Saturday, 26 September 2015
How are PJP doing??
Wednesday, 26 March 2014
Considering a rental from Philip James Lettings Didsbury?? BEWARE!!
I have now had to issue a County Court summons to try and get my deposit back. They keep relying on tiny clauses in the contract to delay repaying me any money.
Sunday, 18 November 2012
Landlords from hell: Worst property scams revealed
Millions of tenants are falling foul of property scams or
having their lives blighted by rogue landlords who fail to maintain
their homes.
Research by housing charity Shelter also found cases of families being harassed or illegally evicted by property-owners.
There are 3.5 million households in private rented accommodation, around eight million people.
While most landlords are honest and responsible, Shelter says local authorities must clamp down on a "small but dangerous group" whose actions are making people's lives a living hell.
Last week, Shelter named and shamed Manchester-based landlord Tame Estates which it accused of imposing rip-off charges and failing to carry out basic property repairs for tenants such as Chelsea Williams.
She was 16 when she moved from her foster home into a two-bed Tame Estates home in Ashton-under-Lyne, Greater Manchester, at the start of this year with her partner Grant and 13-month-old baby Harvey.
The property was in a state of disrepair when they arrived but the landlord promised to fix problems such as gas fires which were falling off walls and a broken window in the living room.
Eight months on, the repairs have yet to be done and more problems are emerging. The family are now squeezed into one bedroom because the other is too damp to use.
"My son can't settle into his room because the damp is so bad," says Chelsea.
"He's developed asthma and is always ill with colds."
The back garden is unusable because a blocked grate means it is permanently flooded with dirty water from the sink and washing machine.
"This is my home and they're doing nothing about it. I need to move out of here, it's no place for a child to grow up," she says.
However Michael Hanley, boss of Tame Estates, denied Shelter's allegations insisting that he takes his responsibilities as a landlord "very seriously".
"With 220 properties and after 15 years in business there have only been a handful of court cases against me. The court has not upheld a single one of those complaints.
"I welcome Shelter's campaign to tackle rogue landlords but I am not one." A Ta m e s i d e Council spokesman said: "We estimate that Tame Estate holds about 2% of the private rented stock in the borough, but are the subject of about 15% of the complaints received this year."
Shelter say Chelsea's experience is all too common despite government claims that the system offers tenants protection.
It surveyed environmental health officers and more than 90% said they had encountered landlords who repeatedly ignore their responsibilities while a similar number said they had seen cases of severe damp, mould or fire hazards at properties they investigated in the past year.
Campbell Robb, chief executive of Shelter, said: "It is simply not acceptable that people are handing over their hard-earned cash to live in houses that are run-down, squalid and in some cases even dangerous.
"Our investigation shows just how ruthless a minority of rogue landlords can be. We know there are people operating in cities up and down the country like this and it's clear this is a national problem.
"With more and more people set to become private tenants in future, it's vital we expose and drive out the worst offenders. The minority who break the rules should be prosecuted to prevent anyone else being exploited in future."
John Healey, Labour's shadow housing minister, attacked the ConDems for scrapping plans for tighter regulation of private landlords and letting agents.
"This would have given the most vulnerable in the private rented sector some real safeguards," he said.
Shelter also highlighted some common scams landlords used to exploit the vulnerable .
They include breaking into empty properties then renting them to unsuspecting tenants who hand over money as a deposit and the first month's rent, at which point the crooks disappear.
Others impose hidden, often sky-high charges for things such as letters and property inspections immediately putting people in arrears.
Rather than asking for a deposit, the landlord requests tenants provide guarantors. At the end of their tenancy these guarantors can become liable for unnecessary and extremely costly 'repairs'.
Although it is a legal requirement, some rogue landlords still avoid putting tenant's deposits in a tenancy deposit scheme, withholding it at the end for unfair reasons.
David Salusbury, chairman of the National Landlords Association, insisted that given there were nearly 3.5 million households in private rented homes, the number of cases that turned sour was relatively small.
"Some of the scams mentioned by Shelter have nothing to do with landlords but are the acts of professional criminals - we roundly condemn such practices."
TIPS TO ESCAPE THEIR CLUTCHES
1) Carefully check the type of tenancy agreement you are signing.
2) Find out if the building requires a licence.
This is likely if it is a house of multiple occupancy such as a house split into bedsits.
3) Check how your deposit will be protected.
4) Make sure the inventory is accurate.
5) Set up a standing order to be sure your rent is paid on time. 6) Stick to the rules eg no smoking or pets.
7) Check safety of gas appliances.
