Waste Dumped in Communal Bin Store - Tenant Denying Was Him

[romeogolf]

ashleyman said:

romeogolf said:

They provided CCTV of the machine being carried out the building

Is there CCTV in the building that would trace what property the washing machine was removed from?

No, it's just in the entrance areas and watching external doors/car park barriers.

[romeogolf]

Barga said:

Have you provided this evidence to the management company?
They have video of it not being your tenant and photo evidence that it’s not your washing machine so is there just a slim chance that it was someone else?

It was definitely someone else, but they continue to point to the fact that it was a fob allocated to my flat which was used to access the bin store at the time when the machine was left there.

[romeogolf]

snake_oil said:

Have you spoken to the tennant about the situation?

Yes. He has (understandably) denied it was him and has provided a photo of the machine still in the kitchen today.

silentbrown said:

Looking at the log, your tenant comes home at around 18:15/18:30 on weekdays, entering via "Prox Ent". (On 11th there's also two entries under 10 seconds apart, but that maybe because he failed to open the door in time, or thought the first 'tap' hadn't worked.)

On 14th, he enter at 17:22, the bin store is accessed at 20:25, and 14 seconds later, the usual "Prox Ent".

Without knowing the physical layout it's difficult to be sure, but is it possible he (possibly innocently) opened the bin store for a third party ("hey mate, could you open this for us please - our hands are full") on his way into the building. So the fob is never in the bin store, but was still used it to open it.

There is footage of an individual opening the bin store at 20:25 and then entering the store with the machine. So it wasn't a case of anyone buzzing another person into the room. The fob holder opens the door and carries the machine in with another person. Neither of them are my tenant.

There are two entrances to the block (one I assume is "(14) Prox Ent (DEP17) GP5" and the other is "(10) Main Ent Private (DEP16) GP4") but both are a good 20 second walk from the bin store. On below the red arrow is the bin store and the green ones are the two entrances.

[romeogolf]

The CCTV footage they sent me if it helps:

Clip one - Machine being carried to bin store: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VF7nDPOb_p140Hvd...

Clip two - Machine being carried out of basement car park. The fob doesn't work (my flat doesn't have a parking space in this car park, so the fob wouldn't open the door) and they get someone else to open it: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1pBHyhi9V4mZtxHqY...

[romeogolf]

V8mate said:

romeogolf said:

snake_oil said:

Have you spoken to the tennant about the situation?

Yes. He has (understandably) denied it was him and has provided a photo of the machine still in the kitchen today.

Might a neighbouring flat have knocked and asked to borrow his bin-store fob because they'd 'misplaced' theirs?

If that were the case my tenant would have told me - He has told me he is concerned about the security of the building if this kind of error can be made. Saying it was another flat would also be a very easy 'get out of jail free' card if he needed/wanted to pass the buck.

[romeogolf]

sc0tt said:

Is this mainstay?

It's not, no. I'd rather not mention their name so would appreciate if others don't try to guess, either

[romeogolf]

xjay1337 said:

Surely the second footage vindicates it??

How? It shows two people using a fob allocated to my property (which didn't work on a door I'm not meant to have access to) carrying the machine...?

[romeogolf]

FunkyNige said:

Shouldn't the fob being denied access to the car park appear on the log?

Oh. That's a good point. I'm sure they'll tell me they just sent a selection of the log, but yes, I will raise that query when I next speak with them.

[romeogolf]

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.

[romeogolf]

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?

Edited by Lemming Train on Thursday 25th April 08:56

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.

[romeogolf]

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?

[romeogolf]

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!)

[romeogolf]

scottdm3 said:

Is there an invoice from a waste disposal company for £260

It's very easy to get a contractor you work with regularly to mock-up an invoice for any amount you need and then issue a credit note. That's not going to prove anything.

[romeogolf]

superlightr said:

bit confused now - are you saying that one of the people in the video does now look like your tenant?

Wasn't wearing glassed in his passport when you checked it? - Can you check your copy to reaffirm your view?

As an aside - You should keep copies of your tenants passports- ie proof of right to rent in the UK as part of the Immigration Bill 2015 Its an offence to Let to a tenant without the right tor rent in the UK and keep records of those checks.

My tenant wasn't wearing glasses when I met him, and he wasn't wearing them in his ID which I took a copy of when they moved in - But in the photo he sent earlier, yes he was wearing glasses, so there is some chance the guy in the second CCTV clip is him. But let's face it, the clip is far from clear and I also feel that if it was my tenant he would be trying his best to distance himself rather than sending a very clear photo.

[romeogolf]

Okay, plan...

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.

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.

[romeogolf]

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.

[romeogolf]

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.

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 25th April 16:23

Edited by superlightr on Thursday 25th April 16:24

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.

[romeogolf]

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.

Edited by superlightr on Friday 26th April 15:39

Edited by superlightr on Friday 26th April 15:41

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.

[romeogolf]

craigjm said:

I think I would ask them to issue you a new set of previously unused fobs

I did and they told me they could only do this if I paid for them, even if I returned the existing ones. They maintain that the fobs cannot be duplicated.

Email from Management Co. said:

R,

These fobs are not able to be duplicated, and all fobs have to be programmed through ourselves and the entry phone company.

If you wish to pay for the new fobs, I am happy to order them for you

Kind regards,
G

[romeogolf]

Lemming Train said:

He isn't fighting anything so your argument is nonsense. He's paid the obscene and completely made up figure that they demanded and the owners of the MC will be laughing their arses off at having such a push-over for a leaseholder. At the most he might write a couple more strongly worded emails, all of which will be treated with the same disdain as the first one and promptly filed in the round basket whilst they laugh some more. He threw away any "fight" he had the moment he logged into his bank account and sent them £264.

Edited by Lemming Train on Sunday 28th April 14:12

I don't actually want to engage in conversation with you or Moonflower because you're both being very keyboard-warrior about this without actually having any legal or practical advice. That said, I'm following their complaints procedure as they outline on their own website which is a two-step process allowing them to respond to my complaint initially. If unhappy I can escalate it with them once more, following which I am able to take my claim to the Property Ombudsman.

I am gathering evidence (an email from the manufacturer of the access system in use which states the fobs we hold are easy to copy/duplicate as an example) - and have sought advice from a property lawyer I am acquainted with, the leasehold advisory service, and a property manager for another company who I also know separately from this issue. I've been fortunate that in addition to the replies here, having spoken about this with friends a lot of people know people who can help and have put me in touch with them.

So, no, I'm not a push-over and can assure you this will be fought.