Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since. I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4749 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, Bong.

 

As Breadline said, these searches are going on all the time, but unfortunately, not everyone uses a spellchecker.:D

 

This means that inevitably we miss the occasional suspect post.

It is for that reason that we have the "Report This Thread" facility, and I'm glad to say that it does get used and it does a very useful job.

 

Thanks to anyone who informs us of any "dodgy posts".

:)

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Rooster - just curious to know, if you can help - would it be libellous to say something general like "the thieving banks" or would it have to specifically mention the bank's name for it to warrant concern?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, since you are thusly besmirching the reputation of everyone in the sector, maybe giving every bank an opportunity to sue.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, it's fine in that context, because you're not accusing the banks of thievery, merely inquiring about what would happen if you did. Qualification is everything. :)

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO....

 

Better to be safe than sorry.

 

After all, this site is about getting charges back, not giving them away.

:D

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, what is the policy on potentially libellous usernames? "Stopthethieves" is fine, since it doesn't make reference to anything in particular - in fact, stopping thieves is a perfectly noble goal. But I've spotted at least one recently that might be problematic.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbing , Robbed, thieving, stolen.

All come under. Insurance threads, car threads, jokes. :(

Oh yeah...duh lol

25/06/08 - NatWest - Prelim letter

09/03/06 - Halifax - Settled 27/4

22/03/06 - Capital One - Settled 24/6

17/04/06 - Nationwide - Settled 8/9

 

 

Hit the DONATE BUTTON and give 5% back to support this site!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest willowb

How interesting....I'll certainly inform a mod if I am uncertain.

 

form of either bribery (Won't work).

 

:o How very dare they!!!! they haven't have they? well, not that you could say!!!!:o

 

Forum owners are, indeed liable for the content on the forum as they are publishers..

 

Wasn't there that case recently where a writer of parent help books (Gina Ford?) filed a claim against a 'baby forum' for the things they were saying about her books?.....anyone know more about it? it was a while ago...

 

Incidently (and very off topic) how did you get into chasing down the **** that peddle child porn? I'd love to track them down and make sure they got what they deserved - although I'd probably be too emotionally involved and lose my rag with them if I ever met one!

 

Me too

 

well I just came across a post which made a libellous comment about the bank, and reported it, however I decided afterwards to do a search on the word 'thieving' and, as it is so often misspelt - 'theiving'. Numerous posts came up and I wondered why the mods aren't doing searches such as this themselves to delete the offending words?

 

I read somewhere that if a policeman takes you name down wrong when you have committed a speeding offence (any other offence???) then it is inadmissable and you could get off on a technicality....would it be the same on a forum? if I said **** are a theiving bunch of gits, would this be inadmissable because it's misspelt?

 

Wxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that if a policeman takes you name down wrong when you have committed a speeding offence (any other offence???) then it is inadmissable and you could get off on a technicality....

Wxx

 

That, to the best of my knowledge, is incorrect, I have been browsing quite a bit lately on the motoring sites, and what I read was you can't get away with it if it a minor misspelling or missing letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest, what is the policy on potentially libellous usernames? "Stopthethieves" is fine, since it doesn't make reference to anything in particular - in fact, stopping thieves is a perfectly noble goal. But I've spotted at least one recently that might be problematic.

 

Well, it depends, really, for example:

 

"Natwesttookmy money" is fine. They did take his money, there is no libel, it is a fact.

"NatwestSTOLEmy money" would NOT be fine... for obvious reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Natwesttookmy money" is fine. They did take his money, there is no libel, it is a fact.

 

Truth is not a complete defence in the UK. It's reasonable to argue that using such a name in the context of unlawful charges also implies that the bank has acted unlawfully, itself true but still defamatory (doesn't need to be false to be so). Bit of a grey area there still methinks :(

 

"NatwestSTOLEmy money" would NOT be fine... for obvious reasons.

 

I think there might have been one of those too. There are a few names referencing banks being "cowboys" too. Would be nice to call up the userlist so we could track them all down, and allow them to make arrangements for usernames to be changed.

 

Getting hosted in the US wouldn't really help. The only thing that would be different is that the hosts would have a jurisdiction gap to protect them - they can still be sued under UK law, but the judgement would have to be enforced separately in the US. Enforcement would fail, because under US law, truth is a complete defence to libel. However, this would offer no protection to Reclaim The Right Ltd., the forum administrators, and the majority of the users, who would still be based in the UK.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
..... in your choice of words when posting on the site.

 

I have just seen another posting in one of the bank threads that has been edited by a mod for the use of the word "stolen"

 

The word stolen implies that the banks have comitted a criminal act in taking the charges and this is not the case. The issue is one of civil and not criminal law and use of words that suggest criminal activity could result in a claim for libel against the owners of this site. Not a nice thought. Bankfodder and Dave have taken a lot upon themselves to get this thing going, not to mention the mods and site helpers who have enough to do without dealing with stupid comments, even if they are made out of ignorance.

 

Sorry for the rant but it would be a shame to see the site go pear shaped because of the misguided activities of a few people. We are all disgruntled bank customers so lets work together without giving them any ammunition to fire back.

 

Paul

Paul, I think that you could be refering to my comment, i have not explained mtyself enough.when i stated that i had money stolen, i have had money stolen out of my business account via a cloned atm card! This is a fact and i must add that the Bank i use are helping me and have agreed that i will get a full refund, but in the meantime i am still £1600 short and due to ABBEY declaring a default notice against me i have been unable to get an overdraft, thus causing me further loss and hardship

All I want is to live a quiet life! ;)

I work hard but i also play hard!:o

Life is to be lived not regretted!:cool:

Don't Think about it....... Do It!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the word Lying which I have seen a few times on one particular thread albeit spelt wrong on all four occasions used defamatory or in need on mod intervention?

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I think that you could be refering to my comment, i have not explained mtyself enough.when i stated that i had money stolen, i have had money stolen out of my business account via a cloned atm card! This is a fact and i must add that the Bank i use are helping me and have agreed that i will get a full refund, but in the meantime i am still £1600 short and due to ABBEY declaring a default notice against me i have been unable to get an overdraft, thus causing me further loss and hardship

 

No, this wasn't the post I was referring to. In your case you did have money stolen but not by the bank.

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the word Lying which I have seen a few times on one particular thread albeit spelt wrong on all four occasions used defamatory or in need on mod intervention?

 

 

Another one I would personally choose to avoid as it suggests that the banks are not telling the truth when the fact is they are actually just saying nothing.

Advice given is either my experience or my opinion and is given without liability. If in doubt, consult a qualified professional.

If you PM me for advice I will only reply in your own thread

 

Never under estimate your ability. I won over £17,000!

For the full story - look here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/NatWest-bank/17630-thecobbettslayer-NatWest.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Sorry to dig up an old thread.

 

My question/suggestion is that this thread get moved to the welcome section.

 

Ive been using this site since Feb 06 and I am carefull what I say but I did not realise it went as far as saying, robbing, theif, stolen ect.

 

 

Might be helpfull to see this discussion when you are new.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

2007 thread

 

now closing

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4749 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...