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
  • 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

OFT test case, lack of room for public - letter to MP


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5919 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,

 

I received an email from Stephen Hone, on his mailing list PenaltyCharges site, in which he asks us to send letter to our MPs to back an Early Day Motion, which is going to be raised by his MP in Parliament on Monday 14th January 2007, on the lack of room of public to attend.

 

I have a template letter which I hope you find useful, and please get your MPs support it, here goes:

 

In regards to: Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") Test Case on legality of Unauthorised Overdraft (bank charges) and request for you to support an Early Day Motion by Gary Streeter MP on Monday 14th January 2008

NAME OF MP

Houses of Parliament

 

 

SW1A 0AA

Dear ,

Subject: OFT Test Case on legality of Unauthorised Overdraft (bank charges) and request for you to support an Early Day Motion by Gary Streeter MP on Monday 14th January 2008

I am writing to bring to your attention important information about the OFT Test Case on the legality of bank charges and to ask for your support with an Early Day Motion raised by Gary Streeter MP.

The whole issue of bank charges impacts on most of the people in our constituency and I hope you will support the Early Day Motion by Gary Streeter MP which he will raise on Monday 14th January 2008..

Background:

In 2005 a law student and current bank charges campaigner, Stephen Hone brought a civil court action against Abbey National PLC on the grounds that the banks Unauthorised Overdraft charge of £32, which they charged him numerous times, was "disproportionate" to the costs incurred by the bank.

His claim alleged that the charges are in breach of the Unfair Terms of the Consumer Contracts Regulations ("UTCCR") 1999, which state that a consumer should not pay a disproportionately high amount of compensation if he or she fails to meet an obligation.

His Claim was commenced in Plymouth County Court, he stated that his claim was for £2000 over a period of 6 years, his claim was filed, but Abbey National PLC failed to submit a defence therefore Stephen Hone won his case by default.

District Judge Andrew Moon found in favour of Stephen Hone and ordered the bank to pay him an undisclosed amount, however Abbey National PLC was granted a retrial after claiming it had failed to offer a defence because it was not notified of the court date, but before the case could come to court again the bank Abbey settled by paying Hone £5,000.

Since the success of Stephen Hone's case others have followed his example.

OFT Case and the 14th January 2008 Early Day Motion of Gary Streeter MP for Devon South West

On 27th July 2007 the OFT, with the agreement of UK banks, Abbey National PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Clydesdale Bank PLC, HBOS PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Nationwide Building Society and Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, commenced proceedings in the High Court for a declaration of the application of the law in respect of Unauthorised Overdraft (bank "penalty charges), preliminary legal principle of whether the provisions of the UTCCRs that deal with unfairness apply. It will also address the additional point of law of whether the charges can be a penalty at common law. It will not lead to a judgment as to whether charges themselves are fair or not. The OFT will decide after the initial judgment what steps to take should it win the test case and conclude from its financial investigation that any of the charges are unfair.

However, according to the OFT, the case will now not be heard in the High Court, it will instead be heard in the International Dispute Resolution Centre on 16th January 2008.

The problem is that the International Dispute Resolution Centre only has place for 11 people, which will consist of press and public, therefore it will be difficult for both press and public to get a full picture of the trial, access to the trial will be on a first come first served basis.

The whole issue of bank charges and the legality is definately of grave concern to most people, especially those who have unfairly been subjected to bank charges, especially those on low income, disabled and the elderly and therefore it is obviously in the public intrest, so therefore it makes sense that the hearing should take place where lots of members of the public and press are actually able to attend.

On Friday 11th January 2008 Stephen Hone met with his local MP, Gary Streeter MP for Devon South West who agrees that the lack of seating for members of the public and the press is a disgrace and as a result he will be raising an Early Day Motion, I ask that you support his motion.

The importance of you supporting the Early Day Motion is that bank charges are a major contributor to the UK's debt crisis and social exclusion, especially in our constituent.

Yours Sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one, but there is some debate over what influence the Government can have over a civil case, however, the more publicity the better. You may want to look on the HSBC forum for my thread Prime Ministers Website as it has email addys and a template email for the press and the more that support this the better...

 

Thanks,

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...