Posted by: Schtum, Glasgow on 11:40am Wed 6 Feb 08
Cases like these only go to highlight just how poor customer service can be within this industry.
However, I am disappointed by the grand-standing by MSP Sandra White...
[quote]GLASGOW SNP MSP Sandra White said: "Factors are faceless bureaucrats with no sense of humanitarian duty.
"They are money-making machines. This is a disgraceful case."[/quote]
Yes, this is a dreadful case, but not all factors can be generalised like this.
If nothing else, this campaign should help the general public sift the good from the bad.
Cases like these only go to highlight just how poor customer service can be within this industry.
However, I am disappointed by the grand-standing by MSP Sandra White...
GLASGOW SNP MSP Sandra White said: "Factors are faceless bureaucrats with no sense of humanitarian duty.
"They are money-making machines. This is a disgraceful case."
Yes, this is a dreadful case, but not all factors can be generalised like this.
If nothing else, this campaign should help the general public sift the good from the bad.
Posted by: glamkitty, Glasgow on 11:57am Wed 6 Feb 08
I do think these factors are despicable and the cases are outrageous - but this comment did strike me:
[bold]The mum-of-four said: "How can you pay that amount of money when you're living on benefits?[/bold]
Er...if you're living on benefits, WTF are you doing spitting out four kids?
I do think these factors are despicable and the cases are outrageous - but this comment did strike me:
The mum-of-four said: "How can you pay that amount of money when you're living on benefits?
Er...if you're living on benefits, WTF are you doing spitting out four kids?
Posted by: Luke Watson, Glasgow on 12:00pm Wed 6 Feb 08
With regards the above owners at properties, I regalarly make payments towards my bill and I don't receive any late payment charges and or the interst charges on my account.
It seems that only defaulting owners that do not pay their bills have the admin charges applied.
I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float.
The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.
With regards the above owners at properties, I regalarly make payments towards my bill and I don't receive any late payment charges and or the interst charges on my account.
It seems that only defaulting owners that do not pay their bills have the admin charges applied.
I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float.
The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.
Posted by: glamkitty, Glasgow on 12:08pm Wed 6 Feb 08
My building self-factors. We have an account we contribute to monthly, and when work needs doing, we all meet up to discuss and agree it. Very rarely do we have to add anything to the existing account to cover the work. It works perfectly for us, I dont know why more people dont do it.
The only problem we actually have ever had, is that one flat is rented out of the eight, and the landlord keeps refusing to pay, saying the work 'isnt necessary'.
Youll be amazed to hear, he is a partner in one of the city's largest property management/factoring firms.
My building self-factors. We have an account we contribute to monthly, and when work needs doing, we all meet up to discuss and agree it. Very rarely do we have to add anything to the existing account to cover the work. It works perfectly for us, I dont know why more people dont do it.
The only problem we actually have ever had, is that one flat is rented out of the eight, and the landlord keeps refusing to pay, saying the work 'isnt necessary'.
Youll be amazed to hear, he is a partner in one of the city's largest property management/factoring firms.
Posted by: Schtum, Glasgow on 12:14pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Luke Watson wrote: The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.[/quote]
True, but there is also an element of disproportionate charges applied to late payment.
This is something that has to be addressed quite urgently.
Luke Watson wrote: The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.
True, but there is also an element of disproportionate charges applied to late payment.
This is something that has to be addressed quite urgently.
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 12:44pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Glasgow's factors with a few honorable exceptions, are lazy and greedy. Owners distrust them because of the high charges and doubtful workmanship - that's where the problems stem from. If there is no trust then there can never be any working relationship. Walker Sandford who are a recent entrant to the factoring business - and do not belong to a professional organisation will undoubtedly live to regret their approach.
Glasgow's factors with a few honorable exceptions, are lazy and greedy. Owners distrust them because of the high charges and doubtful workmanship - that's where the problems stem from. If there is no trust then there can never be any working relationship. Walker Sandford who are a recent entrant to the factoring business - and do not belong to a professional organisation will undoubtedly live to regret their approach.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 12:47pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]glamkitty[/bold] wrote:
I do think these factors are despicable and the cases are outrageous - but this comment did strike me: [bold]The mum-of-four said: "How can you pay that amount of money when you're living on benefits?[/bold] Er...if you're living on benefits, WTF are you doing spitting out four kids?[/quote]
Glamkitty,
People circumstances can change over time - and it is easy to judge or criticise why someone is having 4 kids.
Whether they have 4 or 44 kids is besides the point - without the full facts - who are any of us to judge what life choices others make.
Life is not just black and white - and nothing stays the same.
Anyway, look at the parents with full time jobs, wages and a good house - do their kids always turn out well . . . .
Err - I don't think so.
Spoilt, arrogant brats. With parents who are too busy working to take care of them.
Throwing money at kids does not make them turn out well.
So, if anything - being brought up with far less does kids good - as far too many think money grows on trees!
As for Factors, schtum, you are right to a point, but many people are far less clued up on their factors role, what rights they have and how they go about complaining.
Simply having the time to switch factors, and the inconvenience that causes in the short term is a problem for alot of people.
And, finally - until we have standardised bills for services from factors which are calculated or at least set by the Scottish Parliament - the discrepances and variations will continue to be an unneccessary evil of facors today.
glamkitty wrote:
I do think these factors are despicable and the cases are outrageous - but this comment did strike me: The mum-of-four said: "How can you pay that amount of money when you're living on benefits? Er...if you're living on benefits, WTF are you doing spitting out four kids?
Glamkitty,
People circumstances can change over time - and it is easy to judge or criticise why someone is having 4 kids.
Whether they have 4 or 44 kids is besides the point - without the full facts - who are any of us to judge what life choices others make.
Life is not just black and white - and nothing stays the same.
Anyway, look at the parents with full time jobs, wages and a good house - do their kids always turn out well . . . .
Err - I don't think so.
Spoilt, arrogant brats. With parents who are too busy working to take care of them.
Throwing money at kids does not make them turn out well.
So, if anything - being brought up with far less does kids good - as far too many think money grows on trees!
As for Factors, schtum, you are right to a point, but many people are far less clued up on their factors role, what rights they have and how they go about complaining.
Simply having the time to switch factors, and the inconvenience that causes in the short term is a problem for alot of people.
And, finally - until we have standardised bills for services from factors which are calculated or at least set by the Scottish Parliament - the discrepances and variations will continue to be an unneccessary evil of facors today.
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 1:10pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?.
Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger..
Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?.
Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger..
Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
Posted by: Factor1, Glasgow on 1:16pm Wed 6 Feb 08
If this entire debate (and the subsequent Bill to enforce regulation on factors) narrows to the charging for late payment of debtors' accounts it will be unfortunate. The ultimate result in this case will be very simple - those who do pay their bills on time will be forced to shoulder the costs applicable for those who do not. Alternatively, no maintenance work will be instructed and the property concerned will be degraded to a slum. I would definitely prefer that debtors are pursued directly by whatever means rather than me footing their bills.
The cases mentioned today have clearly been selected for their sensationalist value. Letting the true global picture get in the way of the story clearly is not the way neither the newspaper nor the solicitor quoted operate.
Now, if the debate is broadened to include the transparency of the practice of, for example, charging floats which accrue interest for the factor or the provision of insurances which give the factor a commission, we may be getting somewhere. Next time you contact your factor ask him why he charges you a float and why when you sell your flat you will only (if you are lucky) get the same amount back. Has he kept it in an office drawer all this time? The gentleman from Newton Property Management quoted yesterday advises he factors 4000 properties. Assuming he charges a float, how much of his clients’ money do you think he is holding and earning interest on that his clients will never see - £800K - £1M? Who knows? If he is as keen as he says to have this regulation applied, he will be only to willing to divulge this information.
Do not permit the vested interests to hi-jack this debate or we will all suffer.
If this entire debate (and the subsequent Bill to enforce regulation on factors) narrows to the charging for late payment of debtors' accounts it will be unfortunate. The ultimate result in this case will be very simple - those who do pay their bills on time will be forced to shoulder the costs applicable for those who do not. Alternatively, no maintenance work will be instructed and the property concerned will be degraded to a slum. I would definitely prefer that debtors are pursued directly by whatever means rather than me footing their bills.
The cases mentioned today have clearly been selected for their sensationalist value. Letting the true global picture get in the way of the story clearly is not the way neither the newspaper nor the solicitor quoted operate.
Now, if the debate is broadened to include the transparency of the practice of, for example, charging floats which accrue interest for the factor or the provision of insurances which give the factor a commission, we may be getting somewhere. Next time you contact your factor ask him why he charges you a float and why when you sell your flat you will only (if you are lucky) get the same amount back. Has he kept it in an office drawer all this time? The gentleman from Newton Property Management quoted yesterday advises he factors 4000 properties. Assuming he charges a float, how much of his clients’ money do you think he is holding and earning interest on that his clients will never see - £800K - £1M? Who knows? If he is as keen as he says to have this regulation applied, he will be only to willing to divulge this information.
Do not permit the vested interests to hi-jack this debate or we will all suffer.
Posted by: daz, glasgow on 1:17pm Wed 6 Feb 08
biffo
aye cos people don't get electrocuted whilst changing light bulbs do they? quick search of the media will highlight numerous cases.
betcha feel a right plonker now.....
biffo
aye cos people don't get electrocuted whilst changing light bulbs do they? quick search of the media will highlight numerous cases.
betcha feel a right plonker now.....
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 1:21pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]glamkitty[/bold] wrote:
My building self-factors. We have an account we contribute to monthly, and when work needs doing, we all meet up to discuss and agree it. Very rarely do we have to add anything to the existing account to cover the work. It works perfectly for us, I dont know why more people dont do it. The only problem we actually have ever had, is that one flat is rented out of the eight, and the landlord keeps refusing to pay, saying the work 'isnt necessary'. Youll be amazed to hear, he is a partner in one of the city's largest property management/factoring firms. [/quote]
In response to Factor1's gobbledeegook, and guff,
I quote Glamkittys earlier post which for once, I actually agree with!
Why not have people being more pro-active, and being their own factors - cut out the middle man, and stop this ridiculous overcharging.
People have enough worries, and things to spend their money on - without the crap of such exorbitant Facors bills.
glamkitty wrote:
My building self-factors. We have an account we contribute to monthly, and when work needs doing, we all meet up to discuss and agree it. Very rarely do we have to add anything to the existing account to cover the work. It works perfectly for us, I dont know why more people dont do it. The only problem we actually have ever had, is that one flat is rented out of the eight, and the landlord keeps refusing to pay, saying the work 'isnt necessary'. Youll be amazed to hear, he is a partner in one of the city's largest property management/factoring firms.
In response to Factor1's gobbledeegook, and guff,
I quote Glamkittys earlier post which for once, I actually agree with!
Why not have people being more pro-active, and being their own factors - cut out the middle man, and stop this ridiculous overcharging.
People have enough worries, and things to spend their money on - without the crap of such exorbitant Facors bills.
Posted by: Schtum, Glasgow on 1:33pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Why not have people being more pro-active, and being their own factors - cut out the middle man, and stop this ridiculous overcharging.
People have enough worries, and things to spend their money on - without the crap of such exorbitant Factors bills.[/quote] Because people are inherently lazy...
And there will always be people who do not want to contribute for the common good.
Whilst I admire your optimism, I can't really agree with your position.
Far, far better to find a trustworthy factor who recognises that they are working FOR you than for themselves.
Why not have people being more pro-active, and being their own factors - cut out the middle man, and stop this ridiculous overcharging.
People have enough worries, and things to spend their money on - without the crap of such exorbitant Factors bills.
Because people are inherently lazy...
And there will always be people who do not want to contribute for the common good.
Whilst I admire your optimism, I can't really agree with your position.
Far, far better to find a trustworthy factor who recognises that they are working FOR you than for themselves.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 1:37pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Sadly Schtum,
These are one a penny! And few and far between.
Just, as with our distrustworthy Politiciansm What they say and what they do are two different things.
And, I am still of the belief that until they are given far stricter codes of conduct and pricing structures, from our MSP's which they all must adhere to they will continue to be no more than a bunch of cowboys and rip off merchants!
Factors = Con Artists = FACT!
Sadly Schtum,
These are one a penny! And few and far between.
Just, as with our distrustworthy Politiciansm What they say and what they do are two different things.
And, I am still of the belief that until they are given far stricter codes of conduct and pricing structures, from our MSP's which they all must adhere to they will continue to be no more than a bunch of cowboys and rip off merchants!
Factors = Con Artists = FACT!
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 1:38pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Despite your thoughts on Factors (and mine are unprintable, as I used to be factored by GHA... idiots), this guy has been sitting on this issue for years. This guy seems to ignored the debt and hoped that it would go away. I don't agree with the factor's charging policy but this guy hasn't helped. I'm sure that the advice of Govan Law Centre - regradles sof how debt has been accrued - would be to stand up to your position and be proactive in dealing with your debt.
Despite your thoughts on Factors (and mine are unprintable, as I used to be factored by GHA... idiots), this guy has been sitting on this issue for years. This guy seems to ignored the debt and hoped that it would go away. I don't agree with the factor's charging policy but this guy hasn't helped. I'm sure that the advice of Govan Law Centre - regradles sof how debt has been accrued - would be to stand up to your position and be proactive in dealing with your debt.
Posted by: Schtum, Glasgow on 1:52pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]And, I am still of the belief that until they are given far stricter codes of conduct and pricing structures, from our MSP's which they all must adhere to they will continue to be no more than a bunch of cowboys and rip off merchants![/quote]I think that we can both agree there...
Although I would prefer to use "chancers". ;-)
And they'll continue to get away with as much as they can until someone takes the time to challenge them as an industry and not on a one to one, case by case basis.
