Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

RBS in Aberdeenshire - combine OC claims?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6221 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

If anyone is in the Aberdeenshire area and contemplating the Ordinary Cause route, I am wondering if it would be useful to appoint one solicitor to handle all similar claims.

 

I'm not sure how all this would work out in practice. I'm just testing the waters, so to speak.

 

Other viewpoints would be much appreciated. I've already consulted a solicitor up here, and don't think he'd object if there was more business put his way. I'm just unsure how practical this idea might be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, solicitor all in hand.

 

But splitting the claim seems to be risky now. Some courts are rejecting subsequent claims as an abuse of process. So I might get my first £1500, but I could well be stuffed when trying for the rest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No firm in Glasgow or Edinburgh will touch them because of a signed agreement , I have heard of the abuse of process rulings. I believe Kilmarnock court is one of them . Which are the other courts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A signed agreement to what? To promise the banks that they won't work against them? If so, that is SHOCKING!!!!! :eek:

 

Don't know all the other courts, but I'm not wiling to risk MY court using my claims as the first one to kick into touch. All or nothing.

 

Anyway, I'm hoping it won't get that far, but you never know. Need to be prepared for that eventuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been discussed here before at length.

The recent announcements by Judges that they will not entertain multiple claims on the same account as a way round the 750 cap,has been disturbing though not suprising.

Following my contact with the FOS I was informed that they are able to order repayments of up to 100k,and its interesting to see that every case they have dealt with has been successful with the banks paying out in full.

Criteria for FOS assistance is that no litigation has been started and that all normal complaints routes have been exhausted.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh. Now that would seem to be the way to go.

 

But, I think the guidelines for the banks to respond to your complaint is 8 weeks? In which case, I'll give them that time to respond, then bang a complaint off to the FOS. If no joy there, then I'll start proceedings.

 

Amazing how it only takes one post to make rethink the direction I should be taking. Cheers for that Martin. (Although it seems to go against the general advice of the site, though?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you can do it in 4 weeks....simply send the prelim and the lba....instead of Court action after the lba simply contact the FOS instead.

You could also add in your Lba that you will be contacting the FOS.

The problems with the Scottish system have only recently come to light....there was some earlier successes in multiple claims.

Although the FOS are busy dealing with a workload...I still think that in many cases the FOS route could be quicker than waiting months for litigation to draw near to hearing dates at which point the banks usually pay.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent my LBA already, so what I'll do is write them another letter at the end of their time limit telling them my next step will be the FOS. IF they don't pay up, that is.

 

That way, the FOS will see I've been reasonable and have exhausted all other avenues, and even given them a full eight weeks, which I believe they recommend you do anyway.

 

I do think though, that we'll see a rash of offers once the OFT report comes out, based on their recommendations. Doesn't matter a damn though, as it'll still only be a recommendation, and not law, so I'll still be chasing the full amount.

 

I guess I need to close this thread then, and carry on this thought in my RBS thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/55607-seahorse-rbos.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...