Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 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
  • 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 4454 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...