Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Bookie v Grattan - again...


Bookworm
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5622 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Not having a good couple of weeks here... Washing-machine died the other day and now this... :-|

 

3 years ago, I bought Mr Bookie the TV of his dreams (at the time! Technology has moved on since): a 42" LCD Sony Home Cinema system, the KF-42SX300U, retailing at that point round the £1500 mark. Ouch. Still, it was on the BNPL over 50 weeks, and he was warned it would have to do for his next birthdays, Christmases, anniversaries and whatnot for the next few years... :razz:

 

Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago when dead pixels started appearing right in the middle of the screen. First one, then a couple of days later, another one, then another one... We're currently up to 5. Also at the same time, the bottom corner started having a blue hazy tinge that would come and go randomly... Except it's now more and more often, and it has spread to most of the side and since Sunday, it's now gone on to the middle of the screen in a sort of arc pattern.

 

On to my trusted Internet, where it would appear that this problem is known as the "blue blob", is down to an optical block of some sort failure, and it has been such an issue that Sony are repairing FOC until December 08.... in the US and Canada. Sony Europe? Nah, no chance. :rolleyes:

 

I contact Grattan and tell them nicely of the issue and what do they plan to do about it? Reply: Contact Sony, here's the number, they'll be able to help. Hmmm... Ok, so maybe they have a direct line for their own customers? Some companies do, right? At any rate, it's worth a call just in case.

 

Of course, I was giving Grattan too much credit. :-( This was the number for Sony Europe, who of course wanted to charge me for this and frankly had no interest in the fact that their counterpart across the pond were doing rather better. (then again, there is a class action going on against Sony US about that at the moment)

 

So back to Grattan, where I have told them in no uncertain term that a) it is their problem and what do they intend to do about it? and b) that I am rather displeased at their clumsy attempt to palm me off to Sony. :mad:

 

Update as and when it comes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already starting to feel sorry for Grattan....:p

 

Definately!

 

The blue blob problem sounds terminal - I've got one on my very old Toshiba (it's not flat, it's not silver!) which is fine when you are watching a film about the ocean I guess.

 

As for the US sorting this out for free and the UK saying 'go whistle', well that's no surprise. My son's laptop's wireless bit stopped working about a month out of warranty. It's 'known issue' with Hewlett Packard in the States and very easy & free to get repaired, but over here? Fat chance! In the end I just bought a plug in wireless adaptor.

 

Go for it Bookie! :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phone call a moment ago: they're prepared to take back the TV and refund me minus a 40% usage allowance, which would give me about £840 to buy a new one. The way the prices have dropped in the last few years, it would allow me to buy an equivalent or slightly better no problem, as long as it is a cash refund, not a credit to my catalogue account, obviously (forgot to check, but I'll kick off on that if need be, after all, I have paid in full, so to coin a phrase: it's my money! :razz:).

 

Very tempted to accept straight away, I have to say, I've got so much on my plate just now, and I do feel it is quite a fair offer.

 

Comments? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take it - with reservation.

 

Compared to a replacement or repair, it is probably the most proportionate. You would also be the worse off imho if you sought compensation.

 

Looks like they have complied with the letter of the law at least.

 

However 40% - is that a bit too harsh? A three year old TV having a lifespan of 7 years? Hmmm. Dunno. May have a fight arguing otherwise...

 

Grab it and run, I say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as refund is by cheque and not by credit to your account that seems reasonable to me.

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...