Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/06/21 in all areas

  1. The amber list is a complete waste of time. Either quarantine arrivals under supervision or accept they will mix in the community. My neighbour has hosted a teenager from Spain over half term, her daughter's boyfriend. He has visited multiple times in the past year - not a single check.
    2 points
  2. dump them get your moneyback via your bank and chargeback and go use Giff Gaff. far far cheaper and simpler.
    2 points
  3. It may be worth exploring what the costs are of changing the name of the claimant. It may turn out that the costs are substantially higher to change the name of a claimant later on but presumably you would be no worse off for finding out as if the costs were prohibitive you simply discontinue the claim and submit a correct one accordingly. Presumably this throws into question the availability and willingness of the new claimant to participate. It used to be that a "McKenzie friend" was unable to speak for the claimant in court however there appears to be increasing latitude towards t
    1 point
  4. Comp Car Insurance covers accidental damage, but of course there will be an excess. Being on private property does not make any difference.
    1 point
  5. 1 point
  6. Form 4 would open a world of pain for you its down to Fines Office and the timeline of what happened when.
    1 point
  7. You could ask OFGEM about the issues. Sounds like massive failure to maintain accurate data. Not sure why Octopus think they still have the supply, unless Economy or those responsible failed to update the energy industries central database to register the supply information. Having had a little insight at an energy company reviewing how they operated, when a consumer switches suppliers, the new suppliers update a central industry register ( cannot remember name) to show that Mrs X at the address concerned is now with X energy company. If Economy never cha
    1 point
  8. please don't file that embarrassed defence. very old hat esp the bit about re filing later. see about post 66 here VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - No Stopping 47) STOPPING IN A RESTRICTED BUS STOP /STAND Robin Hood Airport Doncaster - Page 3 - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group
    1 point
  9. Mark R Miller tweeted this earlier, I think it's a great epitaph. A 92 year-old nun died today in a Carmelite Monastery in Illinois. She was kind of an unusual nun. She didn’t sing very well. She was frequently late to her required duties around the convent. She threw sticks for the communal dogs which was not allowed. Also she was my mother.
    1 point
  10. If this is an initial defence, after AOS, its way too long 3 lines 5 max betts at this stage if you refer back to FTM Dave's response at Post# 6 less is more at this stage Look at No contract was entered intp, as******** How long were they in the carpark, as is a minimum 10 minute Grace period in the Trade Association guidelines Others will have some suggestions also.
    1 point
  11. The SAR template is on page 3 of the linked thread. We ask people not to post them on the open forum, so you just need to adapt it if it needs that. They won't let you know they'll back down, often they just lapse into silence and hope you'll throw away the paperwork. If it ever gets as far as a court case, they have to write to you first and then there would be court papers. You can't get a CCJ unless - they start a court case - they win it, and they don't win many with people here - and you don't pay what the judge says you owe within 28 days It's a lon
    1 point
  12. just send a snotty letter to CST that will update your address also. simply click SAR and get one of those running separately to too ECP
    1 point
  13. Call the Consultant's secretary, or (if the clinical team has one) ask the ward to put you through to the team's 'Registrar' (or ST, if they are ST3* or above), to: ask what progress is being made (if asked as a question, it is less likely to be seen as a challenge, but will ensure the Clinical team's Consultant has had the matter raised with them). You then still have PALS as a later escalation option. * ST = Speciality Trainee. ST1 and ST2 aren't seen as equivalent to the old 'Registrar' Grade, while ST3 and above are ......
    1 point
  14. There were actually two elephants in the room-the other being the lack of planning permission. Not having it is something that Parking Eye cannot absolve them selves from since it was in their classic often quoted case that the truth about lack of planning permission was revealed. This next part therefore is a continuation of point 60] that I made in an earlier post. I am referring to Parking Eye v Beavis in the Supreme Court -the one that all parking companies quote ad nauseam. There are times though when the judgement in that case goes against the parking companies and while the
    1 point
  15. To add a little more to your WS I have included an article on how to refute the extra £60 charge- a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html 'It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I ve
    1 point
  16. Lookedinforinfo has provided the belt and braces to rebut their CRTL-C CTRL-V WS.
    1 point
  17. There are several points on their WS that require your attention which will help strengthen your case. Where there are questions on their WS I will follow their numerology. 9] the driver did not accept the contract by entering the car park. Firstly the sign at the entrance does not lay out the terms of their contract it is just an invitation to treat. Secondly the acceptance of a contract would not be until the driver had paid the required fee or if it is a free car park then the driver can stay for at least ten minutes without having accepted the contract. 11] while
    1 point
  18. I hope you haven't sent off your WS as there are a number of additions that could help you win.
    1 point
  19. Yes incorporate what DX has posted that adds clarity to it, as the PPC cannot unilaterally reduce a time limit agreed in the original planning permission, to a lower time like a ludicrous reduction to say 30 minutes from 3 hours.
    1 point
  20. + there is no evidence the council stipulated any parking time restriction upon granting the initial planning consent, the normal free parking parking period being 2 or 3 hrs at such retail parks. Nor any evidence from the Council nor the claimant applying or being granted such a variance to only a 1 hrs time period.
    1 point
  21. Looks a cracking WS to me - which will not only be superb for you personally to stick the boot into Simon, but will stay on the site as as a useful template for others in a similar situation. Either send it tomorrow, and then enjoy your holiday thinking of Simon and Wally-of-the-feather-fame sweating in their office upon its receipt ... ... or send it off when you get back, makes no real difference. Happy Hols!
    1 point
  22. As there is quite a lot of retweaking going on, and using the version in post 51 as the starting point, I would suggest creating another small section between "Double Dipping" and "Conclusion", to deal with Simon's Unicorn Food Tax. Something like - Double recovery of costs 20. The Claimant in claiming not only £100 for the PCN plus court fee and interest, but a completely invented sum of £60 for which there is no justification. This seems to be a way of attempting to bypass the limit on costs at small claims. 21. In case the Claimant tries to state that
    1 point
  23. gobbly gooke you dont need it 1 to 4 looks like a defence or should have been. you dont need to repeat that in your WS you've already filed it simply start by stating i am the register keeper of the vehicle reg xxxxx
    1 point
  24. if her credit file was full of defaults and other bad markers when loans were given, then yes an IRL complaint might prove very worthy. 1st port of call is to send them an sar.
    1 point
  25. I see dodo Harding is still refusing to apologise for, or even acknowledge there were any failings by her or test and trace Apparently all the perceptions of failings were because other peoples 'expectations were to high' I mean, what do you expect for a measly 37 Billion Pounds? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/07/dido-harding-defends-test-and-trace-and-says-expectations-too-high
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...