I'm kind of draw to the Rate Your Factor concept... Their website is a bit amateurish, but the idea has merit.
A league table of top and bottom performers to inform the public at large.
And, I am still of the belief that until they are given far stricter codes of conduct and pricing structures, from our MSP's which they all must adhere to they will continue to be no more than a bunch of cowboys and rip off merchants!
I think that we can both agree there...
Although I would prefer to use "chancers". ;-)
And they'll continue to get away with as much as they can until someone takes the time to challenge them as an industry and not on a one to one, case by case basis.
I'm kind of draw to the Rate Your Factor concept... Their website is a bit amateurish, but the idea has merit.
A league table of top and bottom performers to inform the public at large.
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 1:59pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]mikedailly[/bold] wrote:
[Far, far better to find a trustworthy factor who recognises that they are working FOR you than for themselves.] This is all well and good, if the YOU in question are paying your accounts and funding necessary works, and even if YOU do, what if the fellow who lets the 2 bedroom flat upstairs to 6 students is not paying his share. Do you accept the additional cost of covering the defaulting owners share, or complain that your lazy factor will not do the work you need done, or sympathise if that same individual gets sued to protect both your property and (obviously) the financial position of the “greedy” factor. [/quote] Is this a hypothetical point, or the detail missing from this story?
Always easier for ET to draw on the emotive rather than all that awkward fact stuff that needs to be researched.
mikedailly wrote:
This is all well and good, if the YOU in question are paying your accounts and funding necessary works, and even if YOU do, what if the fellow who lets the 2 bedroom flat upstairs to 6 students is not paying his share. Do you accept the additional cost of covering the defaulting owners share, or complain that your lazy factor will not do the work you need done, or sympathise if that same individual gets sued to protect both your property and (obviously) the financial position of the “greedy” factor.
Is this a hypothetical point, or the detail missing from this story?
Always easier for ET to draw on the emotive rather than all that awkward fact stuff that needs to be researched.
Posted by: Captain Sensible, Glasgow on 2:01pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Factor1 I'm watching this debate with interest and I agree with your points about the Factor going after just the people who owe money rather than asking you to pay for them.
However you seem misinformed about the purpose of the Factors Float. Having looked at this in detail before, I understand the purpose of the float to be a working cash fund which is used to pay for repairs and it replaces a system of being charged an `estimated bill` in advance.
The float is therefore not a deposit as such.
The majority of Factors charge accounts in arrears and as such you will only be billed for actual repairs incurred. It is therefore unfair to assume that the Factor would be getting interest on Floats as this is not their purpose. They are there to be spent by the Factor and topped back up once you ( hopefully ) when you pay your bill.
Hope thats of interest!!!
Factor1 I'm watching this debate with interest and I agree with your points about the Factor going after just the people who owe money rather than asking you to pay for them.
However you seem misinformed about the purpose of the Factors Float. Having looked at this in detail before, I understand the purpose of the float to be a working cash fund which is used to pay for repairs and it replaces a system of being charged an `estimated bill` in advance.
The float is therefore not a deposit as such.
The majority of Factors charge accounts in arrears and as such you will only be billed for actual repairs incurred. It is therefore unfair to assume that the Factor would be getting interest on Floats as this is not their purpose. They are there to be spent by the Factor and topped back up once you ( hopefully ) when you pay your bill.
Hope thats of interest!!!
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 2:04pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float.[/quote]
My factor takes a £50 float and while I would prefer not to have to pay it I wouldn't describe it as "substantial"
Walker Sandford have a horrendous reputation - there were other cases highlighted on the BBC programme a few weeks ago. The scale of the charges that they are adding are outrageous.
In certain situations factors are a necessary evil. Self-factoring is obviously a far preferable option for a tenement close where [bold]all[/bold] the owners are reasonable people and happy to pay their share of necessary maintenace. For large developments (especially with communal gardens) and even more especially with a significant proportion of flats that are permanently rented out, it's not an option.
I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float.
My factor takes a £50 float and while I would prefer not to have to pay it I wouldn't describe it as "substantial"
Walker Sandford have a horrendous reputation - there were other cases highlighted on the BBC programme a few weeks ago. The scale of the charges that they are adding are outrageous.
In certain situations factors are a necessary evil. Self-factoring is obviously a far preferable option for a tenement close where
all the owners are reasonable people and happy to pay their share of necessary maintenace. For large developments (especially with communal gardens) and even more especially with a significant proportion of flats that are permanently rented out, it's not an option.
Posted by: Mr Angry, Glasgow on 2:05pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Factor1[/bold] wrote:
If this entire debate (and the subsequent Bill to enforce regulation on factors) narrows to the charging for late payment of debtors' accounts it will be unfortunate. The ultimate result in this case will be very simple - those who do pay their bills on time will be forced to shoulder the costs applicable for those who do not. Alternatively, no maintenance work will be instructed and the property concerned will be degraded to a slum. I would definitely prefer that debtors are pursued directly by whatever means rather than me footing their bills. The cases mentioned today have clearly been selected for their sensationalist value. Letting the true global picture get in the way of the story clearly is not the way neither the newspaper nor the solicitor quoted operate. Now, if the debate is broadened to include the transparency of the practice of, for example, charging floats which accrue interest for the factor or the provision of insurances which give the factor a commission, we may be getting somewhere. Next time you contact your factor ask him why he charges you a float and why when you sell your flat you will only (if you are lucky) get the same amount back. Has he kept it in an office drawer all this time? The gentleman from Newton Property Management quoted yesterday advises he factors 4000 properties. Assuming he charges a float, how much of his clients’ money do you think he is holding and earning interest on that his clients will never see - £800K - £1M? Who knows? If he is as keen as he says to have this regulation applied, he will be only to willing to divulge this information. Do not permit the vested interests to hi-jack this debate or we will all suffer. [/quote] "vested interests", "hi-jack this debate"....
So, in the biggest incident I have with my factor when they wanted £220 for a job that cost £110 when I arranged it myself. Is this good practise or just another day at the office for you?
Most people accept the fact that a Factor assist in getting everyone to pay, but there are too many instances of when the factor overcharges. The case I point out isn't the only one I have but its the biggest in terms of cash value. When I challenged the factor on it they stated that this was the cheapest quote they received. As far as they were concerned the matter ended there - discussion over. That was their story and they were sticking to it...
Should I have charged the factor £110 for arranging this repair myself? Or am I just oversensitive in thinking that if a job costs £110 then maybe thats what I should be paying?
Factor1 wrote:
If this entire debate (and the subsequent Bill to enforce regulation on factors) narrows to the charging for late payment of debtors' accounts it will be unfortunate. The ultimate result in this case will be very simple - those who do pay their bills on time will be forced to shoulder the costs applicable for those who do not. Alternatively, no maintenance work will be instructed and the property concerned will be degraded to a slum. I would definitely prefer that debtors are pursued directly by whatever means rather than me footing their bills. The cases mentioned today have clearly been selected for their sensationalist value. Letting the true global picture get in the way of the story clearly is not the way neither the newspaper nor the solicitor quoted operate. Now, if the debate is broadened to include the transparency of the practice of, for example, charging floats which accrue interest for the factor or the provision of insurances which give the factor a commission, we may be getting somewhere. Next time you contact your factor ask him why he charges you a float and why when you sell your flat you will only (if you are lucky) get the same amount back. Has he kept it in an office drawer all this time? The gentleman from Newton Property Management quoted yesterday advises he factors 4000 properties. Assuming he charges a float, how much of his clients’ money do you think he is holding and earning interest on that his clients will never see - £800K - £1M? Who knows? If he is as keen as he says to have this regulation applied, he will be only to willing to divulge this information. Do not permit the vested interests to hi-jack this debate or we will all suffer.
"vested interests", "hi-jack this debate"....
So, in the biggest incident I have with my factor when they wanted £220 for a job that cost £110 when I arranged it myself. Is this good practise or just another day at the office for you?
Most people accept the fact that a Factor assist in getting everyone to pay, but there are too many instances of when the factor overcharges. The case I point out isn't the only one I have but its the biggest in terms of cash value. When I challenged the factor on it they stated that this was the cheapest quote they received. As far as they were concerned the matter ended there - discussion over. That was their story and they were sticking to it...
Should I have charged the factor £110 for arranging this repair myself? Or am I just oversensitive in thinking that if a job costs £110 then maybe thats what I should be paying?
Posted by: cowantona, glasgow on 2:11pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Luke Watson[/bold] wrote:
With regards the above owners at properties, I regalarly make payments towards my bill and I don't receive any late payment charges and or the interst charges on my account. It seems that only defaulting owners that do not pay their bills have the admin charges applied. I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float. The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.[/quote] Some people obviously don't pay bills. In my case I was charged additional money after paying the bill in full. I hadn't defaulted on anything and now face a bill of £1600, which is all admin/interest etc. They even refuse to accept my mgt fees as an excuse to apply even more charges. So its not just defaulters.
Luke Watson wrote:
With regards the above owners at properties, I regalarly make payments towards my bill and I don't receive any late payment charges and or the interst charges on my account. It seems that only defaulting owners that do not pay their bills have the admin charges applied. I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float. The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.
Some people obviously don't pay bills. In my case I was charged additional money after paying the bill in full. I hadn't defaulted on anything and now face a bill of £1600, which is all admin/interest etc. They even refuse to accept my mgt fees as an excuse to apply even more charges. So its not just defaulters.
Posted by: Factor1, Glasgow on 2:27pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Captain Sensible[/bold] wrote:
Factor1 I'm watching this debate with interest and I agree with your points about the Factor going after just the people who owe money rather than asking you to pay for them. However you seem misinformed about the purpose of the Factors Float. Having looked at this in detail before, I understand the purpose of the float to be a working cash fund which is used to pay for repairs and it replaces a system of being charged an `estimated bill` in advance. The float is therefore not a deposit as such. The majority of Factors charge accounts in arrears and as such you will only be billed for actual repairs incurred. It is therefore unfair to assume that the Factor would be getting interest on Floats as this is not their purpose. They are there to be spent by the Factor and topped back up once you ( hopefully ) when you pay your bill. Hope thats of interest!!![/quote] Whatever purpose you think the float is supposed to serve, I suggest you are being naïve if you think the factor is not earning interest on a substantial sum of money.
Captain Sensible wrote:
Factor1 I'm watching this debate with interest and I agree with your points about the Factor going after just the people who owe money rather than asking you to pay for them. However you seem misinformed about the purpose of the Factors Float. Having looked at this in detail before, I understand the purpose of the float to be a working cash fund which is used to pay for repairs and it replaces a system of being charged an `estimated bill` in advance. The float is therefore not a deposit as such. The majority of Factors charge accounts in arrears and as such you will only be billed for actual repairs incurred. It is therefore unfair to assume that the Factor would be getting interest on Floats as this is not their purpose. They are there to be spent by the Factor and topped back up once you ( hopefully ) when you pay your bill. Hope thats of interest!!!
Whatever purpose you think the float is supposed to serve, I suggest you are being naïve if you think the factor is not earning interest on a substantial sum of money.
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 2:32pm Wed 6 Feb 08
I queried a bill with Walker Sandford so didn't pay it- it turned out THEY had made a mistake. They didn't respond to queries, just piled on penalty charges and interest. Every time I tried to speak their staff they were rude, unhelpful and boorish - defnitely a bully-boy operation. We threw them out and now have a great firm who work WITH us, not against us. Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories. It's not all bad - it's just that the bad ones are truly awful.
I queried a bill with Walker Sandford so didn't pay it- it turned out THEY had made a mistake. They didn't respond to queries, just piled on penalty charges and interest. Every time I tried to speak their staff they were rude, unhelpful and boorish - defnitely a bully-boy operation. We threw them out and now have a great firm who work WITH us, not against us. Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories. It's not all bad - it's just that the bad ones are truly awful.
Posted by: Captain Sensible, Glasgow on 2:36pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Hi Factor 1,
Interest may well be earned by the Factor on float money, however dont you think that the Factor looses an equal amount of interest on money that he is always using to pay out for repairs?
Our Factor has explained that the Float he holds is roughly equal to one quarter of the annual charges and he bills four times a year.
Do the maths!!
Hope thats of interest!!
Hi Factor 1,
Interest may well be earned by the Factor on float money, however dont you think that the Factor looses an equal amount of interest on money that he is always using to pay out for repairs?
Our Factor has explained that the Float he holds is roughly equal to one quarter of the annual charges and he bills four times a year.
Do the maths!!
Hope thats of interest!!
Posted by: wattaj, Glasgow on 2:41pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories.[/quote]Emmm...
Might I make so bold as to suggest... [bold]www.RateYourFactor.c
o.uk[/bold]
Totally shameless plug. 8-)
Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories.
Emmm...
Might I make so bold as to suggest...
www.RateYourFactor.c
o.uk
Totally shameless plug. 8-)
Posted by: wattaj, Glasgow on 2:44pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]A league table of top and bottom performers to inform the public at large.[/quote]Thanks for your support Schtum.
We're working on it and will try to get enough information to put something like this together.
A league table of top and bottom performers to inform the public at large.
Thanks for your support Schtum.
We're working on it and will try to get enough information to put something like this together.
Posted by: Factor1, Glasgow on 2:59pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Captain Sensible[/bold] wrote:
Hi Factor 1, Interest may well be earned by the Factor on float money, however dont you think that the Factor looses an equal amount of interest on money that he is always using to pay out for repairs? Our Factor has explained that the Float he holds is roughly equal to one quarter of the annual charges and he bills four times a year. Do the maths!! Hope thats of interest!![/quote] We will agree to differ on this one.
However, unless the ‘hidden income’(interest on floats, commissions, kickbacks etc.) generated by factors is fully exposed as part of the proposed regulation I can assure you the result will not be beneficial to the average proprietor.
