Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

Not long to wait now for Crossley’s comeuppance!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4481 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

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hearing is listed to take place from 16th-20th January 2012.

 

Let’s wish Crossley a prosperous new year but somehow I don’t think that’s going to be the case. What goes around comes around big boy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Well it's his second time in front of such a hearing so no doubt he's concocted a tale or two to tell.

 

"The big boy made me do it & then ran away". ;)

 

It's actually going to be his THIRD appearance before the disciplinary tribunal.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think he got off lightly with just a 2 year ban, should have been life as he's no stranger to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal.

 

Mr Crossley admitted 6 of the allegations against him before the Tribunal. A further allegation was withdrawn by the SRA, and the final allegation relating to the data leak from Mr Crossley's computer servers was unadmitted but found proved against him.

 

Mr Crossley admitted that he allowed his independence to be compromised; acted contrary to the best interests of his clients; acted in a way that was likely to diminish the trust the public places in him or in the legal profession; and entered into arrangements to receive contingency fees for work done in prosecuting or defending contentious proceedings before the courts of England and Wales except as permitted by the statute or law. He also admitted that he had acted where there was a conflict of interest in circumstances not permitted, in particular because there was a conflict with those of his clients; and used his position as a solicitor to take or attempt to take advantage of other persons being recipients of letters of claim either for his own benefit of benefit of his clients.

 

The Tribunal suspended Mr Crossley from the Roll of Solicitors for a period of two years and awarded costs against him in the sum of £76,326.55. This means that Mr Crossley is unable to practise as a solicitor until such time has elapsed, and that should he continue to do so he will be committing a criminal offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they will now review all his cases and recind the judgements by default - I think judgement by default should be scrapped as many claimants abuse the court by hoping people won't defend, lame excuse I've come across is 'you borrowed the money and didn't repay so therefore you have no defence'.

 

In Mr Crossley's case he did not own the copyright on the items he was defending and therefore was acting as a third party collecting doubtful debt that had arisen 'due to misuse of the orginal copyright'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good result especially coming after the two from Davenport Lyons were found to be in breach of various SRA rules too.

 

Surely though DL and the Crossle/ACS must of known that this was coming, whilst they may have got away with avoidong criminal law, the SRA does not take matters like this lightly, some of the major SRA accusations were blatantly obvious even before ACS's meltdown and data leak.

 

What does amaze me is the costs that SRA come up with £75K for Crosselys case and £150K for the DL one, both cases only lated a few days....unbelievable. !..but of course its good to see the guilty parties punished. :)

 

I bet Crossely was very pleased with himself when niave and frightened folk started sending him cheques as a result of his letters but regrets it all now.

 

Lets hope this is a final warning to others contemplating similar action..yes..there were/are one or two !

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit disappointed with just a 2 year ban but when this is up at least his reputation will remain evermore in tatters and can’t see any reputable firm of sols employing this bumbling buffoon. Wish I could have been there in person to see the smile wiped off his previously smug bloated face, but at least our statement was read out to the tribunal to help nail this disgraceful specimen of a human.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...