Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
    • Hungary is attempting to be a world power in manufacturing electric vehicle batteries, despite locals' reservations.View the full article
    • You can't, but you can (and really should) bring up the point that the lender isn't meeting their legal obligations in selling the property for fair market value. You'll have to do this in court, though. A receiver is bought in by the lender, not you. If they're a registered insolvency practitioner, you may be able to raise a complaint to the insolvency service but there are no guarantees here. Many receivers are also registered with the RICS and self-regulate so if you know the name of the receiver you can check there, again no guarantees. https://www.rics.org/surveyor-careers/career-development/accreditations/registered-property-receivership-scheme
  • 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

Previous Maintenance


Dianne74
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2366 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

Could anyone please give advice on taking the CMS to court.

 

I have been paying maintance and have gone above and beyond by paying the same volume of money whilst my daughter was not in school for a year.

 

she came to tell me as she lives with her mum that she was 3 months pregnant and was keeping the baby at the age of 15.

despite me not agreeing with this in any way she still went ahead and had the baby.

whilst she was out of school for a year I still paid the full amount agreed even when I was not required to do so.

 

since then my daughter has not contacted me at all despite me paying for items for the baby and paying full money for a year.

to top this off her PWC opened a claim against me many years ago which has now come to light despite me paying her what we had agreed and not missing a single payment.

 

The CMS have now sent me a letter stating that I owe over £9000.

I have contacted the CMS and since this has happened myself and the PWC came to an agreement.

this I have stuck to despite my disagreement with this being claimed but according to the CMS I have no choice.

 

This has now gone a step further as the PWC has no choose to go back to the CMS for the outstanding money even though she contacted them and so did I and I was confirmed on the phone that this had be closed and she only had 30 days in which to change her mind.

 

120 days later after keeping up with the agreement that we had and both signed they are now saying that they can reopen the case despite telling me that this was not possible and wouldn't happen.

 

they are saying that although she called in and cancelled on the 7th july and only had 30 days to change her mind

she then phones in on 1st November for them to tell her she can now claim all of the £9000 supposable owed due to the fact that they had said I was closed and all the paper work had been done there end they had simply not sent out a letter to state that it had been closed. there error not mine.

due to this they are now saying that the 30 days was from the letter and the case was still open.

 

can someone please advice as it has taken them a grand total of 2 hours to contact me to tell me I owe money and have said that I will receive this in writing in 5 working days.

yet I have waited 120 days for them to send me a letter to say the case is closed and to date I have still not received this.

 

How can it be that they can send a letter in 5 days yet I wait for 4 months and still no letter.

there must be something within the law that says this is wrong and needs to be changed

as the fact that they didn't follow procedure and didn't send me the letter even after 4 months

showing me their level of incompetence that this letter or lack of has now cost me £9000 purely due to there incompetence.

 

can any one please help any information would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the CSA forum

 

dx

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

that's helpful...not...

 

dx

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

No its not. Your right.

Having sex with a underage girl, well that's ok then.

I claim the adage of "clean hands"

Someone ( in the last paragraph) wants the law to protect them when they broke the law in the first place.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best course of action is to go through every bit of paperwork you have going back the last 15 years and compare it to the law at the time and look for errors on the part of the agencies. You will normally fidn that there are get out clauses in all of the legislation that allows the CSA and all other governmental organisations to act almost how they feel as long as they have an honest belief in what they re up to is right, even when it isnt

also you will need to find out what the maximum and minimum maintenance payments would ahve been for your circumstances over this period so yo can dispute the demand, even if that dispute is for a fraction of it due to errors in calculations. these errors may well be enought to show that procedures havent been followed and you then have grounds to challenge their decision to allow a late claim etc. just saying it is wrong and unfair isnt enough, even if that is the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...