Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 161 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

Another court claim for Citicards !!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6400 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

Hi all

 

Another new member for the 'Brian Smith Fan Club' ! He's certainly got the right initials for it hasn't he :p

 

Anyway, I've just received what seems to be the now standard reply from

Mr BS, offering the difference between £12 and the various fees charged on my account. Obviously, this is not acceptable so I'm about to file my court claim - but wondered if I need to amend anything on the templates in view of recent events with Lickthewallfatboy ?

 

The letter also states:

'In a recent court case involving my client, Joeblow v Citi, the fairness of the above policy and the fairness of the £12 charges was raised. The case was dismissed and the court implicitly held that the policy was fair and the charges reasonable, being in line with both the OFT guidance and common law principles of damage for breach of contract. Citi does not wish to enter litigation with it's customers but will do so if necessary to discourage speculative and ill conceived cases founded on a misunderstanding of the OFT report. with the benefit of this judgement behind it, Citi will continue to deal with claims in the manner outlined above'

 

From reading through the threads I know a few people are getting replies along these lines (Bookwork - I'm also going to write to the various bodies about it !!), and I'm wondering if I should stick anything in my claim about it?

 

Anyone with any advice or suggestions, please chip in. And if there is anything that can't be posted feel free to PM me.

 

Keep up the good work guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

Citicards have over 50 claims now they are dealing with apparently. It came up at my hearing on Monday.

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are going to busy boys and girls then running up and down the country to all these local courts, all those travel costs, legal costs, etc, looks like Mr Smiths letters have put off no one.

And all that 8% interst of those claims must be a fair whack, why dont they just pay they will in the end.

regards

adamski

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

51

KBO

If you can't fight, wear a big hat.

 

Halifax... 2 successful claims....£518

 

CitiCards..... judgement and cheque (26/7/07) .... won £900

 

RBS business..... .....stay lifted reissued N1..... won £2105

 

Midland1 business.1996/1997.. first letter (27/6/07)....£1470

 

First Direct...... first letter (30/6/07).... £839.... stayed

 

plus another 13 banks/business/cc's to come for £10,000 plus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

51

 

:lol: Nice one.

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi zootscoot

 

Sorry for the delayed reply - main fuse blew and it's taken me a couple of days to figure out how to repair it . DOH !!

 

In reply to your question, the account is still open sort of - I haven't got a card and I haven't used the account since 2001 , but as I had a balance of about £3,000 I still owe them £2,230 even though I've paid them £75 a month or more religiously since then (including several one off payments of a few hundred quid !). Until I joined this site I had no real comprehension of interest rates etc, and I can't believe how much I've actually paid these people due to their exorbitant rates (27.9% on my card !!)

 

Fortunately, a few months on this site has made me realise that I need to understand a lot more about the way I, (and other people !!), handle what little money I've got. So hopefully I'll come out of this a lot wiser as well as a bit better off...

 

Thanks for the replies

 

popeye

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Popeye,

 

Give this letter a shot and issue your claim. The template is fine no need to alter it.

 

 

Dear xxxx

 

 

Account no xxxxx

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxx along with your offer of XXX. I accept this offer in accordance to with my duty to mitigate my loss as partial satisfaction of my claim. However, I must inform you that I fully intend to continue my claim for the full amount.

 

In accepting this part payment, I am in no way consenting to any variation in terms of the contract. I note that no variation of the terms in the contract can be conducted by yourselves unless 30 days notice in writing is granted as per clause 30.1 of the terms and conditions of the contract.

 

I am aware of the case of joe bloggs v. Citi, but understand that as a small claims case in Northern Ireland it will have no authority in any proceedings issued by myself. I am also aware that a district judge has also advised yourselves that it can not be relied on in any proceedings. I also understand that the case is subject to appeal.

 

I would also like to point out that whilst the OFT report was instrumental in alerting me to the fact that I can claim the return of unlawful penalty charges, it in no way forms the basis of my claim nor indeed could it as it has no legal force. To remind you, my claim is based entirely on statute and common law in that the regime of charges you have applied to my account represent unlawful penalties for breach of contract following the principles set out in Dunlop v New Garage. They also represent an unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2 provides that a term “requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his/her obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum by way of compensation” may be unfair. Furthermore any term requiring a consumer to indemnify your loss may also be regarded as unfair under s.4 of the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 where the court considers it to be unreasonable.

As you have clearly failed to respond to my intial request in either providing a breakdown of the costs to which you have been put to as a result of my breaches in contract, nor repaid the sum in full I shall be issuing a claim forthwith.

 

 

Yours Faithfully

 

XXXX

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys

 

Thanks for the advice Zootscoot - sent the letter this morning and will be off to court to file my claim this afternoon.

 

I'll let you know what BS MR B...S... himself comes up with in reply !!

 

Fingers crossed for you LTWFB

 

Bye for now

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...