8) If repairs are needed check whose responsibility it is.
Manchester Landlord From Hell fined £42000
A landlord has been ordered to pay £42,000 for keeping his properties in a dangerous condition (Photos Below).
Mohammed Javaid, of Winchester Road in Hale, pleaded guilty to 20 offences at a hearing in Manchester Magistrates’ Court on July 6, after being prosecuted by both Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service.
He was fined £33,750 and ordered to pay £8,500 court costs on Wednesday July 20.
City Council officers visited the flats, in Apollo Lodge on Hyde Road, Ardwick, last August, and found problems including dangerous electrical wiring, a missing fire door and cables dangling from the ceiling where smoke alarms should have been.
Officers arranged to visit later so they could be let inside each of the flats, and found other problems including missing spindles on banisters – meaning there were gaps large enough for a person to fall through down to the floor below – broken windows and no working heating system in the properties.
Javaid had only provided small portable electric heaters that tenants had to rely on through last winter’s cold snap.
There were no working lights in the basement and a tenant said she had to regularly visit the cellar, walking past live electric cables at shoulder height, to flick fuses back on.
There was also an exposed hole in the unlit back yard leading to a 2mtr drop into the basement.
The property was in such a bad condition that the City Council served an emergency prohibition order after the first inspection.
This meant Javaid had to close the premises immediately and arrange new accommodation for his tenants. However, the City Council’s housing benefit unit produced evidence to show that instead of doing this, he kept the flats open and even moved more tenants into them.
The City Council also served notices insisting Javaid carry out improvements to each of the properties, but he still has not carried out much of this work.
Councillor Paul Andrews, Manchester City Council’s executive member for neighbourhood services, said: “Javaid was happy to live in the lap of luxury among footballers in Hale while his tenants had to put up with these appalling and dangerous conditions.
“No Manchester residents should have to live in properties like this, and we will not tolerate private landlords who behave as if the law does not apply to them. The size of this fine should serve as a warning to others and demonstrate how seriously we take offences which endanger our residents.”
Chairman of the Fire and Rescue Authority Councillor Fred Walker said: “We welcome the clear message from the courts that action will be taken against those businesses that neglect fire safety and thereby risk the safety of the public. The Fire Authority is focused on helping businesses operate safely and taking action when they don’t.”
Mohammed Javaid, of Winchester Road in Hale, pleaded guilty to 20 offences at a hearing in Manchester Magistrates’ Court on July 6, after being prosecuted by both Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service.
 |
Related Posts |
City Council officers visited the flats, in Apollo Lodge on Hyde Road, Ardwick, last August, and found problems including dangerous electrical wiring, a missing fire door and cables dangling from the ceiling where smoke alarms should have been.
Officers arranged to visit later so they could be let inside each of the flats, and found other problems including missing spindles on banisters – meaning there were gaps large enough for a person to fall through down to the floor below – broken windows and no working heating system in the properties.
Javaid had only provided small portable electric heaters that tenants had to rely on through last winter’s cold snap.
There were no working lights in the basement and a tenant said she had to regularly visit the cellar, walking past live electric cables at shoulder height, to flick fuses back on.
There was also an exposed hole in the unlit back yard leading to a 2mtr drop into the basement.
The property was in such a bad condition that the City Council served an emergency prohibition order after the first inspection.
This meant Javaid had to close the premises immediately and arrange new accommodation for his tenants. However, the City Council’s housing benefit unit produced evidence to show that instead of doing this, he kept the flats open and even moved more tenants into them.
The City Council also served notices insisting Javaid carry out improvements to each of the properties, but he still has not carried out much of this work.
Councillor Paul Andrews, Manchester City Council’s executive member for neighbourhood services, said: “Javaid was happy to live in the lap of luxury among footballers in Hale while his tenants had to put up with these appalling and dangerous conditions.
“No Manchester residents should have to live in properties like this, and we will not tolerate private landlords who behave as if the law does not apply to them. The size of this fine should serve as a warning to others and demonstrate how seriously we take offences which endanger our residents.”
Chairman of the Fire and Rescue Authority Councillor Fred Walker said: “We welcome the clear message from the courts that action will be taken against those businesses that neglect fire safety and thereby risk the safety of the public. The Fire Authority is focused on helping businesses operate safely and taking action when they don’t.”
Monday, 20 February 2012
More legal action from PHILIP JAMES RENTALS Didsbury - Pro Bono Lawyer needed to represent "Nut of a client"
It looks certain we are going back to court. Last night I received a letter from PJP Solicitor, Claire Myers @ Kuits in Manchester. She was once again, requesting removal of this blog and repeating PJP allegations that it is libellous etc.
