PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Breach of Covenant Question
Comments
-
Gascoine_3245 wrote: »Please see below. The only scam is this site not enabling the company to reply
You have been banned for the following reason
No reason specified
Date the ban will be lifted: never.
Would you by any chance be linked to the company that's had its posts removed? Did you read the forum rules when you signed up which say you have to be a verified user before posting on behalf of a company?
Also says
If you're from a company, have seen a post you feel is misleading or offensive, and would like the right of reply, please click the report button on the post or email the Forum Team with a full explanation: forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com.
A member of the MSE Team will check you're authorised to represent that company.
Provided you have the authority, you may either be asked to give a statement, which one of the MSE Team will post on your behalf, or be given permission to post directly on the specific thread.All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.0 -
Its very much a scam letter. I would not waste money ona solictor. Its much like those microsoft phone calls or accident claims.0
-
Gascoine_3245 wrote: »This has now been accepted. It would be helpful if users actually updated when it's not a scam
You (Yenton) may not see this as a scam, but your sent out this letter to every resident with no statement or any evidence as to which if any covenant had elegedly been broken by individual owners. It is not possible that every single resident had broken one of your petty covenants, but you have attempted to extract money from them all, with what is basically a phishing letter.
At best it is highly unprofessional, but I think most of us still class it as a scam. Where you actually had evidence that covenants had been broken, you could simply have written to the individuals concerned with an offer to buy out those covenants. For other residents you could have made a similar offer to have them removed, but without the threats contained in your original letter.
Frankly your company's ethics stink, and your treatment of your former customers who have made your company many thousands is appalling.0 -
-
This is the business model:
http://yenton.co.uk/covenants/
Unfortunately there is not a s0d off option on their dropdown list:D0 -
Still waiting for an answer to post #27...0
-
This is the sort of thing Watchdog love. I hope the residence all contacted them.0
-
Hands up all those who don't understand the argument "It can't be a scam because there's a solicitor involved" ! Would you want to do business with a man whose grasp of logic is so weak ?Gascoine_3245 wrote: »This has now been accepted by the solicitor. So no scam!
But there's a bigger issue here that might affect many more homeowners. I've bought four houses in my time (happily not from these spivs) and each one has had a string of restrictive covenants. I have accepted them because I believed they were for my benefit. Thus (to use an extreme example from Yenton's list) I would have been happy to have been prohibited from storing a fairground ride in my front garden, because I'd be pleased not to see a fairground ride stored in my neighbour's front garden. This understanding based on what solicitors have told me when signing contracts for purchase.
Thus I think those affected here should in the first instance contact the solicitors they used when buying. If they were allowed to accept a contract that is so one-sided (i.e. that their neighbours can buy themselves out of restrictive covenants that they themselves might prefer to stay in place), then there's surely a malpractice case to be answered.
But I'm no lawyer (does it show !?), I'll be following this one because I'd really like to know the outcome, and so would many other homeowners. So the "Watchdog" programme idea was probably a winner.0 -
Thai has made interesting reading as the housing estate where I live have all received threatening letters from Gascoines Group Limited recently.
I wonder how many of these letters have been sent to the owners of these homes and how many have paid?
Please let me know how you have progressed as we have all now received a second threatening letter because we haven't paid.0 -
That's it, keep up the intimidation ! As previously mentioned, refer yourself to Arkell and Pressdram.Gascoine_3245 wrote: »................0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards