3 working days and a full summary of the findings within 15 working days.
I look forward to hearing from you.
I plan to send these before the close of business tomorrow along with the noted payment. Thoughts welcomed as always, but please keep in mind that I do not want to incur further excessive fees and charges, definitely don't want my tenant locked out the property, and ultimately will need to deal with this company until (and when!) I sell the property. In line with your complaints procedure I outline the below sequence of events which fall far short of the service you should provide to all clients.
On 14th April a washing machine was deposited in the bin store at (building), which you advise me was left by my tenant based on your fob usage records. I have outlined that the individuals captured in the images are not my tenant and the machine is not the one from my property which remains in place.
The first aspect of my complaint relates to the withholding of evidential information regarding the usage of the assigned fob. I requested further evidence from you that the machine was left by my tenants and you provided the below usage log for the period 3rd to 15th April to support the CCTV images provided.
(log as in the post on page 1 with the extra entry boxed in red)
On this log I have highlighted an entry which occurred during the time that the individuals on CCTV were still in the bin store. This entry, showing fob use at an entry point off-camera, when the supposed fob holder was clearly still in shot requires an explanation if you are to consider your records an accurate representation of my tenant’s actions. I requested an explanation of this from you in writing on 17th April, and twice on 18th April. I also requested this by telephone on 24th April. This explanation was not forthcoming on any of these occasions. The best I received was an email on 17th April which simply provided a revised list with this item removed.
On 18th April you requested that I ask my tenants how they or their visitors gained access to the underground car park. Quite the reverse, if you claim them to be my tenants or their visitors, the onus is on you to prove they gained entry and would again highlight the lack of security and accuracy of the fob system.
On 18th April I requested original copies of the CCTV footage to better identify the individuals captured and a description of the machine removed. One of them appears to wear a jacket with a company logo and lanyard which could help both of us with identifying them, but again this request was ignored, and to date I have only received mobile phone footage of the CCTV monitor.
The second aspect of my complaint is the extortionate value of the removal charge in addition to the lack of notice that the item is to be removed. A reasonable request would be for the evidence of the issue to be provided and a short time frame allowed for me to organise the removal of the item myself with the notice that failure to do so would incur a charge of no more than £100. Instead, only an inflated charge was presented for immediate payment with no opportunity for dispute. This was then added to with the threat of further administration charges and interest if full payment was not received within 10 days of the initial invoice. Invoices, by law, are payable within 30 days unless another date is agreed. No date was agreed in this instance as I had no warning of the charge being levied until it had already been issued.
Thirdly, the attitude with which I was spoken to by J was nothing short of disgraceful. I called to discuss these issues in detail and request the information you had neglected to provide but was told that “all the evidence has been given” and that it was “clearly” my tenant. Both statements are demonstrably false based on the above-noted items. The tone of the call escalated quickly when J insisted on speaking over me and refusing to listen before culminating in the comment that I should “call back when I’ve calmed down” before she terminated the call. It goes without saying that this is not the professional standard of service any leaseholder should expect from a management company.
To close this complaint, I expect of (PMC) either of the following:
1) A full refund of the £264 charge and an apology for the distress and time-consuming nature of this complaint along with confirmation that it has been closed.
or
2)
a. An explanation of the fob entry showing access at a secondary door while the fob holder was in-shot on CCTV
b. A full and unadulterated download of the fob records for both fobs associated with my property for the 14th April, and also for the week of 4th to 10th February including all access points used even where entry was denied and contact details for the source of this data so I can verify it independently if necessary.
c. Original copies of the CCTV, especially that within the basement car park where the face of one individual is most visible
d. CCTV footage of any other usage of the fobs associated with my property on the 14th April
e. Your explanation for how my tenants would have gained access to the basement car park and from where the washing machine was removed, as it was not from my property.
f. The clauses of my lease which permit you to charge this cost directly to me, the associated administration charges, plus any interest.
I understand from your complaints procedure that a written acknowledgement of this complaint will be provided within 3 working days and a full summary of the findings within 15 working days.
I look forward to hearing from you.
i'm no expert OP,
But if you pay the 'invoice', you will never see that money again.
You have two choices,
1) Pay and move on with your life
2) Don't pay and fight it. No guarantee's but I suspect if you stand your ground and keep pointing them back to the points raised in your complaint email, I suspect they will back down. Just like it would cost you time and money (potentially) to fight your cause, so will it them too.
