Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Basejumper

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    90

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Basejumper

  1. Basejumper
    Thanks Andy - perhaps its the system I am currently using. It was from this one that the last attachment did not work either - lesson learnt:lol:
  2. Basejumper
    Hi all would someone be able to have a look at the attached with reference 'pressing to test' - thanks [ATTACH]38800[/ATTACH]
  3. Basejumper
    Ok, thanks for the support. As you are aware I am in the middle of this so I will also have my AQ ready by the required timescales, with directions and a draft order just in case. I will draft a notice and post, hopefully by Wed so please spread the word and with the great confidence I get from here lets press to test...
  4. Basejumper
    Continuing on and I may be prepared to take one for the team, as in my case the Solicitors have not responded to my lawful request for info via the CPR 31.14 and PART 18 route. The knock on effect is I have to fill in my AQ 149 and in section G ask the DJ if he / she will accept my draft order, whereby I want them (the court) to order disclosure so then I can amend my defence accordingly - how is this dealing expediently and with the overriding objectives to save the court time. Why can I not serve the Solicitors and Inform the court with a Notice of Irrevocable Estoppel by Acquiescence?
  5. Basejumper
    In fact to sharpen our focus to my post above this from the same place would be more fitting "Acquiescence" Main article: Estoppel by acquiescence Estoppel by acquiescence may arise when one person gives a legal warning to another based on some clearly asserted facts or legal principle, and the other does not respond within "a reasonable period of time". By acquiescing, the other person is generally considered to have lost the legal right to assert the contrary. As an example, suppose that Jill has been storing her car on Jack's land with no contract between them. Jack sends a registered letter to Jill's legal address, stating: "I am no longer willing to allow your car to stay here for free. Please come get your car, or make arrangements to pay me rent for storing it. If you do not do so, within 30 days, I will consider the car abandoned and will claim ownership of it. If you need more time to make arrangements, please contact me within 30 days, and we can work something out." If Jill does not respond, she may be said to have relinquished her ownership of the car, and estoppel by acquiescence may prevent any court from invalidating Jack's actions of registering the car in his name and using it as his own.
  6. Basejumper
    Evening MIKE770. Perfect, just had a google on estoppel. Could we as a group perhaps make an amendment to some of our templates. This section below appears to give us an advantage. I was wondering when it can be used in the court procss that I am, for example, in at the moment. I recall using a similar statement you put at the end of my CPR 31.14 request. Extract taken from Wikipedia Estoppel in English Law. "Estoppel by acquiescence A legally binding contract occurs when one party makes an offer and receives an acceptance from the other party. A contract must consist of an offer and acceptance, the intention to create legal relations and consideration all must be present to make the contract legally enforceable. In contract law consideration is concerned with the bargain of the contract, each party to a contract must be both a promisor and a promisee. They must each receive a benefit and each suffers a detriment. The classic definition of consideration was given by the court in the case of Currie v Misa (1875) LR 10 Ex 153, referred to consideration as consisting of a detriment to the promisee or a benefit to the promisor, Lush J: “A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law, may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other". The doctrine of consideration can therefore be seen as a set of rules, which play the principal role in the decision by the courts as to which agreements or promises are found to be legally binding. Promissory estoppel is a term used in contract law that applies where, although there may not otherwise be an enforceable contract. The importance of promissory estoppel in contract law is that it has enabled legal obligations, which fall into the category of contract law but fail to show any consideration, to be argued for. Promissory estoppel provides a way in which promises can be legally binding even if no consideration has been given. Promissory estoppel relates to a form of future conduct. The doctrine of promissory estoppel may not make the total contract fully enforceable. The specific facts in the case must actually establish the elements of promissory estoppel before the contract becomes enforceable in law. The promises within a contract will be enforced under the promissory estoppel doctrine, when enforcing the contract promises avoids injustice. Lord Justice Denning is a leading figure in the field of promissory estoppel in the case of Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd (1947) KB 130, was concerned with the modification of the rent payable on a block of flats during the Second World War. The importance of the case, however, lies in the an obiter statement of principle which LJ Denning set out, “a promise intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on, is binding so far as its terms properly apply”. Applying this principle, Denning held that a promise to accept a lower rent during the war years was binding on the landlord, regardless of the fact that the tenant had supplied no consideration for it. There are limitations which must be satisfied to this doctrine which derived from both Lord Cairns in the case Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 AC 439 and LJ Denning in High Trees case. They are: There must be a promise There must be a clear promise intended to alter the contracted obligation. The court assesses intention objectively rather than taking evidence on the party's state of mind. Woodhouse Israel Cocoa Ltd v Nigerian Produce Marketing Board [1972] AC 74, A contract for the sale of some coffee beans was agreed to be payable in pound sterling. The sellers mistakenly sent an invoice stating price was payable in Kenyan Shillings. At the time the value of sterling and Kenyan shillings was equal. The buyers accepted the delivery and invoice without objection. Subsequently the value of the pound fell quite dramatically in relation to Kenyan shillings. The buyers then sought to revert to pound sterling as stated in the contract. The buyers conduct in accepting the invoice unquestionably amounted to an implied clear and unambiguous promise to accept on those terms"
