Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 02/01/2023 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 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, 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.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • 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

Is this garden leave??***Resolved***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2026 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

dondada,

 

just quoting cases is like taking someone to a law library and saying "look at all the books!"

 

What is helpful is highlighting the specific circumstances of the ruling, the specific point of law, and in what way they are like the posters case. If they posters case does not rely on the same point of law, then they are not useful cases.

 

G4S versus Powell probably does not apply here, because it concerned a case of disability. Illness is not disability except in very specific circumstances.

 

 

The OP said he had stroke about 6 months ago.The govt guidelines list stroke as long term impairment deemed a disability

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance

 

It is on page 8 G4S v Powell is clearly applicable to his case

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The OP said he had stroke about 6 months agoThe govt guidelines list stroke as long term impairment deemed a disability

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance

 

 

It is on page 8 G4S v Powell is clearly applicable to his case

 

I am afraid your reading comprehension is flawed. That page says disability CAN arise from a stroke, not that it DOES ALWAYS. Indeed I know a large number of people who have made a full recovery from a stroke and gone on to live very active and fulfilling lives. I hope this also happens for the OP.

 

So unless OP can give is a fuller view on the condition and if it meets the legal definition of disability, I am afraid further case law is of no relevance.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I thought other readers might like a summary of the case referred o

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/the-10-most-important-employment-law-cases-in-2016/

 

6. Pay protection can be a reasonable adjustment

 

G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd v Powell (EAT)

 

What happens to the pay of a disabled employee who is moved to a new role because he or she is unable to continue in an old role?

 

In Powell, a maintenance engineer developed back problems and retained his existing terms and conditions, but moved to the lesser role of “key runner”.

 

However, a dispute arose after his employer said that it would only keep the role, which it said was designed to be temporary, if he agreed to a reduction in pay.

 

In the engineer’s subsequent disability discrimination claim, the EAT accepted that, while not an “everyday event”, there is no reason why pay protection cannot be a reasonable adjustment as part of a package of measures to get an employee back to work.“

 

You will see from the wording that pay protection is seen, in some cases, as a reasonable adjustment to help an employee back to work, but it is by no means suggested it applies in every case, or is necessary in every case. More explicitly “However, it also said that the question of whether it was reasonable for that particular employer was separate and should be considered on a case-by-case basis” (http://dixcartlegal.com/articles/employment/disability-reasonable-adjustments-can-include-protecting-pay)

 

So it would be nothing short of reckless to encourage people, even those with a clearly evidenced disability, to rely on this case law.

 

Dondada, I think if you are going to ask Sangie to quote laws to support their advice, your own evidence needs to be of a much higher quality too. Otherwise people will be confused and misguided. This should, to my mind, be a place for help and support, not debating club. Usually I’ve got better things to do than hunt down and refute inappropriate case law, but when I have time, I’ll keep doing it, so people are well informed.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Equality Act note, I also have type 1 diabetes that was declared to my employer 21 years ago when I was appointed but they have never asked about reasonable adjustments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will see from the wording that pay protection is seen, in some cases, as a reasonable adjustment to help an employee back to work, but it is by no means suggested it applies in every case, or is necessary in every case. More explicitly “However, it also said that the question of whether it was reasonable for that particular employer was separate and should be considered on a case-by-case basis” (http://dixcartlegal.com/articles/employment/disability-reasonable-adjustments-can-include-protecting-pay)

 

.

 

 

Thank you for bringing this out as it illustrates my point "Case by case basis", I take that to mean it is fact sensitive.The OP (and others) in similar circumstances are now aware that Pay Protection COULD be a reasonable adjustment.Since they alone know the facts of their cases, they would then read the case law and see if it applies to their own case.

 

 

 

It is very annoying when people insult the intelligence of others because they asked a simple question.The OP is intelligent enough to research any Case Law and decide if it applies to him.

 

Let him do so, please

Edited by Andyorch
Quote reduced and response formatted.
Link to post
Share on other sites

no such requirement 21 years ago and the EA didnt exist either and they arent expected to be clairvoyant.

 

Pick your battles carefully.

 

 

On the Equality Act note, I also have type 1 diabetes that was declared to my employer 21 years ago when I was appointed but they have never asked about reasonable adjustments.
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to ericsbrother and the point he made - wouldn't any employer, irrelevant of the length of time in charge of an employee, be required to be cognisant of any legislative changes and be required to implement such according to such members of the affected workforce?

 

Dondada has inspired me to continue my claim - thank you.

 

Going back to my recent post - where can I learn about representing myself should this end up at an EAT?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you attended an ET or EAT? I know for an ET you can attend a local one, not sure about second tier hearings.

 

Edit: As far as I can see you haven't confirmed whether this is an employment tribunal or an employment appeal tribunal.

 

 

HB

Edited by honeybee13

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to ericsbrother and the point he made - wouldn't any employer, irrelevant of the length of time in charge of an employee, be required to be cognisant of any legislative changes and be required to implement such according to such members of the affected workforce?

 

 

In 21 years, have you ever needed an adjustment to accomodate your diabetes? I have MS but don't really need them to do anything abiout it.... managing my condition is currently down to me!

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

so when did you raise this with them as an issue for consideration, the day after the new laws came in?

 

they will be aware of the laws but not aware that you may have diabetes because it is none of their business unless you request some consideration for a disability as a result of this condition.

 

You cant bring up things after you have left and then say that they werent considered so it is now unfair and you want some recompense.

 

Can you show an example of where your diabetes was a factor in some disciplinary matter? If not you would be wise to move on to the next point

 

As someone who retired early because of health grounds I can say that it is an absolute devil to get anywhere by expecting anyone to give a stuff about your condition.

 

I too have MS but one OH doctors report said that I shouldnt get an enhanced pension because they may find a cure for it before my normal retirement date and as for a missing leg, the prosthetics are so good these days they are better than real ones. well if that is true why wasnt Oscar Pistorius a word famous roofer rather than runner?

 

I have taken organisations to court for disability discrimination and won one and lost one.

 

You will find that because of the nature of your claim that it may well take 3 years to get to then end of the matter.

 

Do you want to spend the time doing that rather than something else.

As said, choose your battle carefully. A small victory over procedural matters is better than a big disappointment.

 

 

In reply to ericsbrother and the point he made - wouldn't any employer, irrelevant of the length of time in charge of an employee, be required to be cognisant of any legislative changes and be required to implement such according to such members of the affected workforce?

 

Dondada has inspired me to continue my claim - thank you.

 

Going back to my recent post - where can I learn about representing myself should this end up at an EAT?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to ericsbrother and the point he made - wouldn't any employer, irrelevant of the length of time in charge of an employee, be required to be cognisant of any legislative changes and be required to implement such according to such members of the affected workforce?

 

Dondada has inspired me to continue my claim - thank you.

 

Going back to my recent post - where can I learn about representing myself should this end up at an EAT?

 

Hi Andyasw,

 

Yes the Equality Act wasn't in place at the time you were employed However, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was in place when you were employed

Yes, there was a duty to make adjustment.However, there is a legal principle called Laches, you waited too long

 

You have a strong case in the Deduction/Pay Protection Claim.Pay Protection is an exception.Your employer ignored the Doctor's advice, that means you qualified for the exception

 

You need to first ask your employer for their reasons.The Tribunal would not be too happy if you didn't seek to resolve the issue.

 

Finally, you need to do a lot of research! G4S is a relevant case in your situation.But you need to also read cases where the Claimant lost.You need both cases to be able to distinguish your case

 

The other side would try and prove to the Judge that your case is similar to the one that lost.You need to know that case in order to show to the Judge the difference (the legal term is called "Distinguish") .Feel free to ask any question

 

Wish you all the best

Edited by dx100uk
Formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Dondada but where can I find such cases to read up on? Is there any particular website you would recommend?

 

The website I like using is https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed31608

 

https://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=li0&p=4&s=pay%20protection

 

But you might like other websites.Just read as many case laws so you can distinguish your case

 

Wish you all the best .keep us updated

Link to post
Share on other sites

My case against my employer is now in the early conciliation process with ACAS.

 

 

Hopefully they will decide it's not worth the risk of expense of defending an ET and make an offer :) Fingers crossed!

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly not - ACAS have been in touch with my employer who is arguing that a return to work plan required planning as their opinion was that I could not return to full time working and that I agreed to a phased return and this is also what my GP had put on the fit note.

 

Seems like I haven't a case after all despite their sickness policy stating that if an employee believes they're fit to work but management do not then this is classed as medical suspension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Since my last post I am now in receipt of an ACAS certificate and am therefore able to apply to an ET for a hearing.

I have consulted with employment lawyers who say I have a case for unauthorised deductions as a person covered under the Equality Act and that I should also claim for injury to feelingsfor the stress, anxiety and upset my employer has caused me during a period when I required support not punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I would take their steer and let them get on with it :)

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since my last post I am now in receipt of an ACAS certificate and am therefore able to apply to an ET for a hearing.

I have consulted with employment lawyers who say I have a case for unauthorised deductions as a person covered under the Equality Act and that I should also claim for injury to feelingsfor the stress, anxiety and upset my employer has caused me during a period when I required support not punishment.

 

 

 

Well done to you:high5:

 

You listened to your gut and ignored the nay-sayers in your mind

 

Let the lawyers handle it from here

 

They are professionals and that would take the stress off you

 

I'm really pleased for you

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...