Captain Sensible wrote:
Hi Factor 1, Interest may well be earned by the Factor on float money, however dont you think that the Factor looses an equal amount of interest on money that he is always using to pay out for repairs? Our Factor has explained that the Float he holds is roughly equal to one quarter of the annual charges and he bills four times a year. Do the maths!! Hope thats of interest!!
We will agree to differ on this one.
However, unless the ‘hidden income’(interest on floats, commissions, kickbacks etc.) generated by factors is fully exposed as part of the proposed regulation I can assure you the result will not be beneficial to the average proprietor.
Posted by: Lowflo, Glasgow on 3:26pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Factors! Today, my aunt, who is housebound is trying to get someone to assist her. There is water leaking into my Aunt's Bathroom from upstairs. Again! The Block insurance, via GHA is already invoked because this leakage of water was first noticed started in October last year. Since then the upstairs neighbour has apparently had a plumber out who charged her £100 and who told her there was nothing wrong. The facctors GHA say it is nothing to do with them as they are no longer council tenants. However today, my Aunt also received the letter from GHA detailing the compulsory repairs which they are going to force on the ex Council Tenants. What is the point of these expensive (needless) maintenance if the inside of the building is falling down and the insurance and the Factors wont do anything to help. [bold]Why pay them any money at all? The suggestion has been made that my Aunt gets her own Plumber ! What For? he'd need to break into someone else's property.[/bold]
Factors! Today, my aunt, who is housebound is trying to get someone to assist her. There is water leaking into my Aunt's Bathroom from upstairs. Again! The Block insurance, via GHA is already invoked because this leakage of water was first noticed started in October last year. Since then the upstairs neighbour has apparently had a plumber out who charged her £100 and who told her there was nothing wrong. The facctors GHA say it is nothing to do with them as they are no longer council tenants. However today, my Aunt also received the letter from GHA detailing the compulsory repairs which they are going to force on the ex Council Tenants. What is the point of these expensive (needless) maintenance if the inside of the building is falling down and the insurance and the Factors wont do anything to help.
Why pay them any money at all? The suggestion has been made that my Aunt gets her own Plumber ! What For? he'd need to break into someone else's property. Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 3:40pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]wattaj[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories.[/quote]Emmm... Might I make so bold as to suggest... [bold]www.RateYourFactor.c o.uk[/bold] Totally shameless plug. 8-) [/quote] Thanks wattaj - very difficult to register. I've got stuck! But a very good idea though if it can be made easier to use!
wattaj wrote:
Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories.
Emmm... Might I make so bold as to suggest... www.RateYourFactor.c o.uk Totally shameless plug. 8-)
Thanks wattaj - very difficult to register. I've got stuck! But a very good idea though if it can be made easier to use!
Posted by: wattaj, Glasgow on 3:50pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Very difficult to register. I've got stuck![/quote]Sorry Southsider... We realise that registration is an issue and we're working on making this easier.
Could you email "[bold]factor@rateyourfacto
r.co.uk[/bold] " with the difficulties that you've had?
Cheers.
Very difficult to register. I've got stuck!
Sorry Southsider... We realise that registration is an issue and we're working on making this easier.
Could you email "
factor@rateyourfacto
r.co.uk " with the difficulties that you've had?
Cheers.
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 4:01pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote:
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Biffo the bear wrote:
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Posted by: uncle ben, glasgow on 4:12pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Every customer of a factor should please note that they cannot charge an unreasonable amount for administration or service fees etc, on top of the repair bill. This is unlawful and any "fee" should be fully transparent and reflect the factors actual costs. Note that this is a similar principle to Bank Charge penalties which are currently the subject of a High Court Test Case.
The impact of the unlawful administration charges on top of possibly inflated repair costs when combined with added compound interest charges is not legally sustainable and need not be paid, assuming you challenge it.
Every customer of a factor should please note that they cannot charge an unreasonable amount for administration or service fees etc, on top of the repair bill. This is unlawful and any "fee" should be fully transparent and reflect the factors actual costs. Note that this is a similar principle to Bank Charge penalties which are currently the subject of a High Court Test Case.
The impact of the unlawful administration charges on top of possibly inflated repair costs when combined with added compound interest charges is not legally sustainable and need not be paid, assuming you challenge it.
Posted by: uncle ben, glasgow on 4:18pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Lowflo
Convene a close meeting and if you have a majority of owners who want change, then you can switch factors. That way, it is possible to ditch GHA, particularly in cottage types and tenements.
Due notice must be given of the intention to hold the meeting and the proper procedures must be followed, but it is easy to do!! What are you waiting for!! Good Luck!!
Lowflo
Convene a close meeting and if you have a majority of owners who want change, then you can switch factors. That way, it is possible to ditch GHA, particularly in cottage types and tenements.
Due notice must be given of the intention to hold the meeting and the proper procedures must be followed, but it is easy to do!! What are you waiting for!! Good Luck!!
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 4:18pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.[/quote] Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors.
As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear.
As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
stephensimmons wrote:
Biffo the bear wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors.
As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear.
As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 4:36pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Greenie - so everyone who does not agree with the article are factors or work for factors? I agree a handyman would be an ideal solution but I would imagine that they would not respond to a call to change a lightbulb without charging hourly rate, call out fee, materials etc unless they actually lived on the estate. I doubt that either a handyman would do this or that the price would be much different to a trade.
I agree that the practice mentioned in the article is deplorable and would not in any way agree with it. While i agree the ET should highlight such matters I dont think that balanced reporting should be thrown out of the window.
Greenie - so everyone who does not agree with the article are factors or work for factors? I agree a handyman would be an ideal solution but I would imagine that they would not respond to a call to change a lightbulb without charging hourly rate, call out fee, materials etc unless they actually lived on the estate. I doubt that either a handyman would do this or that the price would be much different to a trade.
I agree that the practice mentioned in the article is deplorable and would not in any way agree with it. While i agree the ET should highlight such matters I dont think that balanced reporting should be thrown out of the window.
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 4:36pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]greenie[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.[/quote] Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors.
As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear.
As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
[/quote] Oh Stephen yah dobber,yes thats right DOBBER.I stoop to this language because you obviously fail to understand why people are angry at certain factors & the charges that they levy.
It takes 2mins to change a light-bulb ergo £44 is to much, now does that penetrate your pea sized brain?..
Now i excuse me while i call a plumber to remove your head from your ****
greenie wrote:
stephensimmons wrote:
Biffo the bear wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors.
As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear.
As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
Oh Stephen yah dobber,yes thats right DOBBER.I stoop to this language because you obviously fail to understand why people are angry at certain factors & the charges that they levy.
It takes 2mins to change a light-bulb ergo £44 is to much, now does that penetrate your pea sized brain?..
Now i excuse me while i call a plumber to remove your head from your ****
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 4:43pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Biffo - stooping to that language just demeans you and makes you laughable.
1. It takes much less than 2 minutes to change a lightbulb unless, as i expect, you struggle with simple concepts
and
2. You are clearly not a tradesman as no-one i know charges for 2 minutes work. A minimum call out of 1 hour or more is standard practice.
Once again your ignorance betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
Biffo - stooping to that language just demeans you and makes you laughable.
1. It takes much less than 2 minutes to change a lightbulb unless, as i expect, you struggle with simple concepts
and
2. You are clearly not a tradesman as no-one i know charges for 2 minutes work. A minimum call out of 1 hour or more is standard practice.
Once again your ignorance betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 5:00pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Mr Simmons
Why should anyone pay for an hours work if it takes 1 mins? Just because you suggest a one hour charge is 'standard practice' does not make it fair.
If we had someone changing 100 lightbulbs during a day along a couple of streets does that mean they could charge 100 hours work?
Do you see the absurdity of your position?
Mr Simmons
Why should anyone pay for an hours work if it takes 1 mins? Just because you suggest a one hour charge is 'standard practice' does not make it fair.
If we had someone changing 100 lightbulbs during a day along a couple of streets does that mean they could charge 100 hours work?
Do you see the absurdity of your position?
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 5:10pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Greenie,
I welcome your more intelligent standpoint in the debate however again I can see that you have never worked for a trade. What joiner, sparky etc in the world would only charge for the time taken to rectify the item? Are you suggesting that a trade only starts from the moment they turn a screw etc or the time they arrive on site? All trades include call out time in an invoice - this is not standard practice within factoring it is standard practice in ALL INDUSTRIES. Of course someone changing 100 light bulbs would not charge 100 hours - that is absurd - but I am dissapointed that you cannot see that a minimum charge must be applied - if not there would be no point in a trade attending to be paid for 2 minutes work. Again naivety is the problem here.
Greenie,
I welcome your more intelligent standpoint in the debate however again I can see that you have never worked for a trade. What joiner, sparky etc in the world would only charge for the time taken to rectify the item? Are you suggesting that a trade only starts from the moment they turn a screw etc or the time they arrive on site? All trades include call out time in an invoice - this is not standard practice within factoring it is standard practice in ALL INDUSTRIES. Of course someone changing 100 light bulbs would not charge 100 hours - that is absurd - but I am dissapointed that you cannot see that a minimum charge must be applied - if not there would be no point in a trade attending to be paid for 2 minutes work. Again naivety is the problem here.
Posted by: FuffyAnt, glasgow on 5:23pm Wed 6 Feb 08
walker sandford are an absolute disgrace. they are factors for our flat in battlefield and made a mistake with our billing which they promised to sort out. they didn't and continued to apply late payment charges. they are impossible to get hold off, dont respond to phone calls or e-mails. weeks later you get a letter saying any complaint must be made in writing. by this time they have added more late payment charges. are these charges even legal? it's very frustrating - now they want to take us to court when it could have sorted out so much more easily. surely this is a waste of court time. i really hate dealing with these people. they are unscrupulous and act like crooks. i feel now i have to pay as i cant face the prospect of having to pay legal bills if i lose. www.walkersandfordsu
cks.co.uk
walker sandford are an absolute disgrace. they are factors for our flat in battlefield and made a mistake with our billing which they promised to sort out. they didn't and continued to apply late payment charges. they are impossible to get hold off, dont respond to phone calls or e-mails. weeks later you get a letter saying any complaint must be made in writing. by this time they have added more late payment charges. are these charges even legal? it's very frustrating - now they want to take us to court when it could have sorted out so much more easily. surely this is a waste of court time. i really hate dealing with these people. they are unscrupulous and act like crooks. i feel now i have to pay as i cant face the prospect of having to pay legal bills if i lose. www.walkersandfordsu
cks.co.uk
Posted by: Pat Gillaney, Glasgow on 5:58pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Yes Walker Sandford have their problems, but they did not warrant the vicious, one sided attack in the article.
I moved to Walker Sandford from Spiers Parnie, and Walker Sandford are better by far. Spiers Parnie would not accept weekly payments to keep my debt to them down - and when the debt reached £220 they sent sheriff officers, who charged me £113 for each of the three identical court writs, and then court costs and ADMINISTRATION CHARGES which brought the total to £870 - which was then agreed could be paid WEEKLY.
Walker Sandford send you a bill, followed by a Polite Reminder, and then USUALLY start charging the late payment fee. If you call and explain any circumstances that prevented you paying, they will usually sort it out, BUT not it you leave it for six months or a year. In other words, as all the good consumer advice articles tell you, "speak to people and try and sort it out first - don't leave it until it becomes a major problem".
For the most part I have had a good experience of Walker Sandford, probably because I pay my bills and speak to them when I have a probem.
Yes Walker Sandford have their problems, but they did not warrant the vicious, one sided attack in the article.
I moved to Walker Sandford from Spiers Parnie, and Walker Sandford are better by far. Spiers Parnie would not accept weekly payments to keep my debt to them down - and when the debt reached £220 they sent sheriff officers, who charged me £113 for each of the three identical court writs, and then court costs and ADMINISTRATION CHARGES which brought the total to £870 - which was then agreed could be paid WEEKLY.
Walker Sandford send you a bill, followed by a Polite Reminder, and then USUALLY start charging the late payment fee. If you call and explain any circumstances that prevented you paying, they will usually sort it out, BUT not it you leave it for six months or a year. In other words, as all the good consumer advice articles tell you, "speak to people and try and sort it out first - don't leave it until it becomes a major problem".
For the most part I have had a good experience of Walker Sandford, probably because I pay my bills and speak to them when I have a probem.
Posted by: dtb, Glasga on 6:11pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote:
Greenie, I welcome your more intelligent standpoint in the debate however again I can see that you have never worked for a trade. What joiner, sparky etc in the world would only charge for the time taken to rectify the item? Are you suggesting that a trade only starts from the moment they turn a screw etc or the time they arrive on site? All trades include call out time in an invoice - this is not standard practice within factoring it is standard practice in ALL INDUSTRIES. Of course someone changing 100 light bulbs would not charge 100 hours - that is absurd - but I am dissapointed that you cannot see that a minimum charge must be applied - if not there would be no point in a trade attending to be paid for 2 minutes work. Again naivety is the problem here. [/quote] A trade ? changing a lightbulb, mmmmmmmmm, I'll take that trade on any day. It took me four years to gain mine.
Can you think of any job that takes a joiner 20 seconds of work, or a glazier, or for that matter an electrian. Your point defeats itself because the situation is absurd and should never arise, thus the fees are absurd and should never arise.
stephensimmons wrote:
Greenie, I welcome your more intelligent standpoint in the debate however again I can see that you have never worked for a trade. What joiner, sparky etc in the world would only charge for the time taken to rectify the item? Are you suggesting that a trade only starts from the moment they turn a screw etc or the time they arrive on site? All trades include call out time in an invoice - this is not standard practice within factoring it is standard practice in ALL INDUSTRIES. Of course someone changing 100 light bulbs would not charge 100 hours - that is absurd - but I am dissapointed that you cannot see that a minimum charge must be applied - if not there would be no point in a trade attending to be paid for 2 minutes work. Again naivety is the problem here.
A trade ? changing a lightbulb, mmmmmmmmm, I'll take that trade on any day. It took me four years to gain mine.
Can you think of any job that takes a joiner 20 seconds of work, or a glazier, or for that matter an electrian. Your point defeats itself because the situation is absurd and should never arise, thus the fees are absurd and should never arise.
Posted by: tiberious, Glasgow on 6:32pm Wed 6 Feb 08
I am having a bit of trouble with the facts of the matter in this article. Let me explain where my concern lies;
Mr Norman Anderson has the same name as his late father."Mr Anderson's dead father, also called Norman"
Mr Anderson Jnr resides at the property in question. "Mr Anderson, who has lived with his mother - whom he doesn't want named - for most of his life"
According to the factor, the property is registered in the name of Mr Norman Anderson."According to the land registry, Norman Anderson still owns the property"
So...
Bills have been issued, presumably in the name of Norman Anderson, to the address in question.
Is it really reasonable for us to believe that when a piece of correspondence drops through his door, Mr Norman Anderson Jnr knows that in fact that is something addressed to his father, who died some 15 years ago, and is not therefore his responsibility?
I don't know about you, but when I get a bill to my address, in my name, I assume it is for me. Regardless of what my father's name is, or was.
My thinking is simple (I think);
The property actually belongs to Mr Anderson Jnr and in fact, he has been exploiting the fact that his late father shared his name to avoid paying his communal maintenance charges.
Surely, when Mr Anderson Snr passed away, the property title would have passed to Mrs Anderson and would have been recorded in the Land Register. Possibly an admin error on the part of the record keeper?
IF my theory is correct however, then I would say that it is in fact Mr Anderson Jnr's actions that have brought about this current state of affairs and it is in fact he who is to blame for his elderly mother's home, health and possibly even life being put in danger as a result. Not to mention blackening his father's good name in the process.
I am surprised that no one has picked up on these facts before now. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
Just my thoughts on the matter.
I am having a bit of trouble with the facts of the matter in this article. Let me explain where my concern lies;
Mr Norman Anderson has the same name as his late father."Mr Anderson's dead father, also called Norman"
Mr Anderson Jnr resides at the property in question. "Mr Anderson, who has lived with his mother - whom he doesn't want named - for most of his life"
According to the factor, the property is registered in the name of Mr Norman Anderson."According to the land registry, Norman Anderson still owns the property"
So...
Bills have been issued, presumably in the name of Norman Anderson, to the address in question.
Is it really reasonable for us to believe that when a piece of correspondence drops through his door, Mr Norman Anderson Jnr knows that in fact that is something addressed to his father, who died some 15 years ago, and is not therefore his responsibility?
I don't know about you, but when I get a bill to my address, in my name, I assume it is for me. Regardless of what my father's name is, or was.
My thinking is simple (I think);
The property actually belongs to Mr Anderson Jnr and in fact, he has been exploiting the fact that his late father shared his name to avoid paying his communal maintenance charges.
Surely, when Mr Anderson Snr passed away, the property title would have passed to Mrs Anderson and would have been recorded in the Land Register. Possibly an admin error on the part of the record keeper?
IF my theory is correct however, then I would say that it is in fact Mr Anderson Jnr's actions that have brought about this current state of affairs and it is in fact he who is to blame for his elderly mother's home, health and possibly even life being put in danger as a result. Not to mention blackening his father's good name in the process.
I am surprised that no one has picked up on these facts before now. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 6:38pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Pat Gillaney[/bold] wrote:
Yes Walker Sandford have their problems, but they did not warrant the vicious, one sided attack in the article. I moved to Walker Sandford from Spiers Parnie, and Walker Sandford are better by far. Spiers Parnie would not accept weekly payments to keep my debt to them down - and when the debt reached £220 they sent sheriff officers, who charged me £113 for each of the three identical court writs, and then court costs and ADMINISTRATION CHARGES which brought the total to £870 - which was then agreed could be paid WEEKLY. Walker Sandford send you a bill, followed by a Polite Reminder, and then USUALLY start charging the late payment fee. If you call and explain any circumstances that prevented you paying, they will usually sort it out, BUT not it you leave it for six months or a year. In other words, as all the good consumer advice articles tell you, "speak to people and try and sort it out first - don't leave it until it becomes a major problem". For the most part I have had a good experience of Walker Sandford, probably because I pay my bills and speak to them when I have a probem. [/quote] Yes, it's another post from Scotland's worst factor?
Has anyone noticed Scotland's 'bullying factor' has been posting for the last couple of days under various names.
Vicious attack? Trying to make a 83 year old women bankrupt and homeless because you apply penalty charges every single week and rip-off interest for no service to anyone other than yourself is vicious and cruel.
Pat (or is it Paul or the chubby wee assistant) look, you cannot fine people every week because it enables you to make a huge profit. What other factor does this? None?
Mr Anderson's reference to parasites is too good a description for your outfit.
Maybe you have acted unlawfully, and maybe you need to pay back hundreds of thousands of pounds + interest to Glaswegians. No doubt the courts will decide in due course.
Pat Gillaney wrote:
Yes Walker Sandford have their problems, but they did not warrant the vicious, one sided attack in the article. I moved to Walker Sandford from Spiers Parnie, and Walker Sandford are better by far. Spiers Parnie would not accept weekly payments to keep my debt to them down - and when the debt reached £220 they sent sheriff officers, who charged me £113 for each of the three identical court writs, and then court costs and ADMINISTRATION CHARGES which brought the total to £870 - which was then agreed could be paid WEEKLY. Walker Sandford send you a bill, followed by a Polite Reminder, and then USUALLY start charging the late payment fee. If you call and explain any circumstances that prevented you paying, they will usually sort it out, BUT not it you leave it for six months or a year. In other words, as all the good consumer advice articles tell you, "speak to people and try and sort it out first - don't leave it until it becomes a major problem". For the most part I have had a good experience of Walker Sandford, probably because I pay my bills and speak to them when I have a probem.
Yes, it's another post from Scotland's worst factor?
Has anyone noticed Scotland's 'bullying factor' has been posting for the last couple of days under various names.
Vicious attack? Trying to make a 83 year old women bankrupt and homeless because you apply penalty charges every single week and rip-off interest for no service to anyone other than yourself is vicious and cruel.
Pat (or is it Paul or the chubby wee assistant) look, you cannot fine people every week because it enables you to make a huge profit. What other factor does this? None?
Mr Anderson's reference to parasites is too good a description for your outfit.
Maybe you have acted unlawfully, and maybe you need to pay back hundreds of thousands of pounds + interest to Glaswegians. No doubt the courts will decide in due course.
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 6:44pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote:
Biffo - stooping to that language just demeans you and makes you laughable.
1. It takes much less than 2 minutes to change a lightbulb unless, as i expect, you struggle with simple concepts
and
2. You are clearly not a tradesman as no-one i know charges for 2 minutes work. A minimum call out of 1 hour or more is standard practice.
Once again your ignorance betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.[/quote] Okay a joke is a joke but this is going to far..
Someone is posting on this site & using my screen name do so.
Firstly i have been away walking over the last 4 days on Rannoch Moor & secondly i am a time served electrician (though no longer work in the trade) so i know exactly when the charges start..
I also know that the HSE would have a field day if a factor sent out an unqualified body to carry out any works required.
The person who is imitating me can carry on doing so as i will be using a different screen name from now on..
stephensimmons wrote:
Biffo - stooping to that language just demeans you and makes you laughable.
1. It takes much less than 2 minutes to change a lightbulb unless, as i expect, you struggle with simple concepts
and
2. You are clearly not a tradesman as no-one i know charges for 2 minutes work. A minimum call out of 1 hour or more is standard practice.
Once again your ignorance betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
Okay a joke is a joke but this is going to far..
Someone is posting on this site & using my screen name do so.
Firstly i have been away walking over the last 4 days on Rannoch Moor & secondly i am a time served electrician (though no longer work in the trade) so i know exactly when the charges start..
I also know that the HSE would have a field day if a factor sent out an unqualified body to carry out any works required.
The person who is imitating me can carry on doing so as i will be using a different screen name from now on..
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 6:45pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote:
Biffo - stooping to that language just demeans you and makes you laughable.
1. It takes much less than 2 minutes to change a lightbulb unless, as i expect, you struggle with simple concepts
and
2. You are clearly not a tradesman as no-one i know charges for 2 minutes work. A minimum call out of 1 hour or more is standard practice.
Once again your ignorance betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.[/quote] Okay a joke is a joke but this is going to far..
Someone is posting on this site & using my screen name do so.
Firstly i have been away walking over the last 4 days on Rannoch Moor & secondly i am a time served electrician (though no longer work in the trade) so i know exactly when the charges start..
I also know that the HSE would have a field day if a factor sent out an unqualified body to carry out any works required.
The person who is imitating me can carry on doing so as i will be using a different screen name from now on..
stephensimmons wrote:
Biffo - stooping to that language just demeans you and makes you laughable.
1. It takes much less than 2 minutes to change a lightbulb unless, as i expect, you struggle with simple concepts
and
2. You are clearly not a tradesman as no-one i know charges for 2 minutes work. A minimum call out of 1 hour or more is standard practice.
Once again your ignorance betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
Okay a joke is a joke but this is going to far..
Someone is posting on this site & using my screen name do so.
Firstly i have been away walking over the last 4 days on Rannoch Moor & secondly i am a time served electrician (though no longer work in the trade) so i know exactly when the charges start..
I also know that the HSE would have a field day if a factor sent out an unqualified body to carry out any works required.
The person who is imitating me can carry on doing so as i will be using a different screen name from now on..
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 6:54pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Changing a bulb is not the job of an electrician. You may need some training in how to climb a ladder, unscrew a bulb, and stick in a new one, but those actions do not - repeat do not - require a time served sparkie. Is there a rule or law that says otherwise?
It can be done by a maintenance worker or handyperson. The HSE does not stipulate a time served sparkie for a menial task, so can we please close this issue down, and appreciate those factors that charge £44 or £100 to change a bulb are simply at it.
You can't defend the indefensible - unless you're a dodgy Glasgow factor.
Changing a bulb is not the job of an electrician. You may need some training in how to climb a ladder, unscrew a bulb, and stick in a new one, but those actions do not - repeat do not - require a time served sparkie. Is there a rule or law that says otherwise?
It can be done by a maintenance worker or handyperson. The HSE does not stipulate a time served sparkie for a menial task, so can we please close this issue down, and appreciate those factors that charge £44 or £100 to change a bulb are simply at it.
You can't defend the indefensible - unless you're a dodgy Glasgow factor.
Posted by: bubbleman, london on 7:04pm Wed 6 Feb 08
The best Factor is the X Factor.
The best Factor is the X Factor.
Posted by: daz, glasgow on 7:59pm Wed 6 Feb 08
greenie?!?!?!
so who would you call in the yellow pages to change a light bulb? a chef? a lorry driver? a brain surgeon???
greenie?!?!?!
so who would you call in the yellow pages to change a light bulb? a chef? a lorry driver? a brain surgeon???
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 8:16pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Paul/sidekick - not your firm pal.
A handyman. Housing associations train and employ maintenance officers, of varying skills. But some private factor companies are incapable of thinking about these issues as they are too busy suing their customers for scam charges and such like. They have long since forgotten what service means.
They have become leeches on Glaswegians, folk who have sunk so low they could crawl under the belly of a snake wearing two top hats.
It's fantastic the Evening Times has exposed these dodgy and shocking parasites.
Thanks ET.
Paul/sidekick - not your firm pal.
A handyman. Housing associations train and employ maintenance officers, of varying skills. But some private factor companies are incapable of thinking about these issues as they are too busy suing their customers for scam charges and such like. They have long since forgotten what service means.
They have become leeches on Glaswegians, folk who have sunk so low they could crawl under the belly of a snake wearing two top hats.
It's fantastic the Evening Times has exposed these dodgy and shocking parasites.
Thanks ET.
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 8:22pm Wed 6 Feb 08
The reason it costs £44 to change a lightbulb is because Factors flourish in the presence of idle owners who can't be bothered to become self-factored. Or they are self-factored but the owners can't be arsed to do anything to keep the property in good condition.
Don't get rose-tinted specs about self-factoring - My self-factored tenement is full of adults who believe that the stairs need a damned good mop, the back-court and bins are overdue a sweep-out and the stair lightbulbs changed and they are all prepared to wait as long as it takes for someone to do it, other than themselves.
If something requires a repair, they are quite prepared to spend more energy whining about it than picking up the phone and arranging for quotes.
And while Factors are unpopular for adding on interest and charging for payment reminders on arrears, my experience of chairing an Owners Association is that there are always tight morons who won't shell out the paltry sum to pay for self-factoring. So while I am no fan of Factors, I see why they need to wield the stick.
Our fund has considerable experience of a large minority of owners who persistently avoid paying a tenner a month to cover the cleaning and maintenance and are extremely hostile to deal with.
The reason it costs £44 to change a lightbulb is because Factors flourish in the presence of idle owners who can't be bothered to become self-factored. Or they are self-factored but the owners can't be arsed to do anything to keep the property in good condition.
Don't get rose-tinted specs about self-factoring - My self-factored tenement is full of adults who believe that the stairs need a damned good mop, the back-court and bins are overdue a sweep-out and the stair lightbulbs changed and they are all prepared to wait as long as it takes for someone to do it, other than themselves.
If something requires a repair, they are quite prepared to spend more energy whining about it than picking up the phone and arranging for quotes.