But if you pay the 'invoice', you will never see that money again.
You have two choices,
1) Pay and move on with your life
2) Don't pay and fight it. No guarantee's but I suspect if you stand your ground and keep pointing them back to the points raised in your complaint email, I suspect they will back down. Just like it would cost you time and money (potentially) to fight your cause, so will it them too.
snake_oil said:
Can't believe you're rolling over!
You are not liable for any of their spurious 'admin charges'.
Very easy to say that when the charges aren't being levied on you, believe me. I've always been a 'stand your ground' kinda person, but this is actually quite stressful - Not least because I'm relying on third parties for evidence rather than my own knowledge/memory.You are not liable for any of their spurious 'admin charges'.
just to add - I/ my firm used to act as managing agents for a number of blocks of flats in the past. We were good at what we did and fair I like to think but there are some firms that are notorious in the Freehold management business/managing agents that are not.
Yes it was always a constant of white appliances being dumped in bin stores. The cost was just added to the communal charges - easier for all as you can imagine. fair for all? probably not - but there was little really way for us to investigate/prove in court if challenged. no key fobs you see then.
What you may find is that charges can added to your account for "breeches" of your leasehold and the management co solicitors costs in remedying/writing about the breeches. If you don't pay then they may not take you to court - they are likely to just add it to your account. When you come to sell or transfer or extend which you will one day they will block it due to outstanding fees owing.
So for small charges we didn't take anyone to court - not worth the hassle to us but solicitors letters were sent etc. but they did pay the costs in the end be it 1 year or 10 years later.
So you have the other side of the coin - the MC have on the face of it some good indication it was the fob holders of your flat. thus you are liable. They wont waste much time over it - not worth it, wont be worth investigating much further either - they are not the police. They really are not interested. They may not take you to court either. It will just sit on your account for later and block you in a sale/extension etc until it is paid. that's the line of least resistance and hassle for them.
They wont cover the cost of re-issuing new fobs either - as again from their pov - you are still at fault. You may get the cost negotiated down a bit as that fee is likely to include some of their admin fees. be interesting to know how much they did pay for the removal.
Another poster said about credit notes etc. We would never do that all fees we charged were genuine costs plus admin fees. The OP man co I would be very surprised if there was any credit notes etc as that would be fraud and they wont be stupid enough to do that when they can "legitimately " charge the same cost which includes fees as there is no risk to them as its not illegal.
So yes I think you are stuck - pay it and then go via the complaints procedure but wouldn't hold out much hope on that either.
Sorry not to be a bag of joy on this.
Yes it was always a constant of white appliances being dumped in bin stores. The cost was just added to the communal charges - easier for all as you can imagine. fair for all? probably not - but there was little really way for us to investigate/prove in court if challenged. no key fobs you see then.
What you may find is that charges can added to your account for "breeches" of your leasehold and the management co solicitors costs in remedying/writing about the breeches. If you don't pay then they may not take you to court - they are likely to just add it to your account. When you come to sell or transfer or extend which you will one day they will block it due to outstanding fees owing.
So for small charges we didn't take anyone to court - not worth the hassle to us but solicitors letters were sent etc. but they did pay the costs in the end be it 1 year or 10 years later.
So you have the other side of the coin - the MC have on the face of it some good indication it was the fob holders of your flat. thus you are liable. They wont waste much time over it - not worth it, wont be worth investigating much further either - they are not the police. They really are not interested. They may not take you to court either. It will just sit on your account for later and block you in a sale/extension etc until it is paid. that's the line of least resistance and hassle for them.
They wont cover the cost of re-issuing new fobs either - as again from their pov - you are still at fault. You may get the cost negotiated down a bit as that fee is likely to include some of their admin fees. be interesting to know how much they did pay for the removal.
Another poster said about credit notes etc. We would never do that all fees we charged were genuine costs plus admin fees. The OP man co I would be very surprised if there was any credit notes etc as that would be fraud and they wont be stupid enough to do that when they can "legitimately " charge the same cost which includes fees as there is no risk to them as its not illegal.
So yes I think you are stuck - pay it and then go via the complaints procedure but wouldn't hold out much hope on that either.
Sorry not to be a bag of joy on this.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 25th April 16:23
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 25th April 16:24
superlightr said:
just to add - I/ my firm used to act as managing agents for a number of blocks of flats in the past. We were good at what we did and fair I like to think but there are some firms that are notorious in the Freehold management business/managing agents that are not.
Yes it was always a constant of white appliances being dumped in bin stores. The cost was just added to the communal charges - easier for all as you can imagine. fair for all? probably not - but there was little really way for us to investigate/prove in court if challenged. no key fobs you see then.
What you may find is that charges can added to your account for "breeches" of your leasehold and the management co solicitors costs in remedying/writing about the breeches. If you don't pay then they may not take you to court - they are likely to just add it to your account. When you come to sell or transfer or extend which you will one day they will block it due to outstanding fees owing.
So for small charges we didn't take anyone to court - not worth the hassle to us but solicitors letters were sent etc. but they did pay the costs in the end be it 1 year or 10 years later.
So you have the other side of the coin - the MC have on the face of it some good indication it was the fob holders of your flat. thus you are liable. They wont waste much time over it - not worth it, wont be worth investigating much further either - they are not the police. They really are not interested. They may not take you to court either. It will just sit on your account for later and block you in a sale/extension etc until it is paid. that's the line of least resistance and hassle for them.
They wont cover the cost of re-issuing new fobs either - as again from their pov - you are still at fault. You may get the cost negotiated down a bit as that fee is likely to include some of their admin fees. be interesting to know how much they did pay for the removal.
Another poster said about credit notes etc. We would never do that all fees we charged were genuine costs plus admin fees. The OP man co I would be very surprised if there was any credit notes etc as that would be fraud and they wont be stupid enough to do that when they can "legitimately " charge the same cost which includes fees as there is no risk to them as its not illegal.
So yes I think you are stuck - pay it and then go via the complaints procedure but wouldn't hold out much hope on that either.
Sorry not to be a bag of joy on this.
The bit in bold is my number 1 concern to be honest! And you might not be a bag of joy, but you're a voice of reality.Yes it was always a constant of white appliances being dumped in bin stores. The cost was just added to the communal charges - easier for all as you can imagine. fair for all? probably not - but there was little really way for us to investigate/prove in court if challenged. no key fobs you see then.
What you may find is that charges can added to your account for "breeches" of your leasehold and the management co solicitors costs in remedying/writing about the breeches. If you don't pay then they may not take you to court - they are likely to just add it to your account. When you come to sell or transfer or extend which you will one day they will block it due to outstanding fees owing.
So for small charges we didn't take anyone to court - not worth the hassle to us but solicitors letters were sent etc. but they did pay the costs in the end be it 1 year or 10 years later.
So you have the other side of the coin - the MC have on the face of it some good indication it was the fob holders of your flat. thus you are liable. They wont waste much time over it - not worth it, wont be worth investigating much further either - they are not the police. They really are not interested. They may not take you to court either. It will just sit on your account for later and block you in a sale/extension etc until it is paid. that's the line of least resistance and hassle for them.
They wont cover the cost of re-issuing new fobs either - as again from their pov - you are still at fault. You may get the cost negotiated down a bit as that fee is likely to include some of their admin fees. be interesting to know how much they did pay for the removal.
Another poster said about credit notes etc. We would never do that all fees we charged were genuine costs plus admin fees. The OP man co I would be very surprised if there was any credit notes etc as that would be fraud and they wont be stupid enough to do that when they can "legitimately " charge the same cost which includes fees as there is no risk to them as its not illegal.
So yes I think you are stuck - pay it and then go via the complaints procedure but wouldn't hold out much hope on that either.
Sorry not to be a bag of joy on this.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 25th April 16:23
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 25th April 16:24
romeogolf said:
snake_oil said:
Can't believe you're rolling over!
You are not liable for any of their spurious 'admin charges'.
Very easy to say that when the charges aren't being levied on you, believe me. I've always been a 'stand your ground' kinda person, but this is actually quite stressful - Not least because I'm relying on third parties for evidence rather than my own knowledge/memory.You are not liable for any of their spurious 'admin charges'.
thebraketester said:
Maybe all the people who are saying "take it all the way" etc could sign an agreement to help you pay for the costs should it all go tits up!!
What costs would that be? The op can defend any case himself and the managing agents will not be able to claim any costs for a small claim.thebraketester said:
Maybe all the people who are saying "take it all the way" etc could sign an agreement to help you pay for the costs should it all go tits up!!