Needless to say, this blog will remain unless ordered by a court, or I receive my deposit back in full, as Philip James promised the Judge in court.
The solicitors letter is in PDF so I can't be bothered to convert it for publication. Basically, it is using the same tired old "you have wronged my client etc, and unless you apologise blah blah" you can work it out from the replies below.
My replies: (1)
Your letter was too long for me to understand and I can't concentrate that long, I'm semi - senile these days. Anyway, I will do my best to respond.
Needless to say, this blog will remain unless ordered by a court, or I receive my deposit back in full, as Philip James promised the Judge in court.
The solicitors letter is in PDF so I can't be bothered to convert it for publication. Basically, it is using the same tired old "you have wronged my client etc, and unless you apologise blah blah" you can work it out from the replies below.
My replies: (1)
Your letter was too long for me to understand and I can't concentrate that long, I'm semi - senile these days. Anyway, I will do my best to respond.
I think PJP are upset about my blog, well they can pay me my £30 quid back before I worry about that.
Now please don't start wittering on, like them with spiel about a cleaning charge.
In court (on tape) they told the Judge they would repay my deposit in FULL - No mention of £30 to His Honour. Have you listened to the tape? It's right at the very end, not hard to find. I call it perjury, but what do I know? I'm just an uneducated nobody.
As for copyright of photo's, well I know nothing about copyright either, but if they don't want me (or anyone else) publishing them ask them to stop sending them to my e-mail address. Bet they didn't tell you that either.
Finally, I have no recollection of publishing anything since the court case, the one where they lied to the Judge, but I have given the log in details to my teenage son and all his mates, they put it on Facebook and twitter, and I also gave it to nearly everyone who contacted me with complaints about PJP.
I expect the log in to the blog has gone viral, and who knows who has published what, when and why.
I doubt I could access it to edit/remove it even if I so wished.
But I promise to have a go for the £30 they took off me for "cleaning" otherwise, let the law take it's course and the chips fall where they may.
I hope that clarifies my response, but please don't hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply 2:
I am writing again after a good nights sleep. I was a little tired last night when I got your e mail and feel I may have come across as grumpy. Please accept my apologies.
After further consideration of your letter and reading it a bit more, I feel I need to make further observations to you and your clients.
I have checked, and the e mails sent to my personal in box from Philip James marketing, containing the photo's they are complaining of, it states nowhere, are they subject to copyright.
I don't know if that helps, but I will show it to the Judge (and or/jury) if and when we get to that stage.
As far as I am concerned, I have NEVER made a single untrue statement or allegation regarding PJP. I have total and complete belief in what I personally wrote. As explained in my earlier letter, other people may have, and continue to, contribute to the blog.
I will never make any attempt to remove my blog, or to apologise for any content I personally added to it.
I need to be crystal clear on this, UNLESS ordered to do so by a Court, or my £30 is returned, whatever bull shot reason your client is using to justify taking my money.
Ms Fortune(Nesbitt) stated in e mail that she thought I was unhinged, and I actually agreed. I can become fixated on a cause I believe in. It has got me in trouble in the past, and no doubt will continue to do so. Such is life.
We can run away from conflict, or not, we all have a choice. Personally, I will fight for my rights, my 30 quid and anything or anybody I believe has wronged me or my family. As a lawyer, you would probably advise against that.
Whether or not we end up in Court, is really down to your clients. I will fight them every step of the way so long as I have a breath in my body, whether it is the High Court in London (as you mentioned) I haven't been to London in ages, or at the Dog and Duck.
I rather hope there is a jury, as they will be "my peers" that is, unless I really am unhinged as suggested by Ms Fortune (Nesbitt) in that case I doubt all twelve jurors will be equally afflicted.
Finally Claire, just to reassure you I am not some sort of nutty stalker, as suggested by Messrs Nesbitt, Fortune and Beswick when they made allegations to the police that I was "stalking" them, I shall not be in contact with you again, unless in response to correspondence initiated by you.
I hope you have a pleasant day, and try not to work too hard, the weather man has just promised it will be warmer towards the back of the week, and I know they are often wrong, but it gives us something to look forward to doesn't it?
Kind regards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ball is now back with PJP and their lawyers.
For those of you who have only just stumbled across this entry , here is a quick overview.
I rented a house off PJP and gave them £750 deposit and a whole host of charges and fees.
When I gave notice, they really came the oracle. They tried claiming tiny clauses, rip off "admin charges" unexplained cleaning charges, I could go on.
Amnyway, it became obvious to me they weren't going to give me my £750 without making huge deductions, or without a fight. So I gave fight then, and will do now!!
Eventually after months of bluff, bluster, unfounded and ridicolous allegations to the police of "stalking them" threatening me with prison for writing and publishing this blog, we got to court.
As a small concession, the Judge allowed them to keep my deposit as they claimed they had not received proof I had paid my council tax. But, and this is recorded, he told them and they agreed, once they got that bill, they were to return my deposit IN FULL.
They got the bill, later the same day, but they just couldn't help themselves!!
They whipped £30 quid off it claiming a "cleaning charge" total bull shot!!
I want that £30, I will fight for it, they took it without my permission, in fact against my express instruction, and more importantly, in total contrast to what they agreed in court with the Judge.
In my view, they have amongst other things, committed perjury, but that is only my opinion. Whether that is a legal definition I really don't know.
But if you make an agreement in court and then do not adhere to it, it is wrong and you should expect punishment.
All I want is my £30 back.
Now if they want to go to the High Court in London, take out an injunction, assemble a jury, hire a team of lawyers and all the other stuff in the solicitors letter, I say please, get on with it!!
Stop mithering me, I am busy, I just want my £30 back, they promised both me and the Judge.
In the meanwhile, if you are considering dealing with this firm, read this blog carefully.
========================================================
Finally, if there is a lawyer out there who fancies a bit of a jolly to London with a nut of a client (pro bono) please get in touch, it should be a hell of a ride.
In fact, even a good law student would help, I am not sure if you are still allowed a Mckenzie friend, but we could figure something out.
There has got to be a legal guy/gal out there who can see a commercial advantage in this. Google - John Grisham, Rainmaker and away you go. Contact via comments (they will not be published) without consent!!
For those of you who have only just stumbled across this entry , here is a quick overview.
I rented a house off PJP and gave them £750 deposit and a whole host of charges and fees.
When I gave notice, they really came the oracle. They tried claiming tiny clauses, rip off "admin charges" unexplained cleaning charges, I could go on.
Amnyway, it became obvious to me they weren't going to give me my £750 without making huge deductions, or without a fight. So I gave fight then, and will do now!!
Eventually after months of bluff, bluster, unfounded and ridicolous allegations to the police of "stalking them" threatening me with prison for writing and publishing this blog, we got to court.
As a small concession, the Judge allowed them to keep my deposit as they claimed they had not received proof I had paid my council tax. But, and this is recorded, he told them and they agreed, once they got that bill, they were to return my deposit IN FULL.
They got the bill, later the same day, but they just couldn't help themselves!!
They whipped £30 quid off it claiming a "cleaning charge" total bull shot!!
I want that £30, I will fight for it, they took it without my permission, in fact against my express instruction, and more importantly, in total contrast to what they agreed in court with the Judge.
In my view, they have amongst other things, committed perjury, but that is only my opinion. Whether that is a legal definition I really don't know.
But if you make an agreement in court and then do not adhere to it, it is wrong and you should expect punishment.
All I want is my £30 back.
Now if they want to go to the High Court in London, take out an injunction, assemble a jury, hire a team of lawyers and all the other stuff in the solicitors letter, I say please, get on with it!!
Stop mithering me, I am busy, I just want my £30 back, they promised both me and the Judge.
In the meanwhile, if you are considering dealing with this firm, read this blog carefully.
========================================================
Finally, if there is a lawyer out there who fancies a bit of a jolly to London with a nut of a client (pro bono) please get in touch, it should be a hell of a ride.
In fact, even a good law student would help, I am not sure if you are still allowed a Mckenzie friend, but we could figure something out.
There has got to be a legal guy/gal out there who can see a commercial advantage in this. Google - John Grisham, Rainmaker and away you go. Contact via comments (they will not be published) without consent!!
Thursday, 16 February 2012
The complaints keep coming in about Philip james Didsbury
The complaints keep coming in about Philip james Didsbury
We aim to get these live as soon as possible, but in the meanwhile, please keep coming back here and using the "comments" section to get in touch. Some of your complaints have been forwarded direct to the relevant authorities.
For those of you with problems with Philip James, we hope to be having a "surgery" with our solicitor shortly.
Stay safe and take care
re-published as this listing receives 101 hits a month
Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Considering a rental from Philip James Lettings Didsbury?? BEWARE!!
Considering a rental from Philip James Lettings Didsbury?? BEWARE!!
You should always choose your letting agent with care. My experience with this company has been horrendous. Trying to extort money for "admin" (£150) this was to ring someone to clean a cupboard, although they haven't replied to my letter.I have now had to issue a County Court summons to try and get my deposit back. They keep relying on tiny clauses in the contract to delay repaying me any money.
Their staff in Didsbury - namely Danielle Beswick and her angry sidekick Nadine Fortune appear to be in control of the illegal withholding of deposits.
The directors seem unwilling or unable to intervene.
This story will continue until we reach trial, or they repay my stolen money.
There is so much more and leaflets are being prepared with the full details. In the meantime, choose you rental with great care.
Students in Manchester are particularly vulnerable to poor practice. If you have had a similar experience with this firm please post comments or contact me.
Here is some advice from shelter:
What if there is a dispute about getting my deposit back?
Your landlord or agent is only entitled to keep all or part of your deposit if they can show that they have lost out financially because of your actions, for example, if you have caused damage to the property or you owe rent. Ask your landlord or agent for a breakdown of the specific costs that they are taking out of your deposit. Your landlord or agent cannot keep your deposit to cover putting right normal wear and tear. There are rules on what costs can be deducted from your deposit.if you cannot agree, the dispute will usually go to the county court.
Guilty letting agent ordered to pay over £300,000 or go to jail
conned clients – many of whom were students
Tuesday 14th February 2012A letting agent in one of the most notorious cases of recent times will have to pay over £300,000 after swindling tenants and landlords.
Zulfiqar Hussain, 44, operated Charles Lawson Lettings in Cowley Road, East Oxford, and conned clients – many of whom were students – out of thousands of pounds between 2007 and 2009.
He walked free from court after being given a nine-month jail term, suspended for two years, at Oxford Crown Court. However, if he does not repay his victims in full within six months, he could face three years in jail. He must also complete 40 hours of unpaid work.
In total, he was ordered to £309,303 – £8,167 in compensation, £51,136 costs and a further £250,000 under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
According to the local newspaper, the money is likely to be taken from the sale of Hussain’s £1.2m property portfolio.
Prosecuting on behalf of Oxfordshire Trading Standards, which had received 60 complaints, Robert Courts said Hussain failed to ring-fence tenants’ deposits, let properties without the authority of their owners and did not pass on rent.
He said the majority of victims were students who put down large deposits and paid administration fees, but found that the firm had gone out of business before they could move in.
Hussain also illegally took money out of the business for his own use. The initial charge put this amount at £157,000, but this figure was reduced to ‘not less than £33,000’ on the agreement of both the prosecution and defence.
Hussain last September admitted seven counts of engaging in an unfair commercial practice and one charge of money laundering.
Ecky Tiwana, defending, said his client was very remorseful. He had tried to expand too quickly and got into financial difficulty when the recession struck. He said it was agreed that Hussain had benefited by £250,000 through illegal practices.
Recorder Peter Lodder told Hussain: “You chose to use other people’s money. In my judgement that means these offences merit a custodial sentence. However, I accept you did not set out to behave in a fraudulent fashion and I think it’s significant that all who have lost out through what you did will be reimbursed.”
Hussain was director of two firms in Oxford, Charles Lawson which became Charles Lawson Lettings which was wound up in January 2010, and James C Penny which went into liquidation in 2010 owing £400,000.
It was the offices of Charles Lawson Lettings and James C Penny which were the subject of early morning raids by police and trading standards as the investigation got under way in November 2009.
Other firms which are still operating are James C Penny (Lettings) and James C Penny (Estate Agents), which are NAEA members.
Penny & Sinclair has no connection with any of the above, and also continues to trade.
Monday, 13 February 2012
Philip James Rental hell for students??
 |
| Don't let them view this one if it's raining, put it in the "sunny day" book. |
 |
| Students protest at usual delay in returning deposit!! |
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Letting agents slammed for 'ripping off' customers
Letting agents are routinely ripping off landlords and tenants, and making up administrative charges as they go along.
The accusation comes from Citizens Advice whose spokesperson Moira Haynes told the Daily Mail that charges by agents often bear little or no relation to the cost of the work involved.
She said: “Many letting agents routinely rip off tenants by imposing unjustified and excessive charges and providing a poor or non-existent service.
“In some cases letting agents appear to make them up as they go along.
“These charges can be a huge barrier for people on low and even average incomes who have no housing options other than the private rented sector. They should be banned.”
According to the article, Citizens Advice is particularly concerned about the lack of regulation in the lettings sector, with anyone able set themselves up as a letting agent without any need for professional expertise or experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)