And while Factors are unpopular for adding on interest and charging for payment reminders on arrears, my experience of chairing an Owners Association is that there are always tight morons who won't shell out the paltry sum to pay for self-factoring. So while I am no fan of Factors, I see why they need to wield the stick.
Our fund has considerable experience of a large minority of owners who persistently avoid paying a tenner a month to cover the cleaning and maintenance and are extremely hostile to deal with.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 8:23pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]bubbleman[/bold] wrote:
The best Factor is the X Factor.[/quote]
And even it is codswallop! Manufactured pop is always a flop!
Prefer Factor 8 Suntan lotion myself.....
Roll on summer - this winter weather is depressing!
bubbleman wrote:
The best Factor is the X Factor.
And even it is codswallop! Manufactured pop is always a flop!
Prefer Factor 8 Suntan lotion myself.....
Roll on summer - this winter weather is depressing!
Posted by: rocket, glasgow on 8:23pm Wed 6 Feb 08
i have a friend who was flooded 16 months ago and is still waiting on the landlord 2 fix her ceiling(she's top flat and it was roof of buildin g that caused problem)if she with holds her payment of £520 pcm,do u think he will be quick in fixing it?
i have a friend who was flooded 16 months ago and is still waiting on the landlord 2 fix her ceiling(she's top flat and it was roof of buildin g that caused problem)if she with holds her payment of £520 pcm,do u think he will be quick in fixing it?
Posted by: Luke Watson, Glasgow on 8:29pm Wed 6 Feb 08
It seems that any positive comments with regards factors are lies (greenie) or the comment made by that person works for or is a factor.
There are some clients that never have problems with their factors by simply keeping up to date with their factoring bills. It is a service provided by a company which you have to make payment towards.
Don't get me wrong there are some cases where factoring companies take the mick out of clients and until this changes there will always be problems with factors.
It seems that any positive comments with regards factors are lies (greenie) or the comment made by that person works for or is a factor.
There are some clients that never have problems with their factors by simply keeping up to date with their factoring bills. It is a service provided by a company which you have to make payment towards.
Don't get me wrong there are some cases where factoring companies take the mick out of clients and until this changes there will always be problems with factors.
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 8:41pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Factors do NOT need to wield the stick. They need to prove themselves capable of carrying out communal repairs at a reasonable price and being open and transparent. The good factors have the trust of their clients. The other thing that no-one has mentioned is that there are a small handful of multi-trades firms used by almost all factors. Cosy arrangement... Anyone ever notice the ubiquitous drainage bills of around £120 which feature every other month?
Factors do NOT need to wield the stick. They need to prove themselves capable of carrying out communal repairs at a reasonable price and being open and transparent. The good factors have the trust of their clients. The other thing that no-one has mentioned is that there are a small handful of multi-trades firms used by almost all factors. Cosy arrangement... Anyone ever notice the ubiquitous drainage bills of around £120 which feature every other month?
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 8:41pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Factors do NOT need to wield the stick. They need to prove themselves capable of carrying out communal repairs at a reasonable price and being open and transparent. The good factors have the trust of their clients. The other thing that no-one has mentioned is that there are a small handful of multi-trades firms used by almost all factors. Cosy arrangement... Anyone ever notice the ubiquitous drainage bills of around £120 which feature every other month?
Factors do NOT need to wield the stick. They need to prove themselves capable of carrying out communal repairs at a reasonable price and being open and transparent. The good factors have the trust of their clients. The other thing that no-one has mentioned is that there are a small handful of multi-trades firms used by almost all factors. Cosy arrangement... Anyone ever notice the ubiquitous drainage bills of around £120 which feature every other month?
Posted by: fishacke, glasgow on 8:54pm Wed 6 Feb 08
From my experience [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] provide a pathtic service and have a lot to learn about customer care.
My own experience of [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] was when I moved into a new flat, I sent them my completed Direct Debit Mandate so they could taken payments automaticaly from my bank. Within the first month I started getting polite reminders (which were costing me £17). I called them and asked why they were not taking the payment automatically as instructed - they said they would call back - they never. But still the late payment letters would come in, one per week, each costing £17. I e-mailed [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] , guys such as McGonagle and Kane asking why payment was not being taken and re-stating my bank details. You guessed it, not once were the e-mails replied to - but still the late payment letters came in costing £17 a pop. Very good money spinner for them.
Eventualy I called a number of times more and got them to read my bank details back to me over the phone - and they made up some BS story that they were written down wrong - good excuse by them when they were coining it in from late payment letters.
Wonder if anyone else has had that pathetic excuse?
Well done the [bold]EVENING TIMES[/bold] for exposing these people for what they are.
From my experience
WALKER SANSFORD provide a pathtic service and have a lot to learn about customer care.
My own experience of
WALKER SANSFORD was when I moved into a new flat, I sent them my completed Direct Debit Mandate so they could taken payments automaticaly from my bank. Within the first month I started getting polite reminders (which were costing me £17). I called them and asked why they were not taking the payment automatically as instructed - they said they would call back - they never. But still the late payment letters would come in, one per week, each costing £17. I e-mailed
WALKER SANSFORD , guys such as McGonagle and Kane asking why payment was not being taken and re-stating my bank details. You guessed it, not once were the e-mails replied to - but still the late payment letters came in costing £17 a pop. Very good money spinner for them.
Eventualy I called a number of times more and got them to read my bank details back to me over the phone - and they made up some BS story that they were written down wrong - good excuse by them when they were coining it in from late payment letters.
Wonder if anyone else has had that pathetic excuse?
Well done the
EVENING TIMES for exposing these people for what they are.
Posted by: mikedailly, Glasgow on 9:11pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]fishacke[/bold] wrote:
From my experience [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] provide a pathtic service and have a lot to learn about customer care. My own experience of [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] was when I moved into a new flat, I sent them my completed Direct Debit Mandate so they could taken payments automaticaly from my bank. Within the first month I started getting polite reminders (which were costing me £17). I called them and asked why they were not taking the payment automatically as instructed - they said they would call back - they never. But still the late payment letters would come in, one per week, each costing £17. I e-mailed [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] , guys such as McGonagle and Kane asking why payment was not being taken and re-stating my bank details. You guessed it, not once were the e-mails replied to - but still the late payment letters came in costing £17 a pop. Very good money spinner for them. Eventualy I called a number of times more and got them to read my bank details back to me over the phone - and they made up some BS story that they were written down wrong - good excuse by them when they were coining it in from late payment letters. Wonder if anyone else has had that pathetic excuse? Well done the [bold]EVENING TIMES[/bold] for exposing these people for what they are. [/quote] Perhaps as you are choosing to name individuals in your post, you might have the knutz to post using your own name, given that every story has two sides. It is noted that despite your dramatic use of bold you have managed to spell the company name in question wrongly three times it seems entirely plausible that you did fill in you form incorrectly.
fishacke wrote:
From my experience WALKER SANSFORD provide a pathtic service and have a lot to learn about customer care. My own experience of WALKER SANSFORD was when I moved into a new flat, I sent them my completed Direct Debit Mandate so they could taken payments automaticaly from my bank. Within the first month I started getting polite reminders (which were costing me £17). I called them and asked why they were not taking the payment automatically as instructed - they said they would call back - they never. But still the late payment letters would come in, one per week, each costing £17. I e-mailed WALKER SANSFORD , guys such as McGonagle and Kane asking why payment was not being taken and re-stating my bank details. You guessed it, not once were the e-mails replied to - but still the late payment letters came in costing £17 a pop. Very good money spinner for them. Eventualy I called a number of times more and got them to read my bank details back to me over the phone - and they made up some BS story that they were written down wrong - good excuse by them when they were coining it in from late payment letters. Wonder if anyone else has had that pathetic excuse? Well done the EVENING TIMES for exposing these people for what they are.
Perhaps as you are choosing to name individuals in your post, you might have the knutz to post using your own name, given that every story has two sides. It is noted that despite your dramatic use of bold you have managed to spell the company name in question wrongly three times it seems entirely plausible that you did fill in you form incorrectly.
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 9:26pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]mikedailly[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]fishacke[/bold] wrote: From my experience [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] provide a pathtic service and have a lot to learn about customer care. My own experience of [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] was when I moved into a new flat, I sent them my completed Direct Debit Mandate so they could taken payments automaticaly from my bank. Within the first month I started getting polite reminders (which were costing me £17). I called them and asked why they were not taking the payment automatically as instructed - they said they would call back - they never. But still the late payment letters would come in, one per week, each costing £17. I e-mailed [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] , guys such as McGonagle and Kane asking why payment was not being taken and re-stating my bank details. You guessed it, not once were the e-mails replied to - but still the late payment letters came in costing £17 a pop. Very good money spinner for them. Eventualy I called a number of times more and got them to read my bank details back to me over the phone - and they made up some BS story that they were written down wrong - good excuse by them when they were coining it in from late payment letters. Wonder if anyone else has had that pathetic excuse? Well done the [bold]EVENING TIMES[/bold] for exposing these people for what they are. [/quote] Perhaps as you are choosing to name individuals in your post, you might have the knutz to post using your own name, given that every story has two sides. It is noted that despite your dramatic use of bold you have managed to spell the company name in question wrongly three times it seems entirely plausible that you did fill in you form incorrectly.[/quote] Hypocrisy? Isn't this post from Paul Walker or his wee fat sidekick from Scotland's worst factors?
It's bullyboy tactics to pretend you are mikedailly - the lawyer who is preventing you from scamming folk in Glasgow.
Don't you feel any remorse, with your two tops hats and all, crawling under the belly of a snake as you grab the bread from the table of hard working families in Glasgow?
You are a pariah among factors.
mikedailly wrote:
fishacke wrote: From my experience WALKER SANSFORD provide a pathtic service and have a lot to learn about customer care. My own experience of WALKER SANSFORD was when I moved into a new flat, I sent them my completed Direct Debit Mandate so they could taken payments automaticaly from my bank. Within the first month I started getting polite reminders (which were costing me £17). I called them and asked why they were not taking the payment automatically as instructed - they said they would call back - they never. But still the late payment letters would come in, one per week, each costing £17. I e-mailed WALKER SANSFORD , guys such as McGonagle and Kane asking why payment was not being taken and re-stating my bank details. You guessed it, not once were the e-mails replied to - but still the late payment letters came in costing £17 a pop. Very good money spinner for them. Eventualy I called a number of times more and got them to read my bank details back to me over the phone - and they made up some BS story that they were written down wrong - good excuse by them when they were coining it in from late payment letters. Wonder if anyone else has had that pathetic excuse? Well done the EVENING TIMES for exposing these people for what they are.
Perhaps as you are choosing to name individuals in your post, you might have the knutz to post using your own name, given that every story has two sides. It is noted that despite your dramatic use of bold you have managed to spell the company name in question wrongly three times it seems entirely plausible that you did fill in you form incorrectly.
Hypocrisy? Isn't this post from Paul Walker or his wee fat sidekick from Scotland's worst factors?
It's bullyboy tactics to pretend you are mikedailly - the lawyer who is preventing you from scamming folk in Glasgow.
Don't you feel any remorse, with your two tops hats and all, crawling under the belly of a snake as you grab the bread from the table of hard working families in Glasgow?
You are a pariah among factors.
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Southsider[/bold] wrote:
Factors do NOT need to wield the stick. They need to prove themselves capable of carrying out communal repairs at a reasonable price and being open and transparent. The good factors have the trust of their clients. The other thing that no-one has mentioned is that there are a small handful of multi-trades firms used by almost all factors. Cosy arrangement... Anyone ever notice the ubiquitous drainage bills of around £120 which feature every other month? [/quote] I am no fan of Factors, but yes, they do need to wield the stick.
For a tenner a month, our self-factored close takes care of all cleaning and maintenance. Yet 1 in 4 owners persistently refuse to pay towards towards this not-for-profit fund that is run on a voluntary basis by their neighbours.
So I now understand why Factors have limited patience with stingy owners - politeness and patience is a waste of time.
Southsider wrote:
Factors do NOT need to wield the stick. They need to prove themselves capable of carrying out communal repairs at a reasonable price and being open and transparent. The good factors have the trust of their clients. The other thing that no-one has mentioned is that there are a small handful of multi-trades firms used by almost all factors. Cosy arrangement... Anyone ever notice the ubiquitous drainage bills of around £120 which feature every other month?
I am no fan of Factors, but yes, they do need to wield the stick.
For a tenner a month, our self-factored close takes care of all cleaning and maintenance. Yet 1 in 4 owners persistently refuse to pay towards towards this not-for-profit fund that is run on a voluntary basis by their neighbours.
So I now understand why Factors have limited patience with stingy owners - politeness and patience is a waste of time.
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 9:32pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]greenie[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.[/quote] Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors. As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear. As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford? [/quote] Oh Stephen yah dobber,yes thats right DOBBER.I stoop to this language because you obviously fail to understand why people are angry at certain factors & the charges that they levy. It takes 2mins to change a light-bulb ergo £44 is to much, now does that penetrate your pea sized brain?.. Now i excuse me while i call a plumber to remove your head from your **** [/quote] I fully defend Biffo here. I lived in a high rise in Cowcaddens and once got a bill for £20 for painting a wall at the bottom of the building. Would have taken me an hour. But £20 times the 126 flats = £2500. For a wall. I asked for the competeing estimates. Nothing forthcoming. Then the bill was withdrawn. Glasgow Housing Assiciation - absolute chancers. Then, two years later, the new owners forwarded me a bill - for renovation - from GHA for about £2k. Hadn't lived there for two years; threatened me with legal action.
I told them to bring it on and they'd be liable for my legal fees in defence. Again: withdrawn. Again, absolute chancers. GHA is an absolute disgrace. Social mission, my arse.
Biffo the bear wrote:
greenie wrote: stephensimmons wrote: Biffo the bear wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors. As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear. As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
Oh Stephen yah dobber,yes thats right DOBBER.I stoop to this language because you obviously fail to understand why people are angry at certain factors & the charges that they levy. It takes 2mins to change a light-bulb ergo £44 is to much, now does that penetrate your pea sized brain?.. Now i excuse me while i call a plumber to remove your head from your ****
I fully defend Biffo here. I lived in a high rise in Cowcaddens and once got a bill for £20 for painting a wall at the bottom of the building. Would have taken me an hour. But £20 times the 126 flats = £2500. For a wall. I asked for the competeing estimates. Nothing forthcoming. Then the bill was withdrawn. Glasgow Housing Assiciation - absolute chancers. Then, two years later, the new owners forwarded me a bill - for renovation - from GHA for about £2k. Hadn't lived there for two years; threatened me with legal action.
I told them to bring it on and they'd be liable for my legal fees in defence. Again: withdrawn. Again, absolute chancers. GHA is an absolute disgrace. Social mission, my arse.
Posted by: trench, possilpark on 9:45pm Wed 6 Feb 08
the 83 year old lady who is being harrassed by her factor will in the immediate future be receiving a substancial settlement of money....maybe even free rent so, walker sandford be very wary of how you handle this situation, you know the old saying the bigger you are the harder you fall.idiots.
the 83 year old lady who is being harrassed by her factor will in the immediate future be receiving a substancial settlement of money....maybe even free rent so, walker sandford be very wary of how you handle this situation, you know the old saying the bigger you are the harder you fall.idiots.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 9:48pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]My thinking is simple (I think);
The property actually belongs to Mr Anderson Jnr and in fact, he has been exploiting the fact that his late father shared his name to avoid paying his communal maintenance charges.
Surely, when Mr Anderson Snr passed away, the property title would have passed to Mrs Anderson and would have been recorded in the Land Register. Possibly an admin error on the part of the record keeper?
IF my theory is correct however, then I would say that it is in fact Mr Anderson Jnr's actions that have brought about this current state of affairs and it is in fact he who is to blame for his elderly mother's home, health and possibly even life being put in danger as a result. Not to mention blackening his father's good name in the process.
[bold]I am surprised that no one has picked up on these facts before now. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?[/bold]
Just my thoughts on the matter.[/quote]
Nope - it's not just you. I also thought that the outraged son was probably the one who ran up the debt & the house is in [bold]his[/bold] name.
My thinking is simple (I think);
The property actually belongs to Mr Anderson Jnr and in fact, he has been exploiting the fact that his late father shared his name to avoid paying his communal maintenance charges.
Surely, when Mr Anderson Snr passed away, the property title would have passed to Mrs Anderson and would have been recorded in the Land Register. Possibly an admin error on the part of the record keeper?
IF my theory is correct however, then I would say that it is in fact Mr Anderson Jnr's actions that have brought about this current state of affairs and it is in fact he who is to blame for his elderly mother's home, health and possibly even life being put in danger as a result. Not to mention blackening his father's good name in the process.
I am surprised that no one has picked up on these facts before now. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Nope - it's not just you. I also thought that the outraged son was probably the one who ran up the debt & the house is in
his name.
Posted by: Comedy Alan, Glasgow on 9:48pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Greenie you obviously have a (big) problem with factors. Would it be the late payment charges you have received or maybe a court appearance. Something has made you very bitter about them.
You should have just kept up with your payments and maybe you wouldn't be on this blog. Y am i here you may ask? Interested in factors? No. Just find it funny the people who complain about factors when they don't make payments (laughable). Nothing in life is free you know.
Greenie you obviously have a (big) problem with factors. Would it be the late payment charges you have received or maybe a court appearance. Something has made you very bitter about them.
You should have just kept up with your payments and maybe you wouldn't be on this blog. Y am i here you may ask? Interested in factors? No. Just find it funny the people who complain about factors when they don't make payments (laughable). Nothing in life is free you know.
Posted by: buthead, glasgow on 9:49pm Wed 6 Feb 08
I lived in a close in the Sheilds 35 years ago and had massive factors bills, when we complained about them we were told we could self factor, when we checked it out we found out the factor owned more than half the close as there were 6 flats he had the majority and we had to conform to the factor.
Solution, we got out and bought our own terrace house we are responsible for all repairs,
I lived in a close in the Sheilds 35 years ago and had massive factors bills, when we complained about them we were told we could self factor, when we checked it out we found out the factor owned more than half the close as there were 6 flats he had the majority and we had to conform to the factor.
Solution, we got out and bought our own terrace house we are responsible for all repairs,
Posted by: mikedailly, Glasgow on 9:54pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]greenie[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]mikedailly[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]fishacke[/bold] wrote: From my experience [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] provide a pathtic service and have a lot to learn about customer care. My own experience of [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] was when I moved into a new flat, I sent them my completed Direct Debit Mandate so they could taken payments automaticaly from my bank. Within the first month I started getting polite reminders (which were costing me £17). I called them and asked why they were not taking the payment automatically as instructed - they said they would call back - they never. But still the late payment letters would come in, one per week, each costing £17. I e-mailed [bold]WALKER SANSFORD[/bold] , guys such as McGonagle and Kane asking why payment was not being taken and re-stating my bank details. You guessed it, not once were the e-mails replied to - but still the late payment letters came in costing £17 a pop. Very good money spinner for them. Eventualy I called a number of times more and got them to read my bank details back to me over the phone - and they made up some BS story that they were written down wrong - good excuse by them when they were coining it in from late payment letters. Wonder if anyone else has had that pathetic excuse? Well done the [bold]EVENING TIMES[/bold] for exposing these people for what they are. [/quote] Perhaps as you are choosing to name individuals in your post, you might have the knutz to post using your own name, given that every story has two sides. It is noted that despite your dramatic use of bold you have managed to spell the company name in question wrongly three times it seems entirely plausible that you did fill in you form incorrectly.[/quote] Hypocrisy? Isn't this post from Paul Walker or his wee fat sidekick from Scotland's worst factors? It's bullyboy tactics to pretend you are mikedailly - the lawyer who is preventing you from scamming folk in Glasgow. Don't you feel any remorse, with your two tops hats and all, crawling under the belly of a snake as you grab the bread from the table of hard working families in Glasgow? You are a pariah among factors.[/quote] ooh venomous, I take your point, it has irked me for a number of years that I have been mistaken for that ambulance chaser, since I am not.
It just seems to me that there is a great amount of tripe and vitriolic nonsense being flung around this thread by people who may have no facts or distort such to suit their own agendas. So, not a lawyer, not factor but am called Michael (but only by my mother). Also not a pariah, unless there is something I am not being told. My property is factored I begrudge paying that account but it is necessary as repairs have to be carried out and preferably by tradesman not bob-a-jobbers. I pay my accounts and do not get administration fees. If Walker Sandford treats all their clients as such, surely they would have no trade. I suspect that most people even WS clients settle their accounts and there are no issues. Whilst a minority of people have difficulty.
greenie wrote:
mikedailly wrote: fishacke wrote: From my experience WALKER SANSFORD provide a pathtic service and have a lot to learn about customer care. My own experience of WALKER SANSFORD was when I moved into a new flat, I sent them my completed Direct Debit Mandate so they could taken payments automaticaly from my bank. Within the first month I started getting polite reminders (which were costing me £17). I called them and asked why they were not taking the payment automatically as instructed - they said they would call back - they never. But still the late payment letters would come in, one per week, each costing £17. I e-mailed WALKER SANSFORD , guys such as McGonagle and Kane asking why payment was not being taken and re-stating my bank details. You guessed it, not once were the e-mails replied to - but still the late payment letters came in costing £17 a pop. Very good money spinner for them. Eventualy I called a number of times more and got them to read my bank details back to me over the phone - and they made up some BS story that they were written down wrong - good excuse by them when they were coining it in from late payment letters. Wonder if anyone else has had that pathetic excuse? Well done the EVENING TIMES for exposing these people for what they are.
Perhaps as you are choosing to name individuals in your post, you might have the knutz to post using your own name, given that every story has two sides. It is noted that despite your dramatic use of bold you have managed to spell the company name in question wrongly three times it seems entirely plausible that you did fill in you form incorrectly.
Hypocrisy? Isn't this post from Paul Walker or his wee fat sidekick from Scotland's worst factors? It's bullyboy tactics to pretend you are mikedailly - the lawyer who is preventing you from scamming folk in Glasgow. Don't you feel any remorse, with your two tops hats and all, crawling under the belly of a snake as you grab the bread from the table of hard working families in Glasgow? You are a pariah among factors.
ooh venomous, I take your point, it has irked me for a number of years that I have been mistaken for that ambulance chaser, since I am not.
It just seems to me that there is a great amount of tripe and vitriolic nonsense being flung around this thread by people who may have no facts or distort such to suit their own agendas. So, not a lawyer, not factor but am called Michael (but only by my mother). Also not a pariah, unless there is something I am not being told. My property is factored I begrudge paying that account but it is necessary as repairs have to be carried out and preferably by tradesman not bob-a-jobbers. I pay my accounts and do not get administration fees. If Walker Sandford treats all their clients as such, surely they would have no trade. I suspect that most people even WS clients settle their accounts and there are no issues. Whilst a minority of people have difficulty.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgowl on 10:22pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Noticed how a few posts on a certain other factor not mentioned in this article have been deleted - A certain H**king & P***rson.
The specifics of a persons circumstances with the factor maybe a bit too personal, or sensitive - But I can say that as a Factor they are certainly no better.
And - if people wish to switch or get together to vote out their factor they are quite entitled to do so. It just takes ( a majority) 50%+ to declare on paperwork that they wish to switch to whoever.
The local Housing Associating (not GHA) I suggested to people to switch to were a far better option, as their programme of window renewal, close painting and renovations generally was far better.
The sticking point was the initial close survey of £1,000 between all landlords of the flats in my block.
But - with a close entry system thats not worth having due to the door being kicked in so many times.
As well as the time it takes to actually get the factor to fix anything - a switch, or as Glamkitty said - self factoring has to be better.
Housing Associations are by no means perfect, and those which are merging, expanding and building new properties are less likely to be able to give the same quality of care to all of their tenants.
However, private factors, and GHA have both had major issues highlighted. Not least the ghost bills GHA tenants have recieved in the past year and more.
The only solution is to be one step ahead of your facor at all times, and have all neighbours working together to resolve communal issues - i.e. roof repairs (etc)
Noticed how a few posts on a certain other factor not mentioned in this article have been deleted - A certain H**king & P***rson.
The specifics of a persons circumstances with the factor maybe a bit too personal, or sensitive - But I can say that as a Factor they are certainly no better.
And - if people wish to switch or get together to vote out their factor they are quite entitled to do so. It just takes ( a majority) 50%+ to declare on paperwork that they wish to switch to whoever.
The local Housing Associating (not GHA) I suggested to people to switch to were a far better option, as their programme of window renewal, close painting and renovations generally was far better.
The sticking point was the initial close survey of £1,000 between all landlords of the flats in my block.
But - with a close entry system thats not worth having due to the door being kicked in so many times.
As well as the time it takes to actually get the factor to fix anything - a switch, or as Glamkitty said - self factoring has to be better.
Housing Associations are by no means perfect, and those which are merging, expanding and building new properties are less likely to be able to give the same quality of care to all of their tenants.
However, private factors, and GHA have both had major issues highlighted. Not least the ghost bills GHA tenants have recieved in the past year and more.
The only solution is to be one step ahead of your facor at all times, and have all neighbours working together to resolve communal issues - i.e. roof repairs (etc)
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 10:40pm Wed 6 Feb 08
why does mikedailly (who keeps defending Walker Sandford) use the name of the solicitor from Govan Law Centre who is helping aggrieved Walker Sandford victims fight their corner? Reveal who you really are.
why does mikedailly (who keeps defending Walker Sandford) use the name of the solicitor from Govan Law Centre who is helping aggrieved Walker Sandford victims fight their corner? Reveal who you really are.
Posted by: fatweegee, dunfermline on 10:55pm Wed 6 Feb 08
My Mother lives in a four in the block tenement in Govan and paid weekly to Watson Property Factors from moving in in 1979 until recently. The reason she no longer pays to them - when 2 of the flats were sold and costly repairs discovered for the roof she found out that Watsons had not received payment from any of the 3 other owners in several years and they therefore would not sanction the repairs. This is despite the fact she paid them weekly and she is on the top floor and most affected by the damage to the roof/chimney.
My Mother lives in a four in the block tenement in Govan and paid weekly to Watson Property Factors from moving in in 1979 until recently. The reason she no longer pays to them - when 2 of the flats were sold and costly repairs discovered for the roof she found out that Watsons had not received payment from any of the 3 other owners in several years and they therefore would not sanction the repairs. This is despite the fact she paid them weekly and she is on the top floor and most affected by the damage to the roof/chimney.
Posted by: stellargirl, glasgow on 12:17am Thu 7 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote:
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] Dear Biffo,
How easy would you find it to change a light bulb if you were an elderly person with Parkinsons like my gran? Not all old people or disabled have relatives they can rely on.
Yah dobber
Biffo the bear wrote:
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
Dear Biffo,
How easy would you find it to change a light bulb if you were an elderly person with Parkinsons like my gran? Not all old people or disabled have relatives they can rely on.
Yah dobber
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 7:53am Thu 7 Feb 08
People Power - in theory, self-factoring should be better. In reality, it's impossible to coordinate repairs in tenements full of apathetic and stingy owners.
They seek all the services of a professional property management service but at virtually no cost and absolutely no effort from themselves.
In a tenement of 16 adults, you'll be lucky if there is anyone who has the will to change a lightbulb, let alone wait in for 3 companies to provide a quote for a bigger repair, manage the bank account, keep the records, clean the stairs or tidy the back-court.
This isn't to say that Factors are good but that people who propose self-factoring have no idea how tough it is to deal with issues themselves.
There's an expectation on this forum that other owners would be relieved and grateful not to pay through the nose for a Factor but this is not the case.
People Power - in theory, self-factoring should be better. In reality, it's impossible to coordinate repairs in tenements full of apathetic and stingy owners.
They seek all the services of a professional property management service but at virtually no cost and absolutely no effort from themselves.
In a tenement of 16 adults, you'll be lucky if there is anyone who has the will to change a lightbulb, let alone wait in for 3 companies to provide a quote for a bigger repair, manage the bank account, keep the records, clean the stairs or tidy the back-court.
This isn't to say that Factors are good but that people who propose self-factoring have no idea how tough it is to deal with issues themselves.
There's an expectation on this forum that other owners would be relieved and grateful not to pay through the nose for a Factor but this is not the case.
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 9:20am Thu 7 Feb 08
Look this debate re the charges to change a light bulb will rage on - the point is, if you get an electrician to do it you will be charged trade rates. If you want to train a handyman etc fine however you would need a big enough development to warrant paying them a salary etc as you will not simply be able to call one up and expect them to attend without also charging an hourly rate rather than the minute it takes to change the bulb. Greenie, i think the posts on here show that you dont actually know what you are talking about i'm afraid.
Look this debate re the charges to change a light bulb will rage on - the point is, if you get an electrician to do it you will be charged trade rates. If you want to train a handyman etc fine however you would need a big enough development to warrant paying them a salary etc as you will not simply be able to call one up and expect them to attend without also charging an hourly rate rather than the minute it takes to change the bulb. Greenie, i think the posts on here show that you dont actually know what you are talking about i'm afraid.
Posted by: MrK, Paisley on 9:28am Thu 7 Feb 08
The answer to all this is self factoring however, there is always someone in the building who will be late, wont pay, doesn't want to get involved - this is why we have factors to take away the hassle.
Perhaps if we were all honest enough to self factor the problem would disappear - but in this day and age I doubt it.
The answer to all this is self factoring however, there is always someone in the building who will be late, wont pay, doesn't want to get involved - this is why we have factors to take away the hassle.
Perhaps if we were all honest enough to self factor the problem would disappear - but in this day and age I doubt it.
Posted by: People Power on 10:47am Thu 7 Feb 08
[quote][bold]bluey[/bold] wrote:
People Power - in theory, self-factoring should be better. In reality, it's impossible to coordinate repairs in tenements full of apathetic and stingy owners. They seek all the services of a professional property management service but at virtually no cost and absolutely no effort from themselves. In a tenement of 16 adults, you'll be lucky if there is anyone who has the will to change a lightbulb, let alone wait in for 3 companies to provide a quote for a bigger repair, manage the bank account, keep the records, clean the stairs or tidy the back-court. This isn't to say that Factors are good but that people who propose self-factoring have no idea how tough it is to deal with issues themselves. There's an expectation on this forum that other owners would be relieved and grateful not to pay through the nose for a Factor but this is not the case.[/quote]
Cue Glamkitty,
Perhaps you could give us some clues as to how easy or difficult it is to do self factoring, as I was merely agreeing with them on the benefits it could have - not least financially.
bluey wrote:
People Power - in theory, self-factoring should be better. In reality, it's impossible to coordinate repairs in tenements full of apathetic and stingy owners. They seek all the services of a professional property management service but at virtually no cost and absolutely no effort from themselves. In a tenement of 16 adults, you'll be lucky if there is anyone who has the will to change a lightbulb, let alone wait in for 3 companies to provide a quote for a bigger repair, manage the bank account, keep the records, clean the stairs or tidy the back-court. This isn't to say that Factors are good but that people who propose self-factoring have no idea how tough it is to deal with issues themselves. There's an expectation on this forum that other owners would be relieved and grateful not to pay through the nose for a Factor but this is not the case.
Cue Glamkitty,
Perhaps you could give us some clues as to how easy or difficult it is to do self factoring, as I was merely agreeing with them on the benefits it could have - not least financially.
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 11:06am Thu 7 Feb 08
[quote][bold]stellargirl[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote:
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] Dear Biffo,
How easy would you find it to change a light bulb if you were an elderly person with Parkinsons like my gran? Not all old people or disabled have relatives they can rely on.
Yah dobber[/quote] FFS does nobody read all the posts?, i am the real Biffo The Bear, well obviously not the real Biffo because that would mean that i was an actual talking bear from a comic..By real i mean the first one on here, not the clown posting under my name.I have tried to re-register but ET in its wisdom wont allow me too..So please if a post is in the vein of dickhead then its by an imposter..
Though Stellagirl your Gran obviously has relatives she can rely on so your point is not relevant..
stellargirl wrote:
Biffo the bear wrote:
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
Dear Biffo,
How easy would you find it to change a light bulb if you were an elderly person with Parkinsons like my gran? Not all old people or disabled have relatives they can rely on.
Yah dobber
FFS does nobody read all the posts?, i am the real Biffo The Bear, well obviously not the real Biffo because that would mean that i was an actual talking bear from a comic..By real i mean the first one on here, not the clown posting under my name.I have tried to re-register but ET in its wisdom wont allow me too..So please if a post is in the vein of dickhead then its by an imposter..
Though Stellagirl your Gran obviously has relatives she can rely on so your point is not relevant..
Posted by: glamkitty, Glasgow on 11:16am Thu 7 Feb 08
[quote][bold]People Power[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]bluey[/bold] wrote: People Power - in theory, self-factoring should be better. In reality, it's impossible to coordinate repairs in tenements full of apathetic and stingy owners. They seek all the services of a professional property management service but at virtually no cost and absolutely no effort from themselves. In a tenement of 16 adults, you'll be lucky if there is anyone who has the will to change a lightbulb, let alone wait in for 3 companies to provide a quote for a bigger repair, manage the bank account, keep the records, clean the stairs or tidy the back-court. This isn't to say that Factors are good but that people who propose self-factoring have no idea how tough it is to deal with issues themselves. There's an expectation on this forum that other owners would be relieved and grateful not to pay through the nose for a Factor but this is not the case.[/quote] Cue Glamkitty, Perhaps you could give us some clues as to how easy or difficult it is to do self factoring, as I was merely agreeing with them on the benefits it could have - not least financially. [/quote] Maybe we are just lucky. All but one of the 8 flats is owner occupied, and so we take care to look after the building. Yes, there are some things we need done that are costly - the close needs repainted, for instance - but we save up to do that, whereas a factor would just rush it through to get the money.
We have a 'chairman' who deals with the paperwork and bills and stuff, and no money can be taken from the account without signatures of two other residents.
Each flat pays £20 a month, we all clean our own bits of stair (some of us more regularly than others, I admit) and bills like close lighting and stuff get paid from the account.
As I said, the only problem we have is with the landlord of the rented flat. He keeps saying he doesnt want to contribute. Presumably hoping the arrangement will fall apart and his company will get the factoring...
People Power wrote:
bluey wrote: People Power - in theory, self-factoring should be better. In reality, it's impossible to coordinate repairs in tenements full of apathetic and stingy owners. They seek all the services of a professional property management service but at virtually no cost and absolutely no effort from themselves. In a tenement of 16 adults, you'll be lucky if there is anyone who has the will to change a lightbulb, let alone wait in for 3 companies to provide a quote for a bigger repair, manage the bank account, keep the records, clean the stairs or tidy the back-court. This isn't to say that Factors are good but that people who propose self-factoring have no idea how tough it is to deal with issues themselves. There's an expectation on this forum that other owners would be relieved and grateful not to pay through the nose for a Factor but this is not the case.
Cue Glamkitty, Perhaps you could give us some clues as to how easy or difficult it is to do self factoring, as I was merely agreeing with them on the benefits it could have - not least financially.
Maybe we are just lucky. All but one of the 8 flats is owner occupied, and so we take care to look after the building. Yes, there are some things we need done that are costly - the close needs repainted, for instance - but we save up to do that, whereas a factor would just rush it through to get the money.
We have a 'chairman' who deals with the paperwork and bills and stuff, and no money can be taken from the account without signatures of two other residents.
Each flat pays £20 a month, we all clean our own bits of stair (some of us more regularly than others, I admit) and bills like close lighting and stuff get paid from the account.
As I said, the only problem we have is with the landlord of the rented flat. He keeps saying he doesnt want to contribute. Presumably hoping the arrangement will fall apart and his company will get the factoring...
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 12:16pm Thu 7 Feb 08
Self factoring can be difficult (and the problem starts if just one person doesn't pay) and that's why there is a genuine need for factors. But not outfits like Walker Sandford - obviously hoping to 'tough-out' this latest bad publicity. It won't was any more Mr Walker. There ARE good factors out there!
Self factoring can be difficult (and the problem starts if just one person doesn't pay) and that's why there is a genuine need for factors. But not outfits like Walker Sandford - obviously hoping to 'tough-out' this latest bad publicity. It won't was any more Mr Walker. There ARE good factors out there!
Posted by: FuffyAnt, glasgow on 1:01pm Thu 7 Feb 08
does anybody know if the late payment charges levied by Walker Sandford are legal?
also in the Frontline Scotland program on bbc1 a couple of weeks ago the reporter went to Walker Sandford's office to speak to them about their god awful service and we didn't get to see the outcome of the meeting.
does anybody know if the late payment charges levied by Walker Sandford are legal?
also in the Frontline Scotland program on bbc1 a couple of weeks ago the reporter went to Walker Sandford's office to speak to them about their god awful service and we didn't get to see the outcome of the meeting.
Posted by: FuffyAnt, glasgow on 1:02pm Thu 7 Feb 08
does anybody know if the late payment charges levied by Walker Sandford are legal?
also in the Frontline Scotland program on bbc1 a couple of weeks ago the reporter went to Walker Sandford's office to speak to them about their god awful service and we didn't get to see the outcome of the meeting.
does anybody know if the late payment charges levied by Walker Sandford are legal?
also in the Frontline Scotland program on bbc1 a couple of weeks ago the reporter went to Walker Sandford's office to speak to them about their god awful service and we didn't get to see the outcome of the meeting.
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 2:16pm Thu 7 Feb 08
One of my neighbours plans to contest the charges in court - he's going to chase Walker Sandford for a change. His lawyers say they're not legal. There is some very useful info on
www.factorcharges.in
fo
One of my neighbours plans to contest the charges in court - he's going to chase Walker Sandford for a change. His lawyers say they're not legal. There is some very useful info on
www.factorcharges.in
fo
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 6:17pm Thu 7 Feb 08
Self-factoring - 8 flats, 2 won't pay, none will perform voluntary duties to assist.
An advantage to having a Factor is that at least they will sort out buildings insurance for the whole property.
In our block, it is likely that a large minority of the flats have no buildings insurance which would jeopardise a substantial claim in the future (tenements having a bit of a history of falling down or being burned to the ground).
Self-factoring - 8 flats, 2 won't pay, none will perform voluntary duties to assist.
An advantage to having a Factor is that at least they will sort out buildings insurance for the whole property.
In our block, it is likely that a large minority of the flats have no buildings insurance which would jeopardise a substantial claim in the future (tenements having a bit of a history of falling down or being burned to the ground).
Posted by: bluey, glasgow on 6:25pm Thu 7 Feb 08
Glamkitty -
take your stingy landlord to the small claims court to recoup all the fees owed to date - see the advice on the Scottish Shelter website which includes a section on 'what if another owner doesn't pay their share? - you need to send him a final letter before action to give him one last chance to pay off all the sum owed to date.
- check if he's registered his property on the Scottish Landlord register (it's mandatory) and report him to the local council if not as they can issue a rent penalty notice that prevents his tenants from paying him or they can prosecute him
- you have the right to proof of buildings insurance - he is required to provide it within 21 days of a written request. if he does not, he breaches a housing act and by breaking the law, he could be considered not 'fit and proper' under the Scottish Landlord Registration scheme administered by the local council (they are obliged to take this into account during this process).
Glamkitty -
take your stingy landlord to the small claims court to recoup all the fees owed to date - see the advice on the Scottish Shelter website which includes a section on 'what if another owner doesn't pay their share? - you need to send him a final letter before action to give him one last chance to pay off all the sum owed to date.
- check if he's registered his property on the Scottish Landlord register (it's mandatory) and report him to the local council if not as they can issue a rent penalty notice that prevents his tenants from paying him or they can prosecute him
- you have the right to proof of buildings insurance - he is required to provide it within 21 days of a written request. if he does not, he breaches a housing act and by breaking the law, he could be considered not 'fit and proper' under the Scottish Landlord Registration scheme administered by the local council (they are obliged to take this into account during this process).
Posted by: glamkitty, Glasgow on 12:13pm Fri 8 Feb 08
Bluey - he does pay eventually, he just whinges about it for months first and tries every trick to get out of it.
However, I do know he doesnt have an HMO licence, and considering the trouble we have with his student tenants, we're keeping that up our sleeves for now, for when we really need it.
Bluey - he does pay eventually, he just whinges about it for months first and tries every trick to get out of it.
However, I do know he doesnt have an HMO licence, and considering the trouble we have with his student tenants, we're keeping that up our sleeves for now, for when we really need it.
Posted by: Walker Sandford, Glasgow on 4:44pm Fri 8 Feb 08
In Tuesday’s edition of this publication, considerable column inches were devoted to an article about how Walker Sandford had actively attempted to evict an elderly lady from her property based on accrued debts. Whilst the author of this article paid scant lip service to the interview she undertook with both Staff and Directors of Walker Sandford, a distinctly polemic piece was resultant. During the lengthy interview at Walker Sandford’s offices the fact of the case were presented to Ms Marianne Taylor (Evening Times reporter) utilising both solicitors’ letters and noted telephone calls to vouch for the validity of these facts.
