Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 24/02/19 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Not been on the site for a few weeks guys. I have made a donation and wish you all well. Thanks for this superb site which is so useful when you need advice and feel so alone at times.
  2. 5 points
    Firstship Donated with many thanks for your help FS
  3. 4 points
    Ok Folks So this week has to be one of the toughest I've ever had but thanks to the help and support of Ell-enn I can now breath easy and I might even manage to get some sleep this weekend. I attended court yesterday for an application hearing with a circuit judge as I'd submitted a N161 form to appeal against the Judges order last week that the eviction should go ahead. On Ell-enns advise I submitted an up to date statement of facts which explained that I'd paid off the arrears and also had my house valued which showed that I wasn't in a negative equity situation I'd also printed off a copy of my bank statement which proved the payment had been made and also included the valuation from the estate agent, I emailed these to the court the night before my hearing but also made three copies of all of these items to take with me. The hearing was in an actual court room which initially I found intimidating, I'd taken along my brother for moral support and made sure that I was smart and presentable as I intended to represent myself. At 11.30 on the dot an usher came out and asked for all persons involved to go into court and then shortly afterwards asked to stand whilst the judge came in, the solicitor acting for the Mortgage company stood and recited the original order to evict and then it was my turn, I stood up and confirmed my name addressing the Judge correctly as "your honour" I asked him if he'd seen the updated statement and he waved his copy at me to indicate that he had It at this point I gave the Mortgage companies solicitor a copy of the updated statement bundle and was asked to sit down. About a minute later the judge asked me to stand up and said "You must have had quite a shock last week, you are not getting evicted from your home please keep up the payments, good afternoon and good luck " he then instructed that his order be worded that there was no need to appeal as the mortgage wasn't in arrears. This has been an awful experience for me as I suffer with social anxiety and get really stressed out being out of my comfort zone but the advice that Ell-enn gave me was absolutely fantastic and allowed me to conduct myself with confidence and credibility. Once again thank you so much for your help. Tony
  4. 3 points
    What usually happens, and I've seen more than a few in my years working in council tax, is that they make a fuss right up until enforcement action is taken and then they disappear off in to the ether without any further updates. Typically because their master plan has failed and the council have bankrupted them or they've ended up with a suspended sentence hanging over them.
  5. 3 points
    Three hour hearing today in the Taunton County Court....WON.... It was like a game of chess, exhilarating from the first move. I lost a couple sacrificial points and one or two pieces I would have liked to have won. As soon as I arrived in the waiting room, I was approached by the solicitor who had travelled 100 miles or so to get there. He suggested it was appropriate to spend a few minutes to see if we could agree a settlement. I agreed and said £1600. He went out to make a phone call, and I sat down wishing I hadn't made the offer because I really wanted the judge to hear my story and win the CCJ. After a phone call, he returned. The figure was refused but he could offer £1000. I refused. He said I might end up with nothing if it went to hearing. I replied that he didn't know my argument and it would end up with a CCJ against them. The next minute we were in front of the judge. The judge explained how she was going to conduct the case and would invite me to speak first. The solicitor was rather naughty and interrupted her and got to speak first for a few minutes. He explained that he accepted there was a contract and we should therefore not spend time over it as he was conceding that point. I thought to myself, no way was I not discussing the contract. I had the feeling he did not want me to mention it. The judge quickly enough took back control and I could present my case. I explained how the case was only brought because Royal Mail ignored all my correspondence. That the RM defense statement refused to accept I had a claim under the Special Delivery postal scheme, but that later emails suggested I could make a claim under the scheme, therefore I was prepared to reduce the value of my claim and limit it to the scheme but that my claim now needed to have costs, which the scheme fails to provide. But RM should have entered into dialogue with me well before I issued the action. As the defence document stated I had not proved I had suffered a loss, I commenced by proving the loss had occurred and RM should have known there was a loss and the defence was misleading the court. I produced the tracking numbers from all my letters and suggested each letter would have caused RM to check the tracking numbers. I produced the Police Report and the two postal workers statements evidencing the parcels were not delivered to the addresses. I suggested that these police interviews would no doubt have been followed by Royal Mail's own internal interviews between senior management and the postal workers and the reports would have been placed in their employees employment file. It was reasonable to expect the interviews with the police were also accompanied by senior management and therefore reasonable to conclude the defendants absolutely knew the circumstances of loss and that the lost parcels were really lost, despite their defense document specifically not admitting it to the court. I then went on tell the court that RM accepted I had provided everything required by them to support my claim under the postage scheme, except the original proof of posting and proof of value of the contents. I had been unable to provide these original documents as my insurance company required them and the loss adjuster had archived them but was now retired. I explained how the certificate of postage served to prove I