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

Ripped off by Locksmith


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2186 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

Yes guilty I’m a Rover enthusiast.

 

...My position is, if chummy rejects my offer of £140.00 IFAFS I shall pay a lesser amount (s ay £125) into his bank account .....

Why a lesser amount to your proposed settlement? The courts would look unfavourably on you with this course of action.

 

......into his bank account .....
Why into his bank account? In my view you would be better sending him a cheque for the amount your proposing with the condition if he presents the cheque he is accepting that amount in Full and Final Settlement.

 

......I very much doubt that HH will view his behaviour with approval.
From what you say this is a B2B issue. The courts won't intervene to the value of work done. Sorry for you but ericsbrother and Consumer Dude are correct on this one.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As HMRC do not recognise small landlords as a business for tax purposes, a court is unlikely to either.

 

 

I very much doubt if chummy will take me to court over a few pounds, in any case the police or TS may save him the bother.

 

 

Also he appears to be unfamiliar with the process, I sent him a letter marked "without prejudice" and he accused me of being prejudiced. He is also unlikely to be able to produce a compliant LBA without legal assistance. I do not think that, with his rapsheet, CPR27.14(2)(g) costs are likely.

 

 

Why a lesser amount? Perhaps not, perhaps a fiver more, and a cheque in full and final settlement is a good idea, let us see if he has the cojones to return it uncashed, but not until I have received a letter from a DCA. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

As HMRC do not recognise small landlords as a business for tax purposes, a court is unlikely to either.

 

The court can reach its own decision, and isn't bound by HMRC's opinion.

 

You own several properties, engage tradesmen several times a year to them, and have traded for 40 years (according to your own posts).

If it looks like a duck, quacks, and waddles when it walks : chances are it's a duck.

Sounds like a business to me, and the court can reach the same conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course letting properties is s business, but HMG do not think so. I am taxed on SA and the properties are not incorporated into the company. I suggest that it is a platypus.

 

In any case would chummy pass the "clean hands" test?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course letting properties is s business, but HMG do not think so...

 

No....HMRC might take that view (I've not checked so can't confirm), that does not mean the the independent courts have the same view.

 

In any case would chummy pass the "clean hands" test?.
Could be irrelevant if not directly linked to the case. Edited by 416GSi
Link to post
Share on other sites

....I very much doubt if chummy will take me to court over a few pounds...

I'm not clear why its worth your time either.

 

 

....Also he appears to be unfamiliar with the process, I sent him a letter marked "without prejudice" and he accused me of being prejudiced...

Now that is funny!

 

....He is also unlikely to be able to produce a compliant LBA without legal assistance...

Thats not difficult he only needs to Google LBA and he will get loads of templates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You were prepared to pay £181 + VAT before so why not now?

 

 

Where did I say that? In any case that figure included vat.

 

 

Bear in mind that locksmiths undergo training of between a few days and less than a year. It is hardly rocket science.

 

Not sure why I received no further notifications regarding this post so apologies for the delayed reply.

 

My mistake, £181 incl VAT, but the point in my post remains...

 

That afternoon he phones me, office has reduced the cost to £181 including v.a.t.

Ask for an invoice. Invoice arrives next day for £254.00

 

Query this with head office, (a one man micro company), and next day they send a revised bill for £181.

 

So you asked for a £181 invoice after the alleged threats he made, (eventually) got a £181 invoice, but now want to pay £140... or £125... or some other amount.

 

Again, anything else is just handbags... In your first post you said when he was going to charge you £281 and you asked for a VAT invoice which is when he turned nasty... Nastiness aside - were you ever going to pay the £281 if he sent you the VAT invoice?

 

In any event you got him down by £100 to £181 and are now, for want of a better word, extorting him for a further discount...

 

My suggestion - pay the £181 and get on with your life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I complain to the company and the customer service chappie sends (to the wrong address), an insulting reply saying they are not charging me and offering 15% discount on future work (as if)." - https://uk.trustpilot.com/users/55b299cf0000ff0001cf0f1b

 

Looking at your other review and replies in this thread you seem to think the world owes you something, you need to grow up and get a grip. An insulting reply ? They aren't charging you and offering you a discount for a mistake that in all honesty has probably cost you nothing. What is more insulting is the way you treat these people that are trying to do a job you have asked them to do. As others have said just pay the £181 and stop with the small willy waving thinking you are the better man, because from here you just come across as a complete and utter fool.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...