...and all the people saying 'pay up and move on' will do likewise?Joking aside, I know where you're coming from and this is the problem with the Internet - it is hard to separate advice that might be borne out of wanting to goad a fight, being over-principled, not appreciating the difference between theory and practice, not taking into account the poster's stress, having personal experience, offering genuine reasoned suggestions etc etc.
All that said, personally I'd not pay as I sincerely doubt it'd go anywhere (and if it did I am similarly convinced that the OP would win).
MJNewton said:
All that said, personally I'd not pay as I sincerely doubt it'd go anywhere (and if it did I am similarly convinced that the OP would win).
it wont be about winning or presenting a cunning argument it wont go directly to a court
the OP wont see a Judge Rinder or Judy
The line of least resistance and most likely success for the Man Co is that a charge will be added to the OP account by the man co with some solicitors fees added for flavour and at some time in the future when the OP needs the Man Co to do something for him -they wont until the outstanding charge is paid.
That's what we would do when I ran management co's.
OP - If I were in your shoes I would offer to pay half or just over and highlight again its not your tenants as per the photo id they have provided to you perhaps scan a copy over to them. That's likely to cover the actual cost of the removal and some of their admin fees so they are getting something they may take that to close it all but be prepared to pay the full amount as the hassle from this will drag on and solicitor fees will substantially increase the sum added to your account very quickly (not saying its fair mind)
The worry still is over cloned fobs - which may still be "your" issue as its not the man co issues from their pov. Your fobs have been cloned somehow thus you/you tenants have allowed that to happen.
In reality the fobs may have been cloned they may not have been and it was your tenants or someone they gave the fob to or opened a door to. That's more tricky to pin down and unlikely you ever will.
Good luck with it.
Edited by superlightr on Friday 26th April 15:45
superlightr said:
it wont be about winning or presenting a cunning argument
it wont go directly to a court
the OP wont see a Judge Rinder or Judy
The line of least resistance and most likely success for the Man Co is that a charge will be added to the OP account by the man co with some solicitors fees added for flavour and at some time in the future when the OP needs the Man Co to do something for him -they wont until the outstanding charge is paid.
That's what we would do when I ran management co's.
OP - I would offer to pay half or just over and highlight again its not your tenants as per the photo id they have provided to you perhaps scan a copy over to them. That's likely to cover the actual cost of the removal and some of their admin fees so they are getting something they may take that to close it all.
The worry still is over cloned fobs - which may still be "your" issue as its not the man co issues from their pov. Your fobs have been cloned somehow thus you/you tenants have allowed that to happen.
In reality the fobs may have been cloned they may not have been and it was your tenants or someone they gave the fob to or opened a door to. That's more tricky to pin down and unlikely you ever will.
Thanks. I've made full payment to avoid any fees etc adding up, but wrote that it is without prejudice and that I still dispute the charges. The management co have said that it's "not possible" to clone fobs - 100% false - And if I want to pursue it then it needs to be a case of requesting who had the fob prior to me, and how do the management co know that this person didn't duplicate it.it wont go directly to a court
the OP wont see a Judge Rinder or Judy
The line of least resistance and most likely success for the Man Co is that a charge will be added to the OP account by the man co with some solicitors fees added for flavour and at some time in the future when the OP needs the Man Co to do something for him -they wont until the outstanding charge is paid.
That's what we would do when I ran management co's.
OP - I would offer to pay half or just over and highlight again its not your tenants as per the photo id they have provided to you perhaps scan a copy over to them. That's likely to cover the actual cost of the removal and some of their admin fees so they are getting something they may take that to close it all.
The worry still is over cloned fobs - which may still be "your" issue as its not the man co issues from their pov. Your fobs have been cloned somehow thus you/you tenants have allowed that to happen.
In reality the fobs may have been cloned they may not have been and it was your tenants or someone they gave the fob to or opened a door to. That's more tricky to pin down and unlikely you ever will.
Edited by superlightr on Friday 26th April 15:39
Edited by superlightr on Friday 26th April 15:41
romeogolf said:
Thanks. I've made full payment to avoid any fees etc adding up, but wrote that it is without prejudice and that I still dispute the charges. The management co have said that it's "not possible" to clone fobs - 100% false - And if I want to pursue it then it needs to be a case of requesting who had the fob prior to me, and how do the management co know that this person didn't duplicate it.
It might not be possible to clone the fobs but there could be bugs in the logging software. I've worked on a similar door systems and had a bunch of angry trainee midwifes turn up at the office. Was gutted I was out at the time!Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff