Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 21/11/18 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    The points are that you believe that a person or court hearing a Statutory Declaration has the option of rejecting it if he or they believe it is untrue. You must presumably believe that the person or court has a duty to question (perhaps more properly, cross-examine) the person making the declaration. Y ou started by saying this about the declaration as a whole then went on to concentrate on the 21 day rule. I asked you to let us know how you have arrived at that conclusion. In particular I asked why you had provided specific advice to the OP in the original thread (a) that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really did not know of the proceedings at all and (b) if she did not know at all, that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really found out less that 21 days before she makes her SD. I suggested it was unwise to warn the OP of something which would not happen. As far as I can recall you suggested that S14 of the MCA provides for SDs to be rejected if they are not satisfied as to its truth and I asked you to show me where the legislation is that provides for this (because it's certainly not in S14). The position is that a Statutory Declaration must be heard if made within 21 days of the defendant finding out about the conviction and it will be accepted unchallenged. If it is made outside 21 days the defendant states why as part of the declaration. If the court agrees that the reason it was late (as stated by the defendant and without challenge) is acceptable it will hear the Declaration and once it is heard it will be accepted without question. For the final time, the making of a Statutory Declaration is not a court hearing and apart from being satisfied, in the case of a late declaration being made, that the reason (as stated by the defendant) is acceptable, those hearing it have no discretion but to hear it and sign it to say they have done so. No orders are made; no decisions are made; no discretion is available (apart from the 21 day matter I mentioned). To emphasise the difficulty your misleading information has caused, the latest post from the OP on the original thread says this (when considering her court appearance on Wednesday): I am hopeful that they will accept that I knew nothing of the earlier proceedings... She should not have no worry about that because the court has no option but to accept her declaration that she knew nothing of the proceedings. However, because of your advice she has. I am, once again, about to allay her fears on that score and it would be useful if you didn't tell her otherwise.
  2. 3 points
    I will certainly remove your account and delete any personal data which we hold on you – which will probably only be your email address. I'm afraid that we do not remove material which has been published. Once material has been posted then the author of the material has given us a perpetual but nonexclusive right to display the material.
  3. 3 points
    just type no need to keep hitting quote, it just makes the thread twice as long to scroll through to find you reply. its not for you to prove its not statute barred by for link to do it. if you wanted to be really funny with them , use the address of the grave yard or the cremation parlour that was used!! hope you don't mind the humour but link are thick as 2 short planks, they don't care who pays it, there must be a mug out there somewhere we can fleece.
  4. 2 points
    Sorry, I've only just noted the above. I think you can do that in this thread without fear of the moderator's sword falling. Perhaps firstly you could explain how the court in this particular case will have reason to believe that the OP would not be telling the truth in her declaration. Then, I'm sure the OP would be interested in the legalities you describe (as would I). In particular perhaps you can point us to the legislation that determines that a person hearing a Statutory Declaration can reject it if they believe it is untrue. That way the OP can be properly prepared for that eventuality which you seem to believe has a good chance of occurring.
  5. 2 points
    You're forgetting though that through the EU we have trade deals, or trading agreements already in place. I don't subscribe to the worst case scenarios, but there's still a question mark over how things will work if we don't want to 1. pay into this supposed undemocratic authoritarian institution, and 2. hope to keep things relatively the same as they always have been. I don't know why anyone uses Switzerland as an example all the time either. Switzerland still pay into the EU, are a member of Schengen, and still have a trade agreement with the EU. If it works cleanly for Switzerland it's because they have an agreement. If you have no agreement it won't be plain sailing.
  6. 2 points
    OP is (again) snapping back at any reply that doesn’t fit with their preformed idea of how the utility company (or mortgage company) should treat them. OP : You say you won’t agree to a pre-payment meter (and agreeing might limit the extra costs and allow you to feel more control over the process). If you aren’t giving them a realistic payment plan (which you can’t if your expenditure isn’t matched by an income) : how do you expect to prevent them getting a warrant?. Bottom line: despite you suffering from mental illness and the situation not being of your making, you can’t expect to live rent / mortgage payment free, nor with an ever increasing electricity debt. You are better engaging with the electricity company over the meter than saying “I WON’T have one” unless you have a robust plan to prevent them obtaining the warrant. People aren’t posting to distress you, but to try to guide you away from unrealistic expectations.
  7. 2 points
    Yup, you may well find out that many of these debts are unenforceable, and no longer need to worry about them, and an IVA may well be unnecessary. I was nearly in nearly 3 times as much debt as you, and only ended up paying back a few thousand. If I'd have paid full attention to everything here, that amount would have been zero.
  8. 2 points
    Cast iron win against these bandits but she would rather pay them more than they are lawfully entitled to claim if they did actually have a claim. Is there an upside to paying? NO there isn't, they have added costs they haven't and wont occur so they make an extra £50 for the white flag waving. If you do nothing no it wont proceed on the papers, a court date will be set and you will be expected to turn up. If she doesn't then they will just invent a load more fake costs and it will cost her another £50-75. Get it into yoru head that everything you do now makes you money and costs them. Even if you lose at court they wont get any more if you turn up as they have limited themselves. They still have to shell out to actually get to a hearing
  9. 2 points
  10. 2 points
    No. Maybe because I've been driving for many years and know the difference between a tax and a fine or fixed penalty (or even a fee for a course if that is what the OP is offered and he accepts). But let's not allow the thread to degenerate into an unnecessary argument as it won't help the OP one little bit.
  11. 2 points
  12. 2 points
    Ok, this you need to respond to. You state that "the land is not relevant land as far as the POFA goes so there is no keeper liability in this matter so there is no cause for action against me. As docks and harbours governed by it own byelaws these are supreme to any contract you claim to have so there is no contract for the driver to consider that is enforceable. This menas that you accessing and processing of my personal data is unlawful under the GDPR and any court claim mat result in a counterclaim for damages breach of the GDPR as per VCS V Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016 "
  13. 2 points
    I don't have specific experience of any sort of permit scheme but I do of taking on a council highways department. It got as far as a court on The Strand in London and I won. To be fair they caved halfway through the second day, as we returned from lunch my counsel was approached by theirs with the magic words 'could I have a moment of your time'. I count it as a win, it cost them a ridiculous amount of money It got that far because stupid little people working for councils honestly believe they can say what they want, do what they want, tell outright lies, go to extraordinary lengths to intimidate the people they are paid to serve. They aren't used to people standing up to them and they get away with it 99.9% of time. As others have said, you need to check your status carefully and then hit them. Get legal advice - not from some small town solicitor but from a big firm. I was lucky, someone pointed me to the right people. Don't be intimidated, don't believe a single word of what you're told by any council employee. They are the equivalent of every miserable call centre monkey you've ever dealt with. The brightest minds aren't attracted to council jobs after all.
  14. 1 point
    Well done thread title updated. Please consider making a donation to help us continue to help others in your situation. Regards Andy
  15. 1 point
    Only if you have referred to them in the statement as an exhibit.
  16. 1 point
    They can mandate weekly appointments for JSA if they don't believe a customer is doing all they can to find work. As above, both UC and new style JSA customers are seen weekly at least for the first 13 weeks and then can be seen either weekly or fortnightly after that.
  17. 1 point
    What a magnificent document - you really have done your homework and put a huge amount of effort in! Let's see thicko Simple Simon deal with that. The experts will be on in the morning ... and I'm falling asleep after a couple of ales ... but two small things. In point 20, I know the experts don't like "it is admitted". It should be "a dark winter's night" (forgive the pedantry, I'm an English teacher!)
  18. 1 point
    The ex Supreme Court Justice Jonathon Sumption (he who represented the banks in the Supreme Court bank charges case and won) was asked about that scenario and he said that if Johnson did anything contrary to genuinely seeking and obtaining an extension after the letter is sent it would have the effect of invalidating the extension request letter and he would thus be in breach of the Benn Act. The act doesn't just require him to seek an extension, he has to accept it if the EU agrees to it.
  19. 1 point
    no film with mobile phone camera...say the above but they rarely appear anyway... dx
  20. 1 point
    There are 97/8 days left of 2019, so he could get to 160 in theory, just above the Viscount Goderich with 130 days.
