Waste Dumped in Communal Bin Store - Tenant Denying Was Him
Discussion
So this is still dragging on, with the management company avoiding questions. This morning they emailed as below:
I called to discuss this and was spoken over and interrupted by one of the property managers who told me that the "evidence is clear" and no further details needed to be given. I asked her for the details of how the fob could be used in two places at once and she said "we've given you all the evidence". I had to interrupt her at one point because she wasn't listening and she told me to call back later when I've calmed down.
I emailed after the call.
If I do pay this charge, and try to re-charge my tenant - How would the DPS review it if there is a dispute? What evidence would I then need to produce?
Email said:
Whilst I understand that you feel this is unjust, the evidence clearly shows that is was your tenants.
Should the need arise for continued protracted correspondence on this matter, we will be charging you a further administration charge for this.
All flat owners and residents where given ample advance warning that CCTV would be in operation and it is, and has been grossly unfair that over the years all flat owners have paid for to have bulk items removed from the bin store for which they were not responsible for leaving, which I am sure you will appreciate. This is a legitimate charge that you can forward to your tenant, but how you personally wish to deal with it, is up to you.
If payment is not made directly into the bank account, with the next 48 hours interest will then be applied along with further administration charges if necessary.
It doesn't 'clearly' show anything, especially not my tenants. It shows two people moving a washing machine but neither of them is my tenant. They have also avoided a specific question I asked about fob use during the time in question. Their original fob-log record shows it being used to open the bin store, and 14 seconds later on another door. Despite asking how this is possible, when the fob is still in the pocket of the man on CCTV, they have not answered this question.Should the need arise for continued protracted correspondence on this matter, we will be charging you a further administration charge for this.
All flat owners and residents where given ample advance warning that CCTV would be in operation and it is, and has been grossly unfair that over the years all flat owners have paid for to have bulk items removed from the bin store for which they were not responsible for leaving, which I am sure you will appreciate. This is a legitimate charge that you can forward to your tenant, but how you personally wish to deal with it, is up to you.
If payment is not made directly into the bank account, with the next 48 hours interest will then be applied along with further administration charges if necessary.
I called to discuss this and was spoken over and interrupted by one of the property managers who told me that the "evidence is clear" and no further details needed to be given. I asked her for the details of how the fob could be used in two places at once and she said "we've given you all the evidence". I had to interrupt her at one point because she wasn't listening and she told me to call back later when I've calmed down.
I emailed after the call.
My Email said:
G,
I had hoped to catch you by phone to discuss this amicably and request further details but instead spoke to J who spoke to me in the most condescending manner and refused to answer any questions.
The individuals in the CCTV are not my tenants, and the machine removed from the building is not the one provided within the apartment. Before I further accuse my tenants of wrong-doing I wish to have all the evidence available. You have avoided answering my question on 17th April. At 20:25:35 on 14/4/2019 your log shows the fob being used at another entrance ((14) Prox Ent (DEP17) GP5), during which time the two individuals are still in the bin store. Could you explain how this is possible?
Please also provide me with your complaints procedure and the terms of my lease which permit both this charge and the additional administration and interest fees you propose.
Kind regards,
R
I have a telephone appointment at 10:30 this morning with the Leasehold advisory Service to see if they can help, but at this point I'm wondering whether it's worth cutting my losses and paying £260 just to get this closed, or if it's worth pushing forward. I had hoped to catch you by phone to discuss this amicably and request further details but instead spoke to J who spoke to me in the most condescending manner and refused to answer any questions.
The individuals in the CCTV are not my tenants, and the machine removed from the building is not the one provided within the apartment. Before I further accuse my tenants of wrong-doing I wish to have all the evidence available. You have avoided answering my question on 17th April. At 20:25:35 on 14/4/2019 your log shows the fob being used at another entrance ((14) Prox Ent (DEP17) GP5), during which time the two individuals are still in the bin store. Could you explain how this is possible?
Please also provide me with your complaints procedure and the terms of my lease which permit both this charge and the additional administration and interest fees you propose.
Kind regards,
R
If I do pay this charge, and try to re-charge my tenant - How would the DPS review it if there is a dispute? What evidence would I then need to produce?
Flibble said:
You could always refuse to pay and make them take you to court (or threaten that and see if they sort themselves out). A judge is not going to have any truck with "the evidence is clear" as the only proof.
Think I would go down this route. There is no real evidence that it’s anything to do with your tenant craigjm said:
Flibble said:
You could always refuse to pay and make them take you to court (or threaten that and see if they sort themselves out). A judge is not going to have any truck with "the evidence is clear" as the only proof.