Walker Sandford were appointed as Property Managers at the tenement in question in 1999. Mr Norman Anderson was represented at this meeting. By mid 2002, only a single payment had been paid in relation to the accrued factoring accounts. At this time legal action was instigated in relation to the recovery of this debt. The first court action was served by Sheriff Officers at the flat, after due diligence to establish occupancy by Mr Norman Anderson. Decree was obtained in relation to this debt. This was also served by sheriff officers after making the appropriate enquiries.
A gentleman purporting to be Mr Anderson has made 27 visits to our offices to make payments towards his account. On the 23rd of October 2006 a letter was received at Walker Sandford’s offices in relation to a maintenance issue. This correspondence was signed by three owners, including Mr Norman Anderson, and is the only written communication that we have received from this client.
In 2007, having only received token payments historically from the owner and the last of those being made in 2004, Walker Sandford instructed solicitors to undertake an Ordinary Cause action to recover the accrued debt. A title search of the property was undertaken by the Registers of Scotland, who produced documentation that the property in question is owned by Mr Norman Anderson and that he has owned this property since 1976. Again this action was served by sheriff officers. No defences were lodged and as such decree was granted and a further charge was served by sheriff officers.
A fifth visit by sheriff officers then became necessary, when the final stage of the legal process was commenced. At the court hearing, it was advised by the defender’s solicitor that Mr Norman Anderson was dead and had been for 15 years. Despite one meeting at the property, two completed legal actions, 27 visits to our offices, 72 issued invoices with 72 polite reminders and countless other items of correspondence, the residents of this flat had not chosen to disclose that Mr Anderson was not only dead, but had been dead for 5-6 years before Walker Sandford’s relationship began at the property.
During this time frame the only person whom Walker Sandford was aware of was a Mr Norman Anderson and, as already highlighted, was the recorded owner of the property by the Land Registry of Scotland. The existence of Mrs Anderson was only disclosed to Walker Sandford a matter of days prior to Ms Taylor penning her article, which claimed that we were attempting to evict an elderly lady.
At no time did Walker Sandford provide any instruction to evict this person of whose very existence we were never advised. We refute the allegation that we ever had any such intention and Ms Taylor was made fully aware of the aforementioned facts at the recorded interview in our offices. This was also confirmed in our emailed response to Ms Taylor’s queries received the day after the interview.
Walker Sandford have serious concerns about the manner in which this article has created a situation which does not exist. In the article Mr Anderson (jnr) claims that, despite residing at the property, believed the invoices to be addressed to his father (whom we now know died before Walker Sandford existed as a company). This is clearly at odds with the 27 payments made to our office, and the signed owners mandate referred to previously.
We further have concerns in the manner in which it has been projected that Walker Sandford created a large value of charges to bring about the indebtedness in an apparently short space of time. This account built to its current indebtedness over a period of nine years and includes considerable legal fees. During this time Walker Sandford continued to act in the best interests of the majority of owners by maintaining the property despite the accrual of Mr Norman Anderson’s debt.
The ultimate legal action and recovery processes engaged in relation Mr Anderson were a last resort, employed after a time frame extending to almost a decade of non-payment of communal accounts.
This story was typical of the avoidance of fact as with the other articles relating to our firm and we extend our concerns to those. We will be asking for the Evening Times to allow us our right of reply.
In Tuesday’s edition of this publication, considerable column inches were devoted to an article about how Walker Sandford had actively attempted to evict an elderly lady from her property based on accrued debts. Whilst the author of this article paid scant lip service to the interview she undertook with both Staff and Directors of Walker Sandford, a distinctly polemic piece was resultant. During the lengthy interview at Walker Sandford’s offices the fact of the case were presented to Ms Marianne Taylor (Evening Times reporter) utilising both solicitors’ letters and noted telephone calls to vouch for the validity of these facts.
Walker Sandford were appointed as Property Managers at the tenement in question in 1999. Mr Norman Anderson was represented at this meeting. By mid 2002, only a single payment had been paid in relation to the accrued factoring accounts. At this time legal action was instigated in relation to the recovery of this debt. The first court action was served by Sheriff Officers at the flat, after due diligence to establish occupancy by Mr Norman Anderson. Decree was obtained in relation to this debt. This was also served by sheriff officers after making the appropriate enquiries.
A gentleman purporting to be Mr Anderson has made 27 visits to our offices to make payments towards his account. On the 23rd of October 2006 a letter was received at Walker Sandford’s offices in relation to a maintenance issue. This correspondence was signed by three owners, including Mr Norman Anderson, and is the only written communication that we have received from this client.
In 2007, having only received token payments historically from the owner and the last of those being made in 2004, Walker Sandford instructed solicitors to undertake an Ordinary Cause action to recover the accrued debt. A title search of the property was undertaken by the Registers of Scotland, who produced documentation that the property in question is owned by Mr Norman Anderson and that he has owned this property since 1976. Again this action was served by sheriff officers. No defences were lodged and as such decree was granted and a further charge was served by sheriff officers.
A fifth visit by sheriff officers then became necessary, when the final stage of the legal process was commenced. At the court hearing, it was advised by the defender’s solicitor that Mr Norman Anderson was dead and had been for 15 years. Despite one meeting at the property, two completed legal actions, 27 visits to our offices, 72 issued invoices with 72 polite reminders and countless other items of correspondence, the residents of this flat had not chosen to disclose that Mr Anderson was not only dead, but had been dead for 5-6 years before Walker Sandford’s relationship began at the property.
During this time frame the only person whom Walker Sandford was aware of was a Mr Norman Anderson and, as already highlighted, was the recorded owner of the property by the Land Registry of Scotland. The existence of Mrs Anderson was only disclosed to Walker Sandford a matter of days prior to Ms Taylor penning her article, which claimed that we were attempting to evict an elderly lady.
At no time did Walker Sandford provide any instruction to evict this person of whose very existence we were never advised. We refute the allegation that we ever had any such intention and Ms Taylor was made fully aware of the aforementioned facts at the recorded interview in our offices. This was also confirmed in our emailed response to Ms Taylor’s queries received the day after the interview.
Walker Sandford have serious concerns about the manner in which this article has created a situation which does not exist. In the article Mr Anderson (jnr) claims that, despite residing at the property, believed the invoices to be addressed to his father (whom we now know died before Walker Sandford existed as a company). This is clearly at odds with the 27 payments made to our office, and the signed owners mandate referred to previously.
We further have concerns in the manner in which it has been projected that Walker Sandford created a large value of charges to bring about the indebtedness in an apparently short space of time. This account built to its current indebtedness over a period of nine years and includes considerable legal fees. During this time Walker Sandford continued to act in the best interests of the majority of owners by maintaining the property despite the accrual of Mr Norman Anderson’s debt.
The ultimate legal action and recovery processes engaged in relation Mr Anderson were a last resort, employed after a time frame extending to almost a decade of non-payment of communal accounts.
This story was typical of the avoidance of fact as with the other articles relating to our firm and we extend our concerns to those. We will be asking for the Evening Times to allow us our right of reply.
Posted by: Govan Law Centre, Glasgow on 3:41pm Sat 9 Feb 08
The reality is that Walker Sandford apply disproportionate weekly charges of £17.62 for standard reminder letters where customers are in arrears - even very modest arrears. Those letters provide no meaningful 'service' to the customer. We can think of no other UK business providing a consumer service which issues such repetitive, pointless and expensive correspondence.
Even bank charges (which the OFT believe are unlawful and unfair) are only charged when you actually attempt to go over your authorised limit - with Walker Sandford you incur a charge week on week for no particular reason other than they have chosen to impose a weekly penalty.
Why are reminder letters sent weekly? Is it because they rack up the 'debt' due by the customer to Walker Sandford very very quickly? And why do they make it so difficult for customers to sack them?
In addition Walker Sandford charge monthly compound interest of 2.5%, which can equate to approx 33% APR at the end of year one. Interest charges are charged on the overall 'debt', so Walker Sandford charge 33% APR interest on their own penalty charges.
In other words charges are charged on charges, are charged on charges of charges and so on and so forth. In contrast many title deeds permit interest to be applied on arrears at no more than 3 or 4% above base, at present that would be approx 8 to 9% APR.
Importantly, as far as we are aware no other property factor operates this regressive debt recovery practice which has the cumulative effect of creating significant fees for Walker Sandford, and placing the customer in an impossible cycle of debt. Typically, good factors will send a reminder letter once every 6 months or so.
Why does Walker Sandford take years before it raises an action for payment of arrears? Is it to maximise the amount profit it can generate from a customer by applying penalty charges and high interest?
In the case highlighted by the Evening Times, Walker Sandford complain 'At no time did Walker Sandford provide any instruction to evict this person of whose existence we were never advised'.
That complaint is disingenuous. The Evening Times' story said as follows:
"A GLASGOW-BASED factor has been accused of taking legal action that could have forced an 83-year-old woman out of her home of 46 years".
The assertion by the Evening Times is both factually and legally accurate.
Walker Sandford raised a petition for sequestration against Mr Anderson's late father. If sequestration had been granted by the court ownership of the house would have passed over to a Permanent Trustee in terms of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 as amended.
The Trustee would be duty bound to free up any equity in the hertiable property to meet Walker Sandford's debt - a 'debt' which consisted very much of penalty charges and interest.
Accordingly, the residents of the property could have been rendered homeless to meet Walker Sandford's debt. [bold]And that is exactly what the story explains.[/bold]
The reality is that Walker Sandford apply disproportionate weekly charges of £17.62 for standard reminder letters where customers are in arrears - even very modest arrears. Those letters provide no meaningful 'service' to the customer. We can think of no other UK business providing a consumer service which issues such repetitive, pointless and expensive correspondence.
Even bank charges (which the OFT believe are unlawful and unfair) are only charged when you actually attempt to go over your authorised limit - with Walker Sandford you incur a charge week on week for no particular reason other than they have chosen to impose a weekly penalty.
Why are reminder letters sent weekly? Is it because they rack up the 'debt' due by the customer to Walker Sandford very very quickly? And why do they make it so difficult for customers to sack them?
In addition Walker Sandford charge monthly compound interest of 2.5%, which can equate to approx 33% APR at the end of year one. Interest charges are charged on the overall 'debt', so Walker Sandford charge 33% APR interest on their own penalty charges.
In other words charges are charged on charges, are charged on charges of charges and so on and so forth. In contrast many title deeds permit interest to be applied on arrears at no more than 3 or 4% above base, at present that would be approx 8 to 9% APR.
Importantly, as far as we are aware no other property factor operates this regressive debt recovery practice which has the cumulative effect of creating significant fees for Walker Sandford, and placing the customer in an impossible cycle of debt. Typically, good factors will send a reminder letter once every 6 months or so.
Why does Walker Sandford take years before it raises an action for payment of arrears? Is it to maximise the amount profit it can generate from a customer by applying penalty charges and high interest?
In the case highlighted by the Evening Times, Walker Sandford complain 'At no time did Walker Sandford provide any instruction to evict this person of whose existence we were never advised'.
That complaint is disingenuous. The Evening Times' story said as follows:
"A GLASGOW-BASED factor has been accused of taking legal action that could have forced an 83-year-old woman out of her home of 46 years".
The assertion by the Evening Times is both factually and legally accurate.
Walker Sandford raised a petition for sequestration against Mr Anderson's late father. If sequestration had been granted by the court ownership of the house would have passed over to a Permanent Trustee in terms of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 as amended.
The Trustee would be duty bound to free up any equity in the hertiable property to meet Walker Sandford's debt - a 'debt' which consisted very much of penalty charges and interest.
Accordingly, the residents of the property could have been rendered homeless to meet Walker Sandford's debt.
And that is exactly what the story explains. Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 10:48pm Wed 13 Feb 08
Well said, Govan Law Centre. This whole business is really about Walker Sandford's bogus 'administration charges' and compound interest on the top, all designed to hike up a client's 'debt' to a level well worth suing them for. Proceeds then shared with their solicitor friends....!
Well said, Govan Law Centre. This whole business is really about Walker Sandford's bogus 'administration charges' and compound interest on the top, all designed to hike up a client's 'debt' to a level well worth suing them for. Proceeds then shared with their solicitor friends....!
Posted by: emmylou1977, Johnstone on 9:24pm Sun 21 Sep 08
Walker Sandford are a bunch F*&^ing A~@holes. I live in a property that most of the tennents do not like each other and Walker Sandford were set up as a factor behind several of our backs but as a supposed majority instructed them we had not choice. The first we knew about them was a getting a bill through the post. I spent months actually over year after that contacting them by fax, email, letter you name it to find out what they were billing us for and what there charges covered. I never receved any responses. The letters continued to come increasing bills every time and I even saw a lawyer about it but they refused to back down although I have not heard from them since. I am unable to change mortage companies because they have put something on the deeds about outstanding bills etc from the whole of the building and not just me. Even Watchdog investigated them!
Walker Sandford are a bunch F*&^ing A~@holes. I live in a property that most of the tennents do not like each other and Walker Sandford were set up as a factor behind several of our backs but as a supposed majority instructed them we had not choice. The first we knew about them was a getting a bill through the post. I spent months actually over year after that contacting them by fax, email, letter you name it to find out what they were billing us for and what there charges covered. I never receved any responses. The letters continued to come increasing bills every time and I even saw a lawyer about it but they refused to back down although I have not heard from them since. I am unable to change mortage companies because they have put something on the deeds about outstanding bills etc from the whole of the building and not just me. Even Watchdog investigated them!
Comment | Read Comments (86)
