Waste Dumped in Communal Bin Store - Tenant Denying Was Him

[DonkeyApple]

romeogolf said:

I'll see how much better the footage is when they send it and then reply. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that, as I keep saying, those people in the footage are not my tenants - And that their fob record seems to make no sense. I want them to respond to each of the points I raised in the original complaint.

Yup. This is the first ‘pas on’. They will keep passing on to other people inside the company who will all start from scratch in order to get you to give up. All you have to do is start again with each on. Just send each new individual the same correspondence and keep giving them 48 hours to respond etc

Just simply keep stating that the evidence that they have supplied does not show your tenant. The logs they have supplied do not support their claim. Your tenant refutes the allegation by them that he has been fly tipping. And that you are due a credit to your account for the amount they have erroneously charged with threats.

It will all be very boring but you just have to keep persisting and without losing your cool. They will be waiting for you to send that offensive email which they will use to attack you.

[romeogolf]

Draft response back to PMC. Not sure if my tone is a little too snarky so will mull this over for a bit before sending.

Draft Response said:

T,

Thank you for your response. I would be grateful if you could send the footage discussed.

I would also appreciate a response to all other points raised in my initial email which you have not addressed here. While you may be satisfied with the footage and time logs, as the one to whom the charge was presented it is my satisfaction which is of importance and which is currently in short supply.

Kind regards,
R

[AbzGuyGTI]

Also surly they onus is on them to prove it is 100% your tenant not for you to just accept their claim that it might be...

I would be going back to them saying, I understand and see where your coming from but until you can 100% state that is my tenant, due to 1) the dodgy Fob readings & 2) neither of the people in the video is my tenant then I expect a full refund within 7 working days or will take you to small claims court.

Agree with others you lost a leg to stand on the moment you paid them and they will happily pass you around the works for months on end until you actually issue a small claims against them.

[craigjm]

They don’t say they are going to send you better footage. They say they will send you a link to “the footage” so you will probably get the same film.

You don’t really have a leg to stand on now because you paid up even though the people in the film are not your tenant, the time stamps don’t add up etc etc.

[FunkyNige]

I don't think being that snarky is going to help your cause now or in the future.
Perhaps talk about wanting to have to matters resolved to alleviate your tenants' security concerns (key fob being used in 2 locations at more or less the same time) and to stop something similar happening in the future (unknown people dumping rubbish, failed fob presses not being recorded).
Then copy and paste your questions in so they don't have to trawl back through several emails to see what you asked.
I'm no expert, that's just my initial musings!

[Mr Pointy]

romeogolf said:

Draft response back to PMC. Not sure if my tone is a little too snarky so will mull this over for a bit before sending.

Draft Response said:

T,

Thank you for your response. I would be grateful if you could send the footage discussed.

I would also appreciate a response to all other points raised in my initial email which you have not addressed here. While you may be satisfied with the footage and time logs, as the one to whom the charge was presented it is my satisfaction which is of importance and which is currently in short supply.

Kind regards,
R

Be precise, don't just refer to the points in previous emails, list them. Keep listing them every time they aren't answered so they are clear what responses you want.

[bad company]

Mr Pointy said:

Be precise, don't just refer to the points in previous emails, list them. Keep listing them every time they aren't answered so they are clear what responses you want.

I was about to post just that. Keep going until they answer your questions to your satisfaction.

[Lazermilk]

I agree with the others that paying up loses some leverage, I would have been checking if they can legitimately enforce interest and other spurious charges to a disputed invoice first off, like someone mentioned above parking fines don't do it this way although I don't know the legal standings for this case.

They are basically saying you are guilty until you prove you are innocent which isn't the way things usually work... Their own 'evidence' seems to support that you aren't the guilty ones too.

[romeogolf]

Thanks all. Have replied as below;

Email to PMC said:

T,

Thank you for your response. Could you please provide the information requested in my original email as below;

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 appreciate that the third of these you will be sending me shortly and which I look forward to receiving with your other responses.

Kind regards,
R

[DonkeyApple]

Don’t forget to reiterate in each correspondence that you paid because of their threats and unreasonable time frames and that you have in no means accepted responsibility or settled etc.

[romeogolf]

DonkeyApple said:

Don’t forget to reiterate in each correspondence that you paid because of their threats and unreasonable time frames and that you have in no means accepted responsibility or settled etc.

Thanks Donkey, will do going forward.

[romeogolf]

So the person who has picked up on this case has just called me and we spent 20 minutes discussing this by phone.

