Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention if peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now- post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!  Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.  Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.  A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
    • I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas. I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease. Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Scottish Limitation period extended


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6599 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

---

--

GOVAN LAW CENTRE

NEWS RELEASE

 

Immediate release on

Thursday, 30 March 2006

 

 

 

Insurance companies to pay out more - Supreme Court decision to benefit thousands of citizens

 

 

 

 

For over a decade insurance companies in Scotland have been able to reject breach of contract claims for inconvenience and distress not raised within 3 years. Scotland’s Supreme Court overturned that rule today and confirmed that citizens have the right to raise proceedings within a 5 year period.

It is not uncommon for insurance companies to delay and haggle over consumer claims. Your house is ruined by a flood, possessions are damaged or stolen. You think you are covered, but the insurance company drags it heels. By the time a citizen sues the insurance company they discover they are time barred to claim for hassle, distress and inconvenience suffered. So insurance companies have less incentive to settle.

Govan Law Centre’s case of Mack v. Glasgow City Council clarifies and advances the law of damages in favour of ordinary citizens.

Until today, insurance companies have relied on the case of Fleming v. Strathclyde Regional Council 1992 SLT 161 to reject many claims for distress and inconvenience. Such claims were treated as ‘personal injuries’ from Fleming, and only recoverable if claimed within 3 years. The Inner House of the Court of Session overturned Fleming and confirms that citizens can now pursue such claims for up to 5 years.

In delivering the Court’s Opinion in Mack, Lord MacFadyen said: “[17] In our opinion Fleming was wrongly decided … we conclude that the claim is not properly to be regarded as a claim for personal injuries”.

The Mack decision has implications not only for the insurance industry, but also for Glasgow City Council – who lost the appeal - and social landlords across Scotland. Glasgow City Council had argued their former tenant could not claim for the inconvenience and distress of having to live in unpleasant damp and mouldy living conditions because this was a claim for ‘personal injury’, and the former tenant was outwith the 3 year time limit.

If Glasgow City Council had of won its appeal it would have meant no tenant in Glasgow could have sued them for having to live in poor housing conditions – because the Council transferred all of its stock to the Glasgow Housing Association on 7 March 2003 – so its liability would have ended on 7 March 2006.

The consequence of Mack is that Glasgow City Council is still liable for claims for inconvenience and distress of former tenants until 6 March 2008. Likewise, all former landlords will be subject to a 5 year claim period after stock transfer, now and in the future.

Govan Law Centre’s Principal Solicitor, Mike Dailly, said:

“Govan Law Centre believes that the case of Mack is potentially good news for thousands of citizens across Scotland. If your insurance company refused to pay you money for distress or inconvenience in the last 2 years on the grounds of timebar, you should immediately consult your solicitor in light of Mack.

Likewise former tenants of GlasgowCity Council should be aware that they have until 6 March 2008 to recover damages from the Council for the inconvenience and distress of having to live in damp, cold and unpleasant living conditions”.

 

ENDS

 

NOTE TO EDITORS

The judgment of the Court was published in full on the Scottish Courts Service at lunchtime today (it runs to 13 pages).

It is available here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006CSIH18.html

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6599 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...