Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • How much of the documentation have you seen from when probate was obtained? And do you have a copy of the original will? I can't remember. My thought about you making the decision on your own to go with another lawyer is that three of you are meant to be beneficiaries of this will trust, aren't you? Normally you would need to act together. HB
    • Octopus allows you to pay by variable Direct Debit, so you pay only for what you use but still benefit from DD pricing. That's what I've done ever we were SOLRed over to them in July 2022.
    • Hi guys, I am about to file my defence via email as cannot log in to the claim anymore.  Can you please advise if I can paste below and if it's good to go for now, or should I add anything else in?  Thanks!  The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of vehicle xxxx xxx.  2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant - Parking Eye LTD.  3.  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 simply contracted by the landowner 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.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.   4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.  5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.   6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Getting onto the ladder: The first-time buyer conundrumView the full article
    • Ooops - one to many also s..... my draft reply should read as:  Thank you for your response Mr Schnur  I set out my position quite clearly in my letter of claim and nothing has changed. Your insurance requirement is unlawful and is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act, and also section 72 of the same statute. I would also refer you to the outcomes in PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729).  My deadline for action - 1 May 2024 - still stands, and if P2G wish to avoid the addition of court costs and interest to my claim, you may wish to respond positively before that date.
  • 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

Prohibited Collection Practices In Canada (Harassment)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4036 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

Prohibited Collection Practices In Canada (Harassment)

 

In May of 2001, Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Consumer Affairs ratified a harmonization initiative that will enable all provinces and territories to implement a common list of prohibited collection practices. This consistent approach to the collection practices of companies, that are now often doing business in multiple jurisdictions, will ensure clarity for consumers, the industry and regulators. The practices discussed included such issues as excessive pressure, disclosure and privacy. In April 2003, the CMC Working Group on collection agencies agreed upon a revision to the harmonized list.

 

Harassment

 

No [collection agency] shall communicate or attempt to communicate with the debtor, any member of the debtor's family or household, any relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance of the debtor, or the debtor's employer, by any means, in such a manner or with such frequency as to constitute harassment, including:

 

the use of threatening, profane, intimidating or coercive language;

 

the use of undue, excessive or unreasonable pressure;

 

threatening to publish or publishing a debtor's failure to pay.

 

 

You can read the full Document and download it in PDF at the following link:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/ca01786.html

Edited by stu007
Updated
Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute Of Limitations On Debts In Canada

 

March 4, 2003 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada decided that limitations applied to CRA as well as other Crown proceedings. Section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and Section 3 (5) of the BC Limitation Act barred collection of the Federal and Provincial portions of the debt since the debt was more than 6 years old.

 

 

 

The following is the Statute Of Limitations laws for the Provinces and Federal Government in Canada

 

British Columbia - Section 3 (5) of the BC Limitation Act sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Alberta - The Alberta Limitations Act sets 2 years as the term which is extended to 10 years if there is a judgement.

 

Manitoba – Limitation of Actions Act, C.C.S.M. c. L150, s. 2(1)(g) sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

New Brunswick – Limitation of Actions Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. L-8.5. sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Newfoundland and Labrador – Limitations Act, S.N.L. 1995, c. L-16.1, ss. 5(b); 13; 14. sets 2 years as the limit for debt.

 

Nanavut – Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c.L-8, s. 2(e). sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Nova Scotia – Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.258, s. 2(1)(e). sets 6 years*as the limited for debt. However, within 4 years of expiry of general limitation period, court may disallow the limitation period, having regard to circumstances of the case – Listed are enumerated factors to consider including date of “discovery” of claim.

 

NWT – Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. L-8, s. 2(e). sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Ontario - The Ontario Limitation Act 2002 , came into force on January 1, 2004. It sets two years as the term (Section 4). This limitation will be reinstated where the debtor acknowledges the debt or makes a partial payment towards repayment of his debt. If the default occurred prior to January 1, 2004, the creditor will continue to have 6 years to pursue the claim. However, if the default occurred after January 1, 2004 then the 2-year rule applies.

 

P.E.I. – Statute of Limitations, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-7, s. 2(1)(g). sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Quebec – Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 2925. sets 3 years as the limit for debt.

 

Saskatchewan – Limitations Act, S.S. 2004, c. L-16.1. sets 2 years as the limit for debt.

 

Yukon – Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 139, s. 2(1)(e), (f). sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

 

Federal - Section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

Edited by stu007
updated
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Canada, there are three major credit bureaus: Equifax Canada, NCB Inc. and TransUnion Canada;

 

http://www.consumer.equifax.ca/home/en_ca

 

http://www.creditbureau.ca/

 

http://www.transunion.ca/

 

Canadian Debt Collection, Creditors' Remedies.

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/debt-collection.htm#t

Edited by cerberusalert
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND PROVIDING FOR THE RECIPROCAL RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS

 

Canada-United Kingdom Civil and Commercial Judgments Convention Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-30)

 

An Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

 

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Canada-United Kingdom Civil and Commercial Judgments Convention Act.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 1.

 

Convention approved

 

2 The Convention entered into between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, set out in the schedule, is approved and declared to have the force of law in Canada during such period as, by its terms, the Convention is in force.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 2.

 

Inconsistent laws

 

3 In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act, or the Convention, and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Act and the Convention prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 3.

 

Regulations

 

4 The Minister of Justice may make such regulations as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Convention or for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 4.

 

Promulgation of dates

 

5 Notice of the day the Convention comes into force and of the day it ceases to be effective shall be given by proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the Canada Gazette.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 5.

 

SCHEDULE

(Section 2)

Convention Between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Providing for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters

 

 

You can read the full document and download it in PDF from the following link:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-30/FullText.html

Edited by stu007
Updated
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4036 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...