A few pertinent points;

• He wasn't aware of the second fob usage 14 seconds later and needs to "review" that
• He wasn't aware fobs can be duplicated. I have sent him the email I received from the distributor with clarification that they can be copied and again he is going to "review" that.
• He isn't sure if they can send direct footage from the CCTV because apparently it's "just on a screen in the office" and that I might need to come and see it for myself. I politely declined that offer and suggested he look into downloading it to a USB drive as is often possible. I suggested that if clear images can be provided, at the very least my tenant may recognise the person in them.
• He said he wants to come to an amicable agreement - Whether that's a case of them reducing the charge or splitting it. I confirmed that if he can provide sufficient evidence that it was my tenant then this shouldn't be necessary, but until then I don't believe that I should be liable.
• He would prefer to discuss this by phone rather than exchanging lengthy emails. I reminded him that this was my first choice, too, but the way his colleague spoke to me left me with little choice. Perhaps I "got her on a bad day" he says.

[bad company]

romeogolf said:

So the person who has picked up on this case has just called me and we spent 20 minutes discussing this by phone.

A few pertinent points;

• He wasn't aware of the second fob usage 14 seconds later and needs to "review" that
• He wasn't aware fobs can be duplicated. I have sent him the email I received from the distributor with clarification that they can be copied and again he is going to "review" that.
• He isn't sure if they can send direct footage from the CCTV because apparently it's "just on a screen in the office" and that I might need to come and see it for myself. I politely declined that offer and suggested he look into downloading it to a USB drive as is often possible. I suggested that if clear images can be provided, at the very least my tenant may recognise the person in them.
• He said he wants to come to an amicable agreement - Whether that's a case of them reducing the charge or splitting it. I confirmed that if he can provide sufficient evidence that it was my tenant then this shouldn't be necessary, but until then I don't believe that I should be liable.
• He would prefer to discuss this by phone rather than exchanging lengthy emails. I reminded him that this was my first choice, too, but the way his colleague spoke to me left me with little choice. Perhaps I "got her on a bad day" he says.

Well I’d say that’s good progress. At least they know you’re not going to ‘pay up and shut up’.

I reckon they’ll want to settle at a reduced amount.

[ashleyman]

If you go ahead with discussing this over the phone consider recording the calls.

Email is the better option as everything is in writing and what was said and by whom can be accessed readily.

[motco]

ashleyman said:

If you go ahead with discussing this over the phone consider recording the calls.

Email is the better option as everything is in writing and what was said and by whom can be accessed readily.

My thought too.

[MJNewton]

Whilst email might be better from an audit perspective I think phone or face-to-face is more likely to achieve a positive outcome for all given it adds the personal touch whilst also helping avoid misunderstandings/misinterpretations or at least nip them in the bud before they grow into an issue.

I am still perplexed as to why you paid up. If it was the fear that they would have added it to your account as a debt, well so what? Unless you were wanting to clear the account soon to sell up it could've sat there whilst you sorted the mess out. They would be on thin ice chathing interest whilst the charge was under dispute. All water under the bridge though of course ...

[elanfan]

Is the PMC appointed by you alone or by other owners as well (on the same site)? If it were me I’d be sacking them or at the very least remind them which side their bread is buttered as you pay their bills. Spurious charges do not bode well for them and might well be enough to terminate the contract. If there are other owners involved maybe a get together is warranted and you can collectively ‘bin’ them? Sorry couldn’t resist.

[V8mate]

The constant references to whether the tenant appears in the footage is, IMHO, a red herring. Liability, surely, depends on whether the OP's fobs have been used?

The OP shouldn't have turned down the opportunity to view the footage at their office. Downloading and sharing CCTV footage is a big

[Chrisgr31]

motco said:

ashleyman said:

If you go ahead with discussing this over the phone consider recording the calls.

Email is the better option as everything is in writing and what was said and by whom can be accessed readily.

My thought too.

This is my view but as others have said its possible a resolution is more likely on the phone. So if you have a phone conversation make notes during it and then send an email confirming what was said by whom.

[bad company]

romeogolf said:

So the person who has picked up on this case has just called me and we spent 20 minutes discussing this by phone.

A few pertinent points;

• He wasn't aware of the second fob usage 14 seconds later and needs to "review" that
• He wasn't aware fobs can be duplicated. I have sent him the email I received from the distributor with clarification that they can be copied and again he is going to "review" that.
• He isn't sure if they can send direct footage from the CCTV because apparently it's "just on a screen in the office" and that I might need to come and see it for myself. I politely declined that offer and suggested he look into downloading it to a USB drive as is often possible. I suggested that if clear images can be provided, at the very least my tenant may recognise the person in them.
• He said he wants to come to an amicable agreement - Whether that's a case of them reducing the charge or splitting it. I confirmed that if he can provide sufficient evidence that it was my tenant then this shouldn't be necessary, but until then I don't believe that I should be liable.
• He would prefer to discuss this by phone rather than exchanging lengthy emails. I reminded him that this was my first choice, too, but the way his colleague spoke to me left me with little choice. Perhaps I "got her on a bad day" he says.

Well I’d say that’s good progress. At least they know you’re not going to ‘pay up and shut up’.

I reckon they’ll want to settle at a reduced amount.