Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sure, although i'd like to think other people would read the thread to access the final version uploaded yesterday and recognise that there was feedback post-upload for only a new paragraph 47 to be added. Anyway, attached is the redacted updated final version of the WS / Court bundle with the new paragraph. Final WS and Court Bundle redacted.pdf
    • OK.  All of us here have made mistakes in legal dispute - the important thing is to learn from the mistakes and get it right the next time.  So for future reference - 1.  Not a good idea to ignore a Letter of Claim.  The PPCs are on the look out for people who don't reply, as they think there is a good chance that the person won't reply to the claim form either, gifting them an easy default win. 2.  Not a good idea to fail to send a CPR request.  As they usually don't reply this gives you a chance to wallop them in your WS for not producing the correct legal permissions. 3.  Not a good idea to play your cards so early in your defence.  They will know how you mean to defend and will prepare accordingly to rubbish your arguments. Anyway, spilt milk and all that ... So what arguments do you plan to put in your WS?  You can't say "a bloke told me I could park there" as your opponent will just ridicule you for believing a load of baloney and not bothering to read the car park signage. I see you have questioned their right to bring claims under their own name (defence point 1) which is a start - but unfortunately you can't show them up for refusing to show their contract with the landowner following a CPR request. Who is this mysterious owner of the car park then who gave the permission and can they be involved? Your arguments about POFA (4) will fail as you've outed yourself as being the driver in your defence (3). You question their signage (17, 20).  Good.  Have you got photos of the rubbish signage? I'm afraid you don't seem to have real defence arguments that will stand up in court. dx is right - let's see the original PCN and any correspondence with UKPC.  
    • Thank you HB, I’ll speak to them. 
    • You need to speak to the student welfare people. They aren't the people who decide if you stay or not, they should be there for students. HB
    • I’m worried that if uni will expel me after knowing the shoplifting thing. I feel shameful about what I’ve done and I was kind of out of mind when I need money to survive. I will never do this again. 
  • 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

CCP survey letters


gerrylep
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3808 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

Has anyone else had these in the post? I assume I have to vote yes? Just wondering if folk think this is a good method to possibly recoup some monies of PPI i may have paid, or should I go down the tried and tested method of the many success stories on here? thx

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

CPP is an annually levied theft/misused protection

 

PPI is monthly

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...