Think I would go down this route. There is no real evidence that it’s anything to do with your tenant romeogolf said:
craigjm said:
Flibble said:
You could always refuse to pay and make them take you to court (or threaten that and see if they sort themselves out). A judge is not going to have any truck with "the evidence is clear" as the only proof.
Think I would go down this route. There is no real evidence that it’s anything to do with your tenant I'd refuse to pay and respond with a similar tone to any further communication from them.
There's no way this would stand up in court so I don;t think you have much to worry about.
My experience of property management companies is that they're a bunch of unregulated jobs worth con artists. So glad I am in a freehold now
There's no way this would stand up in court so I don;t think you have much to worry about.
My experience of property management companies is that they're a bunch of unregulated jobs worth con artists. So glad I am in a freehold now
romeogolf said:
I have a telephone appointment at 10:30 this morning with the Leasehold advisory Service to see if they can help, but at this point I'm wondering whether it's worth cutting my losses and paying £260 just to get this closed, or if it's worth pushing forward.
If I do pay this charge, and try to re-charge my tenant - How would the DPS review it if there is a dispute? What evidence would I then need to produce?
Jesus they sound like a bunch of idiots - the evidence is clearly not clear... !If I do pay this charge, and try to re-charge my tenant - How would the DPS review it if there is a dispute? What evidence would I then need to produce?
f
k them and take them to court. If you are going the legal route I would get a bit of proper advice, you can get a solicitors letter drawn up fairly cheaply if you hunt around, asking in writing for specific evidence required and requesting valid reasons for any problems with the clear evidence such as the time frame inaccuracies. Some places might roll over at the thought of a legal dispute - I don't know how these guys operate! You could come and go a bit in writing then go for a gesture of goodwill to settle upon a lower figure ie £100 which would have realistically been closer to the actual removal with several hours worth of admin fee added at that!!!
Its worth noting that legally a landlord cannot just automatically recover management or legal costs from a tenant, you would need to check the definitions within the lease agreement to justify, normally there would be clauses to help you make sure it was ok to do this as you mention and subtract it from the deposit.
I am a little unsure as to why you are not putting a bit more pressure on the tenant? ie Was the property supplied with a w/machine and if so is that one still there? Also is there nothing that the tenant could help with to prove it wasn't anything to do with him?
Its worth noting that legally a landlord cannot just automatically recover management or legal costs from a tenant, you would need to check the definitions within the lease agreement to justify, normally there would be clauses to help you make sure it was ok to do this as you mention and subtract it from the deposit.
I am a little unsure as to why you are not putting a bit more pressure on the tenant? ie Was the property supplied with a w/machine and if so is that one still there? Also is there nothing that the tenant could help with to prove it wasn't anything to do with him?
strath44 said:
If you are going the legal route I would get a bit of proper advice, you can get a solicitors letter drawn up fairly cheaply if you hunt around, asking in writing for specific evidence required and requesting valid reasons for any problems with the clear evidence such as the time frame inaccuracies. Some places might roll over at the thought of a legal dispute - I don't know how these guys operate! You could come and go a bit in writing then go for a gesture of goodwill to settle upon a lower figure ie £100 which would have realistically been closer to the actual removal with several hours worth of admin fee added at that!!!
Its worth noting that legally a landlord cannot just automatically recover management or legal costs from a tenant, you would need to check the definitions within the lease agreement to justify, normally there would be clauses to help you make sure it was ok to do this as you mention and subtract it from the deposit.
I am a little unsure as to why you are not putting a bit more pressure on the tenant? ie Was the property supplied with a w/machine and if so is that one still there? Also is there nothing that the tenant could help with to prove it wasn't anything to do with him?
The issue is that any legal advice is likely to outweigh the £260 removal charge very quickly.Its worth noting that legally a landlord cannot just automatically recover management or legal costs from a tenant, you would need to check the definitions within the lease agreement to justify, normally there would be clauses to help you make sure it was ok to do this as you mention and subtract it from the deposit.
I am a little unsure as to why you are not putting a bit more pressure on the tenant? ie Was the property supplied with a w/machine and if so is that one still there? Also is there nothing that the tenant could help with to prove it wasn't anything to do with him?
The machine provided with the flat is still there and the one in the images is a different colour to the one provided by me. The tenant isn't in any of the CCTV images shown. There's I can do to 'pin' this on the tenant - Not least without sufficient evidence from the management company who have given patchy details at best.
geeks said:
OP, I have been lurking but not posting in the thread, stick to your guns and don't let them roll over you on this, sounds like they can't be bothered to sort this out properly as it's too much work for them!