  21. 1 point
    what a …... no creditor can appoint any member of joe public to be an enforcement agent. FWIW..our spies in the background have sent me this: http://certificatedbailiffs.justice.gov.uk/searchPublic.do?search=DG+Collection+Services+Ltd he'll be pleased his certification might be being abused or be known to be associated with the possible illegal actions by the directors of the company he is registered too.. time to start tightening the screw. .in the morning go ring the court that issued the ROG, i suspect it was northants bulk court? Their telephone number is: 0300 123 1056 . ask them if the person that fitted the clamp is a certified enforcement agent. when they say no . tell them what has happened and that you wish to complain to the highest authority to seek redress against this unlawful clamping and who is this please? record ALL phonecalls and especially film anything the bod latterly does.. I suspect a third party will appear rather promptly and secretly remove the clamp during the night. sorry DG ..you've been DX'd
  22. 1 point
    Thanks, maybe you would like to post up some of the images here so we can have a look. Also I think it would be worth sending a tweet to this company so that they know that the matter has been discussed here and that it is being aired publicly. As I've already indicated, the question is how much to claim for. You had a holiday which cost £1800 but if you divide that by six people, I don't think £300 compensation per head is enough. We looking at a substantial health risk and loss of enjoyment – not to mention the cost of the holiday and also the loss of holiday entitlement. I understand that you have already tried to contact them and they have been fobbing you off. I think you need to take control of this and so I would suggest that you write them a letter outlining a list of all the things that went wrong, what steps you took to try and remedy the situation and what the reaction was from the company when you try to take those steps. Include photographs. – I think we would like to see them here first. I think that if you don't get a response within seven days and which is clearly a response which is not attempting to fob you off but which is concerned and wants to show a way forward, then you should issue your letter of claim and then sue them. I have in mind £4000 – maybe £4500 on behalf of the sixth of you. What you think of this? This is not to say that this is what you would get, but it could be a reasonable starting position. I would also find out the name of the local press at Burnham on Sea or close by and in my initial letter I would make it clear that if you don't get a full, positive and nondefensive response that you will be contacting the local press and also regional BBC for that area with your report of what has happened together with photographs.
  23. 1 point
    own topic created tarm39 simply ignore them and block and bounce their email address NOTHING they can do to you and no never seen them ever appear at a door to collect the doorstep. stop panicking . a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF and have ZERO legal powers on any debt dx
  24. 1 point
    ok thanks I've moved your posts over to your thread now so see post 2 etc its interesting that some many of you are assuming a solicitor has purchased the debt ...they can't. anyway they have you correct address now so cant issue a claimform to another address. my thoughts at present are this is going nowhere now bar idle threats. though again, it would interesting to see if they do, as moriarty don't ever turn-up in court, so I will suspect they might not have anything to do with any court claim and leave that upto the original creditors to hire a barrister etc, which I also have my doubt will ever happen. dx
  25. 1 point
    there is nothing PP nor any DCA can do to you or your credit file PP don't do court and don't sell debts on. they ran away to Luxembourg to avoid uk tax laws tough for them. dx
  26. 1 point
    Great! again, though, the college / apprenticeship provider HAVE to agree the new employer is suitable (and can put pressure on the previous employer, too!)
  27. 1 point
    The ppi deadline is 29th of August. frankly I don't think it makes any difference if you do it yourself or you use an agency except that if you use an agency then you will pay a lot of money from anything which you recover. my suggestion is that you contact every possible lender you have ever dealt with or bank and write them a letter and claim PPI. even if you are not completely certain that PPI was paid, write the letter and tell them that you believe that PPI was paid and that you want it reclaimed. This should bring you into the 29th of August deadline and then you can start dealing with it in a more careful and methodical way and of course we will be very pleased to help you. make sure you put everything in writing and make sure that you send everything signed for post so that you have a clear record that the claim was delivered before the deadline. if you make any phone calls then make sure that you have first of all read our customer services guide and implemented the advice there but the best thing to do is to get everything off in writing.
  28. 1 point
    No as has been pointed out ad nauseum, you will not win if you appeal, VCS want money, so an appeal is bound to fail, they are not honest brokers, and have no Locus Standi to charge you diddley squat.
  29. 1 point
    yes unless you signed some wavier which I doubt and I also doubt they have anyone that even has a clue what GDPR is anyway let alone data protection...
  30. 1 point
    Have they actually mentioned savings within the Compliance letter ? See what the content of the phone interview is first ?
  31. 1 point
    I agree the sign is ambiguous, and I think you will probably win this, if you fight it all the way. (That's 'probably'!) The sign must state the hours of no parking, and must be clear. So, the yellow sign says "No stopping 10 - 5am". Logically, that can't be 10am - 5am. So it must be 10pm - 5am. And then logically, it follows on, that you can stop to load after 5am, until 10am. If it means something other than that, it isn't clear. I don't read any restriction after 10am - which is itself odd, but you have 14 days to decide what to do, so I would start by contacting the Council and asking for a copy of the Parking Order for that location. This will tell you what the true restriction is, and I would not be surprised if it's 10am - 5pm - in which case, the sign is completely faulty and you should win. In any case, you can make formal representations once the Notice to Owner is issued, and this can be followed by adjudication. Incidentally, what was the contravention and contravention code printed on the PCN?
  32. 1 point
    D1.tough you send letter two... no change in your overall situation. d3..but you could change things later. u1 you might have issues eitherway with the car upon renewal. u4.possibly
  33. 1 point
    budget sheet is in the mortgage section of the library you don't need and shouldn't have to send any proof with it.
  34. 1 point
    the first thing to do is get on to Sainsburys head office and give some blather about the sigange not being visible and how seh had a funny turn and had to sit in the in store cafe for an hour to recover blah blah and that she would like to request copies of all of the CCTV footage to show the parking co she was really there. alternatively they could save themselves alot of trouble by telling Horizon to cancel the ticketa nd then she wnt need all of the CCTV to be gone through
  35. 1 point
    That level does not cross the custody threshold (that is 120 in breath). Obviously a second offence aggravates the matter but the likely disposal is a hefty community order. The disqualification period, as I said, must be at least three years and I would not be surprised to see it set at a little more than that, especially as the matter is aggravated by him being uninsured.
  36. 1 point
    As this is parking Eye you are dealing with you might get a snotty letter stating charge is justified, and they will mention their victory in the beavis case which turns on its own facts and isn't applicable to you. best way with PE is to stir up and keep stirring the hornets nest as suggested vy EB and Honeybee, the more negative publicity heaped on PE, who are owned by Capita, who also run TV Licensing for the BBC, the sooner they will wat to cancel yopur ticket to save face. In Wales they have banned parking charges in hospitals. England should do the same.
  37. 1 point
    You could certainly bring a claim against them in the County Court. If you want to do it the proper way – although rather more long-winded – you would bring a part 8 claim which is not a money claim and would probably have to be issued over-the-counter at the court. The claim goes on to the multitrack which means that if you lose then you could be liable for the other side's costs. This would be the way to get a proper finding that they are in breach of their statutory duty. The easier way is simply to bring a small claim for a nominal sum – maybe £25 – justified by the distress that you have suffered (presumably you haven't suffered any pecuniary loss). On the basis of what you say this would bring a judgement in your favour and there will be an implication that they were in breach of statutory duty and I would certainly send a copy of the judgement to the ICO. Because it will be subject to the small claims rules then even if you lost you would not have to pay the other side's costs.
  38. 1 point
    Yes i do have experience, You are entitled to a full refund under the Direct Debit Gaurentee. You raise a claim with your bank. How long ago were the DDs taken? PP will attempt to challenge it but hold your ground. These amounts arent small so I worry that you will struggle but do what you can Lets see how this goes.
  39. 1 point
    If the cancellation cover is the premium for an insurance policy, and if they are paying you back the £625 as a claim under the policy, you can't expect them to return the insurance policy of premium of £74 as well. If you hadn't paid the premium you wouldn't have got the claim paid.
  40. 1 point
    you should never be blindly paying these unlawful admin fess how many have you paid i'd be trying to reclaim them all as they are unlawful under the FCA rules and harlands know this well.
  41. 1 point
    Of course, almost every private hospital will accept and indeed will seldom proceed without a referral fom the patient’s GP. The fact that they accept referrals doesn’t mean that the NHS will fund the treatment at their facility. And as demand and queues change so does the engagement with private sector providers. I’d suggest checking the rules about choose and book before responding, specifically they state: There are some exceptions that may limit your choice – for example, not all hospitals are able to treat every condition, and a hospital must meet NHS conditions on standards and costs. https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/nhs-services-and-treatments/can-i-choose-where-to-receive-treatment/#when-choice-is-limited No contradiction here I’m afraid - yes they’ll carry out the treatment if you pay for it - doesn’t mean that the NHS will fund it there. Again, check here: https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/nhs-services-and-treatments/can-i-choose-where-to-receive-treatment/#when-choice-is-limited Dear Practice Manager, thanks for your response. Can you please confirm that the booking on Xth of Maytember 20XX is still in place as the booking line seems to suggest that it has been cancelled. Yours, Sofiaa
  42. 1 point
    I work on the principle that just because it doesn't appear on here there is no guarantee it does not happen. It may be that this particular account was defaulted at some point after the last deferral was accepted so sometime after April 2013, from the info on this thread it may be sometime after April 2014 . If that is the case then the account is someway from being SB so sending the SB letter may not be the best idea at the moment.
  43. 1 point
    Trouble is no one ever sees the T&Cs until CWD get involved. The bank rep always meets you somewhere other than the bank to sign an application which is a declaration you agree to T&Cs so you think you've signed an application but in reality you're agreeing to T&C you've never seen
  44. 1 point
    Just an update after speaking to the Court. In short it seems to have been a bit of a Court error - and we are now waiting for further news. But what we do know for sure is that there has been no application for a lifting of the stay - and the Court tell us that if Arrow wish to apply they need to make an application and payment. Basics are that Arrow notified the CBCC that they were replacing Shoosmiths as solicitors and taking it in house. CBCC then transferred it to our local Court as a defended claim - and as such it was put before a Judge. It appears that the Judge was not made aware of the fact that this case had previously been stayed. The Court office tells us that they are now going to put the case back in front of the Judge, but with all the facts of the case to date. So it's a bit of a wait and see what transpires.
  45. 1 point
    doubt it but ive never seen one of those before they are real though just check Co House HSBC Business review dx
  46. 1 point
    the appeal will go to the same court and the same judge at first and if the judge doesnt change their mind it goes to a higher court. Now the appeal has to be based on the judge getting the matters of fact wrong ( they didnt, they just decided that the small print was too small so not a contract) or matter of law ( they havent even suggested that) or finally the judge made a perverse decision. If the judge gets sectioned under the mental health act tomorrow they have a slim chance with the appeal. now to addrss the other points. the regs for advertising is for the SITING of adverts, not their content so no it wont be taken into account. Plaaning consent for advertising hoardings cannot alter the applicable law retrospectively so if they had no PP on the 1st of the month and them got retrospective permission for the sign backdated to then the law was still broken at the time so no lawful offer of a contract. PE are favourites for lying about this as not many people have bothered to look at the exact wording of the law. Generally the law is not retrospective so if murder was suddenly made legal all the people imprisoned in the past are still guilty of the offence. the surcharge for card payments was disallowed for debit cards several years ago. as ther parking bandits get all of their money for nothing it galls me that they think it necesary to chisel the gullible for an extra £1.50 but that is them all over I suppose.
  47. 1 point
    Not for a ccj they wont.. Stop panicking This is civil debt Not what you see on TV
  48. 1 point
    Thank you so much for such detailed replies. So from what you're saying there is, that as long as my mother lives in and owns this property, she will always be liable for the council tax regardless of her status with SMI? So in theory, the council tax bill should remain in her name, where she's given full discount to her condition and I should be listed as a resident? I have a couple of questions I hope you can help me with: 1. Would there still be an amount to pay since I'm living with her or would she be given a full discount regardless of who lives here since the bill would be in her name? 2. How do I get them to listen? Since I have spoken to them so many times and still they insist that I pay them and I've given them over £300 because they've been threatening me with legal action whilst I was waiting for their final calculation- which apparently is wrong. Thank you again for the invaluable advice.
  49. 1 point
    I was an Iresa customer before they went into liquidation and have just received a reminder from Octopus that I did not deal with their email about my final Iresa bill. I have now dealt with it but I am concerned that others might have just accepted the figures given without checking or being able to check them. The initial final bill showed us as being in debt to the tune of £89.01. I knew that this was wrong as we had always been in credit. I saw that Iresa had estimated our gas usage for the last month (July) at 55% of our annual usage. That massive over estimate seems very suspicious to me! However, I contacted Octopus and challenged the estimate pointing out where the error had occurred. I then received an amended bill showing a credit of £49.99 and some figures to justify this were included. This still seemed wrong so I sat down with the meter readings and bills and worked out my own estimate of the correct figure. I am no accountant and I struggled with the figures but, eventually, arrived at a figure that I sent to Octopus with an explanation of my calculations. I have now received a new final account showing a credit of £305.39, a difference of £394.40 from the original bill. Octopus admitted that they had made an error in their calculations and apologised for doing so. I have no doubt that the errors by Octopus were innocent ones but there was clearly no checking of the figures being produced. I was able, with difficulty, to work out where the errors had occurred but I know that many people including my wife and in laws would not have been able to do so. I am concerned that there seems to be no (or completely inadequate) protection for customers caught in circumstances such as these. It is unfortunate that I did not see the original message from Octopus and dealt with it earlier. I doubt that raising this here will help anyone but felt that I had to do so just in case someone else has found themselves in the same situation as we did.​
  50. 1 point
    Just to show you, this is their FCA status. http://fca-consumer-credit-interim.force.com/CS_RegisterSearchPageNew?accId=627201 Lapsed interim registration. They just send template chasing letters out. If the foreign creditor wants to enforce the debt in the UK, they can apply to UK courts. UK Courts are quite helpful to foreign creditors, so yes it is possible they could try. But you would recieve a claim from the court, which you could defend and only if you lost could the debt be enforced. Even then, you could apply through the court to make affordable payments to the creditor.
  • Create New...