Jump to content

JKDE2008

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. I wonder. The only barrister's opinion that they had did not support what they were doing. Had they set this up and operated in a proper way, it would have got as far as that opinion, and that is as far as it would have got.
  2. According to feedback from those at the court, this GCB Ltd issue has been raised and it appears that the barrister for the claimant knew nothing about it. There has had to be a 10 minute recess whilst he takes instructions from Crossley who is also there.
  3. Those notices of discontinuance have been stayed by the court and the case is still live. There is a further hearing on 24th January 2010. Read your PMs.
  4. As regards todays hearing at the Patents County Court regarding the 27 claims. Initial reports are that defendants, some represented, have turned up as has the BBC. It is not said whether the claimant has showed. It is also said that at the very last minute, all 27 defendants received letters discontinuing the claims, with some people receiving letters on Saturday morning.
  5. If you Google for "Lee Bowden" + "Nails" you will find a rather interesting article.
  6. That address has numerous tenants and is also used for mail drop services. According to companies house, the single director of GCH is a David Fisher who was appointed several years ago when the company was created. Perhaps McLean Read need asking if the David Fisher that presumably is their client that they set the company up for and who is unaware as to what is going on, is the same David Fisher whose name is being provided as the director of the company when callers call the number on the correspondance.
  7. There is some information about the Polydor case in the Consumer Focus response relating to a consultation about the Patent County Court. Google for "consumer focus response patent county court"
  8. What is the position if a secured lender makes a mistake and understates a settlement figure, and the property is sold and completed on that basis. They then discover the mistake after completion and after they have received the money they said they wanted but before the charge is lifted (and after the borrower has been paid out and skedaddled) Do the requirements that relate to undertakings and charges mean that having been paid the stated figure, they must lift the charge, or can they refuse to until they are paid the rest and if so, what protects a buyer against this.
  9. Thanks. As to the sign, I have looked through the manuals of signs that should have been removed and it is sign # 641. I have uploaded an image and link of one below. According to the TSRGD 2002, it is not prescribed, and transitional protection ran out on 1st January 2005. Looks like both the old signs and markings, and what they are putting in are all bad. Image of actual street below showing blacked out yellow lines and new white lines. White lines are about 1250mm from kerb.
  10. An argument has arisen near where I live. Last year the council took over parking enforcement, and started patroling areas that the police had not touched for years - I mean decades. There is a road outside some shops. Along a length, there is a broken single yellow line (I don't mean a single line that has worn away - this is a line that was painted like it years ago). At each end of the length in question, there is a very old sign which has white text on a faded blue background saying "Waiting Limited, then days and times, and no return within etc..." but with no pictograms on it. I have looked in the highway code and there isn't anything about either lines or signs like that. I have found an article from the 1990's that said that broken yellow lines would all be replaced by January 1999, but I cannot find any reference to the blue signs. One shopkeeper thinks they were the original signs put up nearly 30 years ago. The question is whether these are enforceable. They are also re-doing bays in places. On one road, they have limited waiting, and the white bay markings parallel to the kerb are only four feet (about 1250 mm) from it. It is impossible to park there without either straddling the white line, or going up on the pavement (which is inappropriate as they are high kerbs). Is that legitimate?
  11. Thanks. Friend called the collectors and explained what had happened. They have passed it back to the bank.
  12. Apologies if this is in the wrong forum. A friend has the following problem. His wife is registered blind and has mental impairment following a brain injury. She is the subject of a fraud. A person that lodged with them (and had access to their computer, telephone, files etc.) somehow managed to open a credit card in his wife's name, and use the card to withdraw large amounts of cash from ATM's, and cover it up for a while by interfering with their post. His wife had no involvement with the opening of the account, but the lodger hoodwinked her into talking to the CC company on the phone on a few occasions (in the belief that she was talking to other banks about other accounts they have), after the account had been opened. It came to light when the lodger left. The police were notified and investigated, but the CC company say that because they have recordings of his wife talking to them, that she must have been party to what went on. The police asked the CC co for the signed agreement for the account, but CC co say the application was accepted over the internet and there is no signed agreement. Friend has just told the CC co that his wife could not have opened the account as she is not capable of using a computer, and could not have drawn the money out as she is incapable of using an ATM. CC co, in spite of the fact that the police are supposedly still investigating, have passed the debt to a firm of collectors, and that firm have written to her offering a discount on the debt if she settles it straight away. As far as I can see, they are acting as collectors and have not purchased the debt. Which seems a bit odd to me. Are there any circumstances in which such a debt is enforceable even if there is no signed agreement? And if the person alleged to owe the money asserts that they never opened the account at all, is the CC co obliged to comply with data requests etc. Anyone come across this sort of situation? And what is their best response to the collectors?
×
×
  • Create New...