actually posted a parcel, had the parcels disappeared somewhere in the system, but that whilst I could not produce the certificate or till receipt, proof of delivery constituted proof of postage, albeit the delivery was made in the street outside the address. I could not prove the individual value of the trade prices of the two Rolex watches. But under the scheme I should only need to prove £500 per parcel, being that is the cap on compensation for Special Delivery. It was reasonable to accept the trade prices of the Rolex exceeded the cap on compensation. Given the above information, albeit not in the form they required under the scheme, nevertheless did evidence the two pieces of information they were after to satisfy a claim. Therefore I did have a valid claim under the scheme. Yet their defense statement refused to accept I could make a claim. I spoke regarding the contract, that the defence declared all through that there was no contract and only today did they accept there was one. I wanted to discuss it rather than have it glossed over because it was not reasonable behaviour for the defense to tell both me and the court there was no contract, when they knew there was one. Suggesting crown immunity and no contract seems to be a tactic used in the hope claimants would not pursue a claim. That this was done in the hope I would withdraw. Yet it was clear there was a contract all along. The defence bundle included a 50 page document entitled The Royal Mail United Kingdom Post Scheme (this bundle appears to be sent out in defense to every claim) a footnote on page 3 states that some of RMs services include services under contracts which have their own terms and Special Delivery is one of these. Further I had Stephens v Royal Mail where Lord Denning concludes pge 1177 para F "except for registered letters which are different......and there is a liability for them'. (interestingly both the documents were provided by the defence in their bundle. The 50 page document killed their defense later on. Sadly Stephens was not mentioned again so I cannot say whether it helped and the defense solicitor did not refer to it. The time was passed to the defence solicitor. He questioned me arguing I had not suffered a loss because I had made a successful insurance claim. I replied I had lost £250 excess for each parcel plus I lost my no claims bonus £350 , plus £80 to he police and other minor costs, but more importantly, I had also lost £185 issue fee and £335 hearing fee simply because they failed to respond to any correspondence especially the notice before action. It was unreasonable of them to fail to enter into dialogue before I felt obliged to sue. He moved on to the Special Delivery before 9am scheme which had a max cap of £50 compensation (which was the service I had bought), he introduced a photocopy of a flyer detailing the scheme. The flyer was not in the bundle. The judge asked if I minded it being introduced. I said it should have been in the bundle and I did mind. (I didn't mind really), and knew she would accept it being introduced. I knew it would pave the way for me to do the same later. The solicitor then spend time digging himself a hole by explaining the details of the scheme and its limited £50 compensation, according to the photocopy of a flyer. I then was able to introduce my own extra document which I had printed off the internet. I explained that if a member of the public wanted information about compensation, they would go to the internet and this was the document I found last week, 'Royal Mail's Retail Compensation Policy For Loss'. Nowhere in this document did it specify anything at all about there being a £50 cap on any Special Delivery Scheme (particularly a 9am scheme). It implied that Special Delivery 1pm had a £500 cap and as the 9am scheme was excluded from the document , it was assumed that the compensation was also £500. I referred back to the 50 page bundle and described it as the definitive document relating to Royal Mail's postal schemes. More definitive than the summary of the much shorter document and certainly more definitive than a photocopy of the introduced flyer. In the 50 page document section 17.7.5 states the cap for the amount of compensation. For Special Delivery it is £500. Also section 21 covers Special Delivery. 21.8 refers back to 17.7.5 and again states the cap is £500. Nowhere in the definitive document does it state anywhere that any Special Delivery scheme reduces the max compensation to £50, indeed the 9am service is not mentioned anywhere in the document. This implies that all Special Delivery schemes (whether the 9am or the 1am service has £500 compensation. The solicitor then went back to arguing I had not proven the value of my loss and that all I had shown were the retail prices of £2395 and £3795. He suggested such valuable items were prohibited as there was a maximum value allowed of £2500. I asked him to show me from the definitive document, anywhere that mentioned such a prohibition on values. But that he wouldn't find such a reference because there wasn't one. He came back with a real gem, and quoted from page 38. section 5.7.36 which simply stated that Valuables can only be sent using the Special Delivery service. I re read it aloud, and said that was exactly what I had done and that nothing in the document contained any restriction on how valuable an item needed to be. He pressed the point regarding my failure to prove the value of the loss. Then went on to argue that in any case as I had made a successful insurance claim, there was no loss. He read from my claim that I had received an insurance settlement of £4100. I piped up, that there was the evidence of the trade price of the watches. My insurance claim was for the trade price and that the total claimed was £4600 for the two watches less £250 each excess, leaving £4100. This evidenced the value of two watches and confirmed they were below the prohibited value (even if there was such a thing) (I think there is now, but not on the documents that count. But even then you can send more valuable things, so they are not actually prohibited, but you get no compensation at all if they are lost). We then argued again over whether I had suffered a loss because I had been settled by my insurers and this claim might even show me a profit if it was settled in full because I would have been able to spend the settlement of my insurance to make its profit too. I argued there was a real loss because of the deducted excesses etc. But in any case, by claiming under the scheme, I had a genuine claim of the £500 compensation per parcel (assuming the reduced £50 cap had been destroyed by it not appearing in the definitive document) He then tried to argue that the scheme did not require handing the parcel to the named individual and the parcels were therefore correctly delivered to the address. This was immediately refuted as the police statements confirmed the postal workers did not enter the address but gave the parcels away in the street. The judge moved to summing up. She said that prior to today, it was accepted there was no contract and only today does Royal Mail agree there was a contract. Should we rely on the terms of the before 9am service? Nothing in the document mentions 9am scheme at all or prohibited values. My letters did notify RM of a potential claim within the 80 day window, even though the claim was not made within that window. Royal Mail claim the parcels were delivered but ordinary reasonable expectation means delivery would be to the door of the address. The difficulty for Royal mail is the parcels were delivered to outside the buildings. Does not find delivery was made and rejects RMs argument that it was. In terms of which scheme to apply, 9am does not appear to be mentioned in RMs schemes and she accepts I was not made aware of the facts that made the 9am scheme different. Therefore the claim is governed by the Special Delivery provision. There was therefore a claim made under the scheme. It was clear the nature of the claim was brought to the attention of RM within time. I find appropriate claim was made within the timescale. Nowhere can she find that evidence must only be such as is detailed in the schemes or on the required forms. Find I am entitled to bring a claim not limited to the 9am scheme. Then a load of scribbles I cant now read what they meant, I fear they might contain a but and then discuss making a profit. Allow insurance excess of £250 each parcel. Disallow my no claims discount loss of £350. Disallow the £80 fee I had to pay the police to obtain copy postal workers statements. Allow 2.5% interest not 8% due to low interest rates. Allow issue fee and hearing fee, travel costs and a few small expenses. Sadly, I can't find the part of the judgment regarding the claim for £500 compensation for loss or whether it was £50 compensation agreed, due to being confused whether this was disallowed because it might make my claim a profit. I need to phone the court in the morning to see how the summary was worded but the values of the claim agreed seem to have missed out this £1000 and have ended up around £1150. I will take the £1150 because it also includes a CCJ won against Royal Mail. I kind of hope they forget to pay and I can send in the bailiffs. Please know, their standard defence including their pretense of no contract is worrying, but is easily turned into a winning argument using the documents they use to defend themselves with. Making a claim within 80 days and being forced to evidence your claim using their preferred lists of what constitutes evidence , is not necessary. You can use anything at all that might evidence your claim (although obviously it is simpler to do it their way). Crown Immunity was never discussed, but remains simply to put you off, but it might well be discussed for your claim. Stephens was not examined and used again as a frightener. The effort and hours of research and preparing the case, losing sleep and the nervous energy is a huge demand and even though I won the day, the £1150 win (realising the costs were around £600) is not worth it. Despite the above, journey was really interesting and informative and the three hours before the judge was really exciting.
  6. 3 points
    Hello colin1096 and many thanks for joining us. Now we’re your supplier, EDF have lost control of your meters and will not be able to arrange for a meter exchange. This is not allowed within the industry. Only the current supplier has access to the information and processes to arrange for this to happen and we don’t do this on behalf of other companies. Hope this helps colin1096. Malc
  7. 3 points
    I too had the benefit of a grammar school education and I think they were a great force for social mobility for those with academic ability. There's nothing wrong with them, where it all went wrong is what happened to everyone else. The 'modern' schools became seen as second best, somewhere for failures because the 11+ was viewed as a pass/fail exam. It was never meant to be like that, shouldn't have been. Identifying ability (all types of ability) and nurturing it should surely be what education is about. Maybe if we called it something other than 'streaming' people wouldn't get so hot under the collar about it.
  8. 3 points
    I would just like to thank everybody on here for all of their help, finally this morning I received my letter of indemnity, Swinton are now looking into why on the 3rd Jan I was given the wrong information. Thank you all again.
  9. 3 points
    I'm afraid that the whole business of keeping the accounts and getting it all sorted out in time is just too much to handle on top of the daily running of the forum. Most people here would realise that I am very hands on and I have been for most of the last 14 years. I don't have the skills I don't have the energy. Also, a few years back we were late in producing our accounts and an administrator from another forum put in a complaint and we ended up having to pay a penalty – which is definitely not what people intend their donations to be used for. It hit us very hard. As far as the administration of this forum goes I want an easy life and as little conflict as possible. Getting our accounts properly done every year is a luxury that we treat ourselves to and it is well earned and well deserved. Also, you are describing this forum as a "business". It's not a business – Sometimes I wish it was and I wish it was making money – but it's not. This forum is a work of massive personal commitment on the part of the entire site team and all of the people who keep on coming back to help others. I'm afraid that you have badly misjudged the ethos of this community.
  10. 3 points
    Hi guys, You probably already guessed the outcome of this already, yes I won!!!!!! The judge ripped their rep apart and I didn’t have to say anything to be honest. That was awesome! So, here is how it went. Surprised but not surprised, they did send a young girl to represent them. I went to the court half an hour early, dressed smart (made a difference), and reported to the reception. She heard me say my name so came and approached me. Then she said let me find a meeting room, and went off to find one. When she came back, I asked for what? She said we can have a chat, I replied no need, I am clear on everything. So she sat next to me in awkward silence. Luckily, we didn’t have to wait for long. The judge from the beginning was very friendly with me and explained procedure and confirmed documents. She complimented the fact that documents were very well organized. I knew I hand delivered my WS to the wrong court as I had two letters with two court addresses. Luckily, she explained it works under one umbrella, to my relieve! For some reason she didn’t get my skeleton argument, but she said she was sure I sent it. So she gave us 5 min to read it and then asked me if there was anything else I need to say. I just made my main points clear so the judge asked the claimant for their story. The poor girl started to waffle through it only to be stopped straight away and asked to explain about Jack Chapman signature. So she sent us out giving the rep a chance to call and find answer. We came back, the rep couldn’t reply clearly, so the judge (unsatisfied) asked her to continue. She went on to the landlord contract to which the judge stopped her again and asked who is the landlord, again failed to answer. The judge also said the £60 in not lawful and claimant rep said they no longer are seeking it (so only the £100). The rep carried on to the signage and after further waffle, judge stopped her again and said stop referring me as the driver because I clearly said I am not the driver and you have provided no evidence of it. The judge then said, your pictures isn’t enough to prove that the car is parked and your WS says the breach is - no valid permit and parking outside of designated bay but the Jack’s WS doesn’t mention this. You took a picture of the back of the car so no evidence of valid permit, and no marking on the floor (the judge laughed out load at the rep, saying sorry but this not your fault and your Witness is not here to answer this). I think you and I know your own WS has been your own failure so I don’t need to listen to the defendant any further so I am going to dismiss the claim. The rep tried to say I ambushed and said they didn’t receive it so I pulled out an email from Glady confirming receipt and also the email to court. As we were leaving the court room, the judge did warn the rep about the signature of Jack and said I am seeing more and more of these. So there you go, a simple point I made about the fact that we can question if the car is parked, and taking a picture of the back of the car, which is not in a bay was enough. The judge said even if everything else is correct, all signage, keeper liability etc, she was not satisfied with Jacks WS and burden of proof is always on the claimant. It was a bizarre experienced really, I wanted to say so much, but the judge ripped the rep apart on her own points instead while I am sitting there smiling the whole time. A very enjoyable experience. I was awarded £225 for the claimant’s unreasonable behavior and by that time the rep was finished to argue my schedule of costs. So, we walked out, she took my bank details, and sat on the phone arguing with someone about what the judge said. She was clearly getting a earful by the sound of it. I rubbed it in a little more and said hope your day gets better This is all thanks to you guys! I can’t imagine anyone doing this without the forums and the information you guys set out. Thank you so much!!!!!
  11. 3 points
    Hi all, So it's time, I have all the paperwork ready in a bundle including the evidence of documents sent to all parties. My hearing is at 2pm tomorrow so will let you know of the outcome tomorrow evening. Just want to say a massive thank you for all the support, would have not been able to come this far without you.
  12. 3 points
    Happy Christmas Guys, Just made my donation as I promised, thanks to you guys for everything great site and help. Absolutely priceless.
  13. 3 points
    Payday end of week bankfodder, will donate then. Thank you so much guys for all your hard work xx
  14. 3 points
  15. 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.
  16. 3 points
    A friend of mine got a demand from Highview parking for being in Sainsburys, Garratt Lane and asked what to do about it. I told him to ask sainsburys CS peopel to cancel it as the system there is almost incomprehensible. What you are supposed to do is pay to park, do your shopping and reclaim the parking money from the checkout. This is not explained on the main signs and to my mind create a rather strange contract that isnt enforceable du to the peculiar conditions that arent shown on signage outside the store. he did as suggested but sainsburys CS said he should take the matter up with Highview. i suggested the he get on to the CEO complaint team ans he did but they said sorry, not our car park. he gave me permission to intercede on his behalf andf I pointed out that it was their land, the Highview contract for parking is pants and more importantly no PP has been grnated for their sigange and equipment. Furhter to thsi sainsbrys have NO planning consent to the changes of the layout and the removal of barriers etc that PP was granted for in 2000 so they were in trouble as their actions are illegal and the council could close the store until the correct permissions are applied for and granted. the lady said she would speak to their parking guru and later that day wrote to my friend to tell him the charge had been cancelled. now things to learn from this- never give up with the supermarket chain regardless of who tells you no. Give them reasons to worry- illegality by them and the parking co wouild sink any claim and allow a motorist to counterclaim against the store as well as the parking co because of the nature of the demand that you obtain a refund (that is less than the maximum parking fee) from the store itself. the signage at this site is rubbish and doesnt offer a contract and one of the signs states that you mustnt pay or you will be in breach of contract so the wording would be dismissed as confusing to say the least. I made it clear that all I wanted was my friends charge recinded, not to take on the world but would do so if I had to. This makes it easier for them to say yes. I also made it clear that as a shareholder I may very well choose other avenues to raise this in a more public way so again use of the social media may well get their attention.
  17. 3 points
    Err not quite. Here's the actual (unedited) quote by Lord James of Blackheath as recorded in Hansard: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2019-09-06/debates/0C259B8B-7232-4228-BB00-E258510FD926/EuropeanUnion(Withdrawal)(No6)Bill So not only did you edit the quote front & back to make it appear as a some kind of statement of fact, rather than a question, his peers laughed at it.
  18. 3 points
    About time both sides stopped using Jo Cox as a weapon, this constant bickering with her memory must be absolute hell for her family. They deserve to be allowed to remember her and move on as best they can without constant reminders from nasty useless Politicians of any party trying to be Virtue Signalers, and becoming the problem themselves..
  19. 3 points
    To attract a custodial sentence for a first offence it would have been in breath (i.e. just over four times the legal limit). Since the length of the ban you received was at the discretion of the court you have a better chance of success. You will need to contact the court and arrange for a hearing. There you will be asked to say why you believe your licence should be restored. Any supporting help you can get from, say, your employers will help. If you do not feel confident to present your case by speaking in court you can write it down and ask the court to read it (take four copies - one for each of the Magistrates and one for their Legal Advisor). If you want to post it up here I'll give you my view on its suitability. If your application is unsuccessful you cannot apply again for three months.
  20. 3 points
  21. 3 points
    Also interesting that Trumpettes are saying quick trade deals with the US can be quickly done 'piece by piece' aka Anything the USA wants can be done quickly ... especially if it makes any deal with the EU practically impossible Especially especially: * Genetically modified grain and seeds * Bleached chicken and hormone beef * The NHS handed over to US pharmaceutical companies and privatised * Reduction in all those nasty environmental and workers rights regulations Anything we want can wait though ...
  22. 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.
  23. 3 points
    Very little The SNP + Libdems can't call one, and Corbyn wont unless he's forced into it - he wants Brexit before a General election - and few think he can win anyway - even against Johnson Bl**dy farce.- which is entirely appropriate as the court fool now has the crown and there's something at least as bad waiting in the wings. We had Cameron, and thought - its got to get better Then we had May, and thought surely it can't get any worse. Now we have Johnson, and we can't see how its ever going to get better..
  24. 3 points
    The people who give their time freely do not deserve to be abused by ignorant posters who only provide the minimum information and get the hump if they are asked to provide more facts..They are not "mind readers so I suggest you put or shut up
  25. 3 points
    you know what they are saying you did wrong so you read a load of threads and choose the brief outline that is appropriate. We will have a look at what you think is the correct reply and suggest edits. The reason we arent going to do every little thing for you is because YOU will have to attend court and if you dotn understand what the claim is for and what your defence is you will miss an open goal and likely score an own goal instead. You have to be able to talk about this, even if it is reading a script you will need to be able to answer a few questions. Cross examination in court replaces trial by combat and you wouldnt turn up to a sword fight without a weapon so arm yourself with knowledge
  26. 3 points
    the most imporanat thing about a "no parking or stopping" sign is that it is prohibitive in nature. the only reason a parking co can charge you for anything is because you have entered into a contract with them and then either owe them money as a contractual agreement or as a result of a breach of contract. A sign saying "no parking" or "no stopping" isnt an offer of terms for parking and if you think about it if it was an offer of terms the only way of forming a contract would be to break it so unfair terms anyway. What you have considered so far is part of the whole story from your point of view and if you follow that by explaining as you are how you eneter the land, what you see (or dont) and what happened to your vehicle then you end up withat least 4 reasons as to why no contract was formed and thus broken so you cant owe them money for the same. as said earlier, they know they are on to a hiding to nothing but wont admit they are wrong becasue they will never earn a penny ever again as they would know their demands are just plain fraud and will wait and see what you have to say before chucking the towel in so they dont have to pay you your costs of whipping them in court. At the end of all this you will have a cast iron case for suing them if you have the stamina for a return match as they have obtained and processed your personal data without a reason for doing so. again they will whinge that they thought they were right but they have lost so many cases of this nature (esp at Liverpool airport) such a claim is laughable but again hope that you dont go after them. If you feel like winding them up go and park there agin after the court case and see if they dare issue you a NTK If they dont you will know that they are just chancers and have not a grain of integrity in them.
  27. 3 points
    If you bought insurance you ought to have been given a policy document - that should tell you how to claim. I’m pretty sure that it will be a different process than just writing to customer service. The document might even have a special number to call for advice on how to submit your claim. Do you have this paperwork?
  28. 3 points
    the key thing here is that the first you heard about the unicorn food tax being added was from someone who has nothing to do with anything so even if there was small print about extra collection charges on the signage ( god knows which would be applicable out of the forest of signs they have) then it would be an unfair contract for more than one reason anyway. by the way you owe me £999 for this advice, my terms were available to see on the website ww.imanhonestcrook.con, page 19 bottom paragraph section 16(b) subsection 4(f) so you definitely owe the money as I deemed that you read and understood the terms.
  29. 3 points
    Yes very good news in deed! 5.5 million they raked inlast year.....not bad for a run down filty car park that towers above a derelict shopping centre. One of the only restaurant owners left on the edge ofthe precinct got a 100.00 charge and why? .....because his passenger wheels were touching the white line. BUT on that particular side was the ticket machine so he was not stopping anyone parking there or depriving them of income.....but still got 100.00 from him. Just sickening to see them getting away with it. So glad i stuck with it.
  30. 3 points
    all sites are bound to have teething issues, especially when you upgrade from one platform to another. You cant make all changes on a test forum and transfer over, as the backends could be different, plus people are still making and replying to posts all the time. Believe me, been there and done it, many a time. On multi million pound websites. it may seen straightforward to the layman, but sadly web development is never that straightforward. For this site, its even more compounded as the old webmaster is sadly no longer with us, so any code he made has to be translated and interpreted by the new one, and if its not optimized code it can be very difficult to work through as the slightest change could impact something totally irrelevant.
  31. 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.
  32. 2 points
  33. 2 points
    I came late to this thread, I've had good form with Tax Credit's over the years. The whole thing is an utter mess, there are people all over the country receiving shocking demands for repayment, lots of intimidating language and demands flying around with very little clear advice on what your rights are. No chance of court or jail time, although it's understandable to feel threatened because of the tone of language used by Tax Credits. Also , when you call them it's like a lottery, from Abusive to extremely nice. You can guarantee that different advice will be given each time you call them. I'm no longer eligible for Tax Credits (Thank god) but if I was I would be on the phone and sending them a letter every couple of months just re confirming my circumstances each time. Your friend is Tax Credits COP 26, Google it (it's their code of practice), get to know it. I think around pages 15 or 16 there is a lot of information about when they need to get off your back.
  34. 2 points
    police can claim Crown Immunity for parking FINES but that wouldnt apply to a simple breach of contract. Now i think the police should play this along and then arrest the muppet who turns up at court to represent ECP for a number of offences including the Prevention of Terrorism Act for their processing of the images of the car, failing to assist an officer in the execution of his duty, wasting police time etc. Also If i were D&C chief plod I would be biting the backside of the head of the DVLA for the same. It only goes to prove that there is NO quality control by anyone at either the parking co or the DVLA despite the annual liefest stating that the system has been rigourously tested and all is well
  35. 2 points
  36. 2 points
    I would advise very strongly against giving any ground on ownership of the property. You have no idea what might happen if they decide to leave their share of it somewhere else in their will. You are the sole owner of the property – and I would keep it that way because anything else will start to introduce further complications and ambiguities – and at the end of the day the only beneficiary will be the solicitor. Imagine if your parents became part owners and then continued in litigation against you and started incurring costs which they were unable to satisfy – the next thing that will happen will be that the solicitor start to take action against the property as being your parents' only asset and you will then be fighting possession proceedings brought by the solicitor to pay off his fees. I don't think there's much more we can say on this
  37. 2 points
    Your latest ramblings make no sense in relation to the issue (which is whether a person hearing an SD can question the maker as to its truthfulness and reject the declaration if they are not satisfied as such). It's not within 21 days of the hearing it's within 21 days of learning of the conviction of which they were unaware. I don't know what it is you are reading or are referring to but there is no "debtor" involved in an SD that is made to have a conviction set aside. When an SD is heard in court the only officers involved are the court's Legal Advisor and the Magistrates themselves. I’ve just been looking back at the original post which started all this off to ensure I wasn’t going mad. I’m pleased to say I don’t think I am. Instead I am of the opinion that you did not properly grasp what originally happened to the OP and compounded that by providing incorrect, misleading and confusing advice whilst plucking bits of irrelevant legislation from thin air randomly when you commented. Here’s a few of your quotes and my comments for you to consider. The OP said no such thing. She said she had moved three years earlier. For some reason unknown, her change of address was not recorded by the DVLA. She said she was happy to accept the speeding allegation. This indicated she was driving (a fact she confirmed absolutely soon afterwards). Nowhere did she ever say she was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. So, from advice to plead Not Guilty to advice to plead Guilty inside two hours, with no new or additional information provided. Still you mention somebody else being the driver. What is an “out of time statement” and where and when was one ever mentioned? Then from the OP: Your response: The cause of any confusion was your comments. She said from the outset that she did not live at her old address when the offence was committed (in fact she went to some lengths to explain that was why she did not receive the court papers). Nowhere did she suggest she was not the driver nor that she could not or would not disclose who was. No it isn’t. A Statutory Declaration voids the original conviction as if it never happened. Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act is not involved with the resurrection of proceedings following an SD. That Section grants the Magistrates powers to re-open cases to rectify mistakes, etc. There has been no mistake here, the Magistrates will not be called upon to re-open the case and could not prevent it being revisited even if they wanted to. Then we set off into the intricacies of the Statutory Declaration process which is covered above. I’m not surprised the OP in this particular case became confused. Her matter is straightforward enough (for those who know the law and the process). In summary: She moved; She thought the DVLA had her vehicle registered at her new address but they hadn’t; Her vehicle (with her driving) was detected speeding; She (unsurprisingly) did not receive the notification of that offence or the request for driver’s details; She obviously didn’t reply to that request, she was prosecuted for it, convicted in her absence and without her knowledge. Happens every day and simple to deal with. Unfortunately, not when you became involved it isn't. Firstly you grasped the wrong end of the stick by assuming she was not the owner and/or the driver. You advised her to plead Not Guilty on that basis. Then, when you had grasped some idea of what had really happened you suggested she plead guilty to the S172 offence purely on the basis she had moved and the speeding information was sent to her old address. Very poor advice. Then you scared her witless by incorrectly suggesting there was a chance her SD would be rejected if it was thought her declaration may be untruthful. There also followed discussions about the six month time limit for prosecutions and the 21 day limit for SDs to be accepted unconditionally (both totally irrelevant). I don’t suppose you will accept any of these criticisms but whether you do or not you clearly caused the OP considerable confusion and probably distress. My comments are not based on something I've heard on the net or on barroom (sic) knowledge. They are based on my knowledge of the law and of Magistrates' Court procedures. It's obvious you will pay no heed to me so when I see any such clearly misleading information provided to an OP by you in this section in future I will simply report it to the site's administrators.
  38. 2 points
    We know of no such thing so please don't unnecessarily worry the OP. On the contrary what we do know is that the court has no discretion but to hear the Statutory Declaration provided it is made within 21 days of learning about the conviction (with which the OP will be compliant) and it has no power to "reject" it once it has been heard. It is simply witnessing the declaration as it is made. It has no authority to enquire into the veracity or otherwise of the declaration. The only discretion is has is whether to hear the SD if it is to be made outside the 21 days since learning of the conviction but if it is decided to hear it then it must be heard unchallenged in the same way. Hearing an SD is not an enquiry into the circumstances that led to it having to be made nor is it concerned with the circumstances of the original offence(s). It removes the conviction, voids any penalties (both financial and anciliary such as points or disqualification) and allows the prosecution to recommence proceedings as they think fit. In that respect it is very much a "done deal" and the OP should not be given the impression that she will be grilled in court. That may come later when the original offences are dealt with but not until the SD has been made. I don't know what "reply" you are speaking of but no such enquiries will be made. All she has to do is to swear (as part of the SD) when and how she learned of her conviction. I have never heard of an SD being "rejected" for the simple reason that the person or body hearing it has no discretion to do so. The OP has to go to court on Wednesday and it really doesn't help to bandy about such misleading information.
  39. 2 points
    Thanks for all the replies. After talking to Northampton it seems it was payment assist. The original payment left was £88 the rest is literally fees The situation is now I will clear the balance and payment assist will send me confirmation of payment and will inform the court it's paid Lesson here is always update your address as it's highly likely I would of fought this claim. Due to me being non responsive it went into default judgement which was the ccj. I'll not make this mistake again anytime soon Thanks for your help!
  40. 2 points
    Dead BW, If you knew anything about the Law you would realise Link have no Locus Standi in this matter. If you do not understand what that means please ask a proper solicitor. If your client wishes to take me to Court tell them to bring their chequebook. That should save you looking for one of EsBs. (Without punctuation marks that looks like he has more than one brother).
  41. 2 points
    Regarding the speculation of who will turn up at Court for VCS, I recently saw off VCS at Chesterfield Court for a parking incident at Brookshaw Retail Park in Sheffield. A Mr Wilkes turned up for VCS. I'm not sure of his legal standing but I did find out from the Moneysaving Expert forum that he had not been allowed to say anything at a previous hearing as he does not have the correct qualifications. Having said that, the Judge in my case did not accept this and allowed him to speak. I think that this was because the Judge had already made his mind up to find in my favour. In my case VCS did not have a current contract with the landowner to operate a car park on the site (they probably still don't but will be issuing 'fines' nonetheless). They had a contract originally back in 2013 for one year, but this had never been renewed. Mr.Wilkes tried to argue that it was a recurring contract but the Judge would have non of it. VCS ended up paying me £95 for the days expenses. This in no way covered the time and effort that I spent in defending but the wife and I had a decent meal out with it.
  42. 2 points
    Hi everyone I posted last week as a new member but didn't introduce myself . I m sorry if this was impolite. Anyhow I love this site and appreciate the help that you guys (an gals ) regularly give to people who are sometimes desperate for help. keep up the good work! Z A
  43. 2 points
    With all your chronic physical and mental health problems, have you considered getting an advocate to act on your behalf? They can come to you for the details (and get those over time at your own pace), and get your instruction, and then deal with nPower for you, taking on all the physical stresses and frustrations, on your behalf.
  44. 2 points
    https://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/about-pensions/pensions-basics/automatic-enrolment/faqs-about-automatic-enrolment I am on a zero hours contract. How will I be treated? You will be automatically enrolled in the same way as other workers if you earn more than, currently, £192 a week, £833 per month or £10,000 a year and meet the other joining conditions.
  45. 2 points
    As an aside, when it comes to PCP's or monthly payments on cars there are nearly always options, no matter what your credit. Bear in mind you don't have any CCJ's either. However the payments will be more expensive. The same goes for mortgages, defaults become less important as they age, also having a higher deposit can compensate for a multitude of sins. All the above is my own personal experience, it's never the end of the world.
  46. 2 points
    There's pretty much stuff all any of those debts can do to you, if you don't own a home, apart from sell them to a DCA. As for renting another house, when you move, I went down the guarantor route for several years, when I needed to move and never had any trouble. There really is no need to worry at all.
  47. 2 points
    Yes she can! So the question then becomes should she? Well PIP has 2 levels and we all know points make prizes! Therefore run a few online PIP tests, go through the descriptors with a fine tooth comb and work out what her new point score would be and if it moves her up a level....... and if you have your arguments and evidence to back that up then - nothing ventured nothing gained (see * footnote) If it doesn't then leave well alone! * (foot note) any re-assessment comes with risk of the loss of the whole award and having to wait until you win at appeal. If you have your arguments and evidence to back that up then when it gets heard a appeal (note not mandatory reconsideration - which is a joke at best) ; the DWP have to prove why they reduced an award on top of that argue why the award should not be increased. I've won 3 DLA appeals doing the above and am expecting the same with my current DLA >>> PIP conversion - place doubt then argue your evidence focusing on your evidence and how it fits!
  48. 2 points
    Work your costs out beforehand. Have them itemised and printed off ready to hand over to the judge when you win. Stay cool, calm, clear and concise. Good luck!
  49. 2 points
    Hello Thought I would add my tuppence to this thread. This is what idrww.com says on their home page with a bit of deconstruction by my amateur self!: International Debt Recovery (IDR) specialises in the collection of cross-border debts for banks and other lending institutions. Traditionally this debt has been hard to recover as non-UK banks struggle to trace residents outside of their own jurisdiction, and often discover that even if they find the individual, the credit agreement is difficult to enforce outside of their own legal system. I think that remains true, still is hard to recover. In association with fully licensed tracing agents using modern field tracking techniques, we believe that we can find any individual. That is probably true. Once found, we then employ a strong and effective legal strategy to recover as much of the foreign debt as quickly and efficiently as possible. As a Debt Collector I would presume they have the same powers as any other debt collector essentially none, so in essence their strategy is first and formost to chase the debtor via phone and letter in the hope that they will give up. The best strategy to deal with this is usually to ignore. They say elsewhere on their site that: ...we will use one of our legal partners to obtain judgments and charging orders against property to secure the debt. That statement implies that they will get a legal firm to do the legal work so I presume they sign up a legal firm to act on behalf of the Creditor as they themselves have no power to bring a case. Also worth noting that where they say "to obtain judgements and charging orders" what they really mean is "to attempt to obtain etc etc..." as they have to achieve a minimum standard of proof to the court which is a signed credit agreement meeting the terms of the UK Consumer Credit Act (unless they are using some other act CAGers please suggest if so) and other documents they are relying on probably to include statements and a default notice (safe to say the latter would probably not have been received by you if you had left the UAE). Going back to their front page they say "We break down the barriers normally associated with recovering non-residents’ debt and their failure to adhere to credit agreements. We are so confident of our approach that we are prepared to offer our combined services on a no-win, no-fee basis. We simply earn a negotiated commission percentage on the full amount recovered. A simple and effective scheme, with no risk at all to our clients." They have to break down the same barriers as any other DCA. First, to get the Debtor to engage with them and second to get them to pay. If that fails then to try a court action which is defendable, probably more so as it is an International debt so harder to enforce in the UK. I think a good action plan to deal with this is as follows: 1. Keep all correspondence including the envelops they came in. File it in chronological order. 2. Ignore all correspondence from anyone about this matter unless you get a letter before action, probably this would come from a partner solicitor but even if you get a "solicitors" letter it is not necessarily a Letter before Action but get back here for advice. Ignore all phone calls, if they accidentally get through to you, stop talking and hang up. You may consider it rude, I consider it rude that they are interrupting you with an unenforceable debt. 3. When you move in with your boyfriend get all your mail forwarded to your new address using the GPO forwarding service, or have it go to a box number for collection. This is to ensure that if they do start court proceedings they will not get a County Court Judgement against you accidentally because you did not receive the paperwork. 4. Consider letting them know your new address so that 3. does not happen. (Would love to see other CAGers views on that). 5. Something not mentioned elsewhere on this thread but you left UAE ten years ago. If there has been no contact in that time then I would imagine that the debt is Statute Barred as it is over six years old so no court action ought to be possible. That seems to me to be the perfect defence and probably nothing else is required if it came to an actual claim. (Again other CAGers opinions welcome on this). 6. Just as a precaution check all three credit reference agencies just in case they have somehow registered a default against you but I am not sure how they would do that. 7. DON'T GO BACK TO UAE. The debt will be registered and you will be arrested at the airport and held. Nothing too much to worry about. Please note I have no legal training but experience and some acquired knowledge so I welcome corrections and comments from other CAGers.
  50. 2 points
    Orchid Witness statement in opposition to SJ.pdf
×
×
  • Create New...