This, 100%.They have very little evidence and hope the op will just pay up. They’d be mad to try to enforce payment in Court.
Call their bluff op.
bad company said:
This, 100%.
They have very little evidence and hope the op will just pay up. They’d be mad to try to enforce payment in Court.
Call their bluff op.
I suppose the question is how reliable electronic fob-access records are. That's the evidence they're using to pin it to me - That the fob allocated to my flat was used to open the bin store, regardless of who was using it at the time.They have very little evidence and hope the op will just pay up. They’d be mad to try to enforce payment in Court.
Call their bluff op.
romeogolf said:
I suppose the question is how reliable electronic fob-access records are. That's the evidence they're using to pin it to me - That the fob allocated to my flat was used to open the bin store, regardless of who was using it at the time.
About as reliable as any other electronic system. The data behind it however can be very easily changed.ManicMunky said:
About as reliable as any other electronic system. The data behind it however can be very easily changed.
My point is, will this hold up in small claims court? Is a judge more likely to trust their system as being correct, or the fact that the footage isn't my tenant/not my washing machine and that there's a mistake? I hate the fact that I'm being charged for someone else's waste being removed, but I'd rather pay £260 than lose in small claims.
£264 could probably just about get you a new washing machine delivered including removal of the old one! Agent is taking the P - I dump all metalware on my drive and it generally vanishes after a day or two and the only reason it takes that long is because we live on a cul de sac. The only thing that won't is fridges due to coolant laws.
Re the time stamps - we had a guy fired for claiming to be on a job when he was placed buying petrol for his van down the road from his house, area manager was a dik and did the "I'm a big boss and you're fired" bit rather than follow procedure, then BP wouldn't guarantee the validity of their receipts time stamps so the fired guy got a pile of $$$$$
Wouldn't be surprised if the agent is at least getting a fat backhander out of this, if not more complicit in deception.
Re the time stamps - we had a guy fired for claiming to be on a job when he was placed buying petrol for his van down the road from his house, area manager was a dik and did the "I'm a big boss and you're fired" bit rather than follow procedure, then BP wouldn't guarantee the validity of their receipts time stamps so the fired guy got a pile of $$$$$
Wouldn't be surprised if the agent is at least getting a fat backhander out of this, if not more complicit in deception.
Before going nuclear on them and ending up in a situation where there is no winners, ask to see the CCTV footage (before it is wiped) of 5 minutes either side of the hour before and the hour after the alleged offence took place.
If they cannot or are unwilling to provide this then I would spin the evidence back on them that the fob being used 14 seconds later is proof that your tenant was a) not one of the men responsible or b) provided access to bins to a 3rd party.
Make it clear that you have nothing to gain or to lose in this situation and you consider it closed unless they can provide some evidence that doesn't contradict itself.
If they cannot or are unwilling to provide this then I would spin the evidence back on them that the fob being used 14 seconds later is proof that your tenant was a) not one of the men responsible or b) provided access to bins to a 3rd party.
Make it clear that you have nothing to gain or to lose in this situation and you consider it closed unless they can provide some evidence that doesn't contradict itself.
Herbs said:
Before going nuclear on them and ending up in a situation where there is no winners, ask to see the CCTV footage (before it is wiped) of 5 minutes either side of the hour before and the hour after the alleged offence took place.
If they cannot or are unwilling to provide this then I would spin the evidence back on them that the fob being used 14 seconds later is proof that your tenant was a) not one of the men responsible or b) provided access to bins to a 3rd party.
Make it clear that you have nothing to gain or to lose in this situation and you consider it closed unless they can provide some evidence that doesn't contradict itself.
They provided CCTV of the machine being carried out the building and the timestamps matched with the next bit of footage in the bin store (although they haven't provided fob records for this). Currently I believe the fob-time issue is correct, but I do have a query regarding how it was used 14 seconds later and have asked them to explain this.If they cannot or are unwilling to provide this then I would spin the evidence back on them that the fob being used 14 seconds later is proof that your tenant was a) not one of the men responsible or b) provided access to bins to a 3rd party.
Make it clear that you have nothing to gain or to lose in this situation and you consider it closed unless they can provide some evidence that doesn't contradict itself.
If (A), then that's easy enough to drop it. But if (B) it's still my issue, so it doesn't help unless I can prove he didn't - Which currently I can't.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff