Jump to content

MrFancypants

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Go back & ask him if that is the opinion of him or 'his' company 1st Credit the debt collectors!
  2. 1st Credit is owned by Bridgepoint whos' directors include Alan Milburn MP & former minister Perhaps a 'nice' letter direct to him might result in a response & whilst your at it ask him if it's because of his involvement with this company that he is keen to see debt collectors given the right to break into peoples homes & assault them
  3. There was a case a couple of years ago involving a cricket ball & someones house which was being constantly bombarded by cricket balls from the village green playing field. The home owner sort an injuction to stop the club & won. It was in all the press at the time
  4. your missing the point oz what 'might' be obtained from the garage isn't the same as saying what izzy's legal rights are. What the garage do over & above their legal obligations is upto them. If izzy obtian's a new car then great we are only advising on their legal rights & the dealers obligations As for the rest of you scenario I can only comment that you haven't been around car manufactures for very long if you think that is the norm
  5. That may be their way of doing things but it is still wrong. An 'out off time' defence when an application for judgement has been made should be rejected. Believe me when I say if you missed the deadline (by even one day) a default judgement would be issued against you post haste Yes the defendant would probably be granted a set aside but only if they applied for it thereby causing them more time & trouble not to say costs. This might encourage them to settle rather than continue the fight. If a court clerk has stated they delay placing judgement requests before the court & as a result allow late defences to be submitted without prior consent from either the court proper or the claimant can someone get it in writing & let me know I'm almost certain the judges are unaware of whats happening
  6. 2 years! a prescribed time? What does that mean?
  7. You CAN drive dad's Porsche on your Citroen Insurance but it will only be for 3rd party risks (unless stated otherwise) so unless you hit another Porsche then the insurance company won't care because the damage to dad's Porsche it is not their problem If the garage didn't inspect the car in the presence of the owner they could still be held liable for damage reported after it left the garage
  8. I agree 2 years rubbish & anyway they should have taken out pet insurance bearing in mind current vet fees Out of interest what is the breed?
  9. Izzy then your missing the point. I'm NOT saying your not entitled to a 'like for like' what I am saying is that if the garage have offered you a replacement 1/3 less than you originaly paid then that IS 'like for like' When you drove your new car out of the showroom it devalued by 1/3 so even if it was fault free it is now still only worth 2/3rd's of it's original purchase price However if you didn't have use of a courtesy car from the dealer you may be able to claim for loss of use at about £10 per day or any other costs you may have incurred
  10. It is not for the courts to consider what 'might' happen. If the claimant had legal representation (I'm not advocating it) believe me when I say the court would not attempt to refuse the application & if they did a hearing before the senior judge would be requested when a complaint would be made A late defence should only be allowed either on the order of the court &/or with agreement of the other party
  11. Northampton CC have a habit of allowing the banks extra time without considering the effect on the claimant They grant stays without making an order They are known to refuse default judgements on the grounds that the bank will present a defence This of course is disgraceful conduct & frankly I don't think the judges are aware of what the staff are doing as to deny the claimants right to judgement is highly prejudicial to the claimant & if a lawyer failed to apply for judgement on the day they could be hauled up before the Law Society for professional negligence It must be realised that they could apply for a set aside but then that should be their problem & not assisted by the court clerks Also having to incur additional costs might have the affect of making them settle sooner rather than later
  12. BW of course it's nonsense & designed to put consumers off from claiming. Anyway the OFT finding will not be binding in law unless they take court action to force the banks to justify their charges which they won't & the banks can't Customers of that bank should cut & paste that statement & once they have compiled their claim send it with their LBA whilst saying that as the bank have clearly stated that they will not consider claims then they have 7 days instead of 14 to respond before the issue of proceedings Make them eat their words
  13. You will be liable for the court issue fees. If you ignore them they will take action & as you admit you obtained them fraudently (albeit you admitted this without coercion) they could pusue you more vigorously The courts will act more aggressivly in recovering overpaid taxes You are only entitled to credits from the time you apply & the fact that you didn't claim when you could is down to you & you can't set it against the debt
  14. £1200pa! to insure her home where does she live in a mansion! Your mums an elderly person sounds to me that there are grounds for reporting them to the regulator for mis-selling Also I suggest you contact Financial Mail on Sunday its just the sort of story they would love to investigate after 1st confronting these sorts of companies
  15. Correct pat In fact such disclaimer notices are unlawful & can be reported to TS as they mis-inform the public about their legal rights
×
×
  • Create New...