  7. Basejumper
    Hi Mike_Hawk, sorry if I have thrown you of course slightly. I will try and explain. We seem to be getting hammered and everytime I log on I see more and more people having issues with people (DCAs, Solicitors) not returning information within laid down timescales and then not being 'punished' accordingly, whereas if we as the LiP miss a deadline the other side win by default - unfair. So as I was reading I came across the Tacit Agreement scenario. Could 'We' as comsumers add a piece to our (CAG) Templates that would bind the other party to this? for example, If you do not return my CPR 31.14 or PART 18, CCA etc request in such a time or you ignore my request altogether, then we agree that a. the debt does not exist, b. you will not sell this or pass it on to anyone else, c. you will not persue me any further for this alleged debt. If you do then you agree to pay me £xxx. I am interested if this has been tested at Court level and/or it holds any merit
  8. Basejumper
    Lovely Mike_hawk. I will have a tinker add some more info if I think it may assist and then post. Be grateful if you or a Mod could have a critique before I send. Hopefully post by cop Monday. Do you have any knowledge of a Tacit Agreement / Contract and its legality in this overall process?
  9. Basejumper
    Morning Mike_hawk I have had a look at your link - thanks, and I have another which goes back in time a bit, but be glad of some additional light being shed. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?53570-New-strategy-for-Allocation-Questionnaires I also like the idea of attaching the additional info, I too believe that judges may look at documents in isolation thus not getting the full picture earlier, thus perhaps, saving court time. Got to reply by 26 Oct so have a bit of time for thought.
  10. Basejumper
    Hi All. Well, it appears they wish to continue as an AQ N149 has landed on my doormat. Would it be possible to get some guidance on the filling in, in particular section G - Other Information. Here is what I have got up to that point. A - Settlement. Yes B - Location of Hearing. Yes - my local court etc C - Track. Yes agree to SCT D - Witnesses. 0 E - Experts. No F - Hearing - No issues with attending G - Other Info??? H - Fee. No fee applicable I believe as I am a Defendant I- Signature. No problems Back to section G - Shall I compile a Draft Order requesting the disclosure of documents then an amended defence as I have STILL NOT received a response to my CPR 31.14 or PART 18 requests therefore disadvantaged or ask for something else because I don't want to put something that is counter productive to my defence or contradict it. Thanks:???:
  11. Basejumper
    Yes that works, how strange. i will however not rename any others CAG in future for the pruposes of site filters. Are you happy with what I have put? I know it is too late but afterall although taken guidence from here I am not supposed to know the law inside out and LiP do make mistakes, sometimes costly.
  12. Basejumper
    Very interesting. All of which I would need to take additional guidance on preparation exept if we go as we are. I think that I am happy with my course of action and how I will expand on each point shouild the need arise. For the meantime I have uploaded the defence for reference. [ATTACH]38607[/ATTACH]
  13. Basejumper
    ok I see what what you are saying and its clearer - thanks:-) If they amend or expand their POC I can amend my defence I believe, why are they allowed to do that and not appeal the judgement if it goes against them? Should you not put your best foot forward. Sorry I haven't posted my defence I forgot to send it home via email to post. will do it from work - I have slapped my wrist.... I will take your advice and wait or give a wide birth on the discontinuance.
  14. Basejumper
    I am keeping a log of what I have written with dates receipts from the recorded and special deliveries. I can guestimate the amount of time I have spent reading, compiling background info FSA links and the time posting on here. I understand the importance of deadlines so that has been adhered to. As regards to your statement on me not being party to the clawback they have tried to "ars* cover" by writing in the TOB that if I cancel and they have to pay back their part of the agreement i.e the clawback I must pay a fee which will not be more than the clawback. They could have agreed on thousands expecting me to "get them out of jail" so to speak by using a loose term and calling it a fee. I have not signed up to the 3rd party agreement i.e Friends Provident|Intrinsic|Financial Associates. So they must have a set of T&Cs between each other. I am correct in a round about way? What is the rough timelines for the AQ stage or as you suggest let then chew over my defence then offer discontinuance is that my job or the courts direction?
  15. Basejumper
    Defence gone off today. I topped and tailed it as per other defences seen on here. I will post again soon if I get some developments. I will upload it tomorrow so others can see should in th future something like this occurs again to others. thank you for all of your help
  16. Basejumper
    True - I am a lot clearer hearing it from someone neutral and from someone who can see it from a legal stance. I will write up what I have kindly got from you and submit in the morning then await the AQ etc then re-post to continue. Am I correct to assume that if and when I get to docs requested and the answers to my questions some if not all of that info will become clear. I suppose that when you sign up to something you should be aware of all of the facts. Once again many thanks - its been a tricky one this so far......
  17. Basejumper
    Ah - I understand now. I am happy with what you have advised on above, do you think at this stage i should keep some powder dry and not mention. 1. I believe that there is insufficient disclosure on charges. 2. I believe that the TOB is a clear breach of FSA guidelines.
  18. Basejumper
    Flippen Heck Mike_hawk. Sorry for the late response been to see my father 81 and first time in hospital for hip replacement.... however I will have a read through a few times and reply shortly. At first glance its all I can do as I have nothing else to refer to so fits the bill. Can I not ask the court to order them to respond to my CPR or does your para 7 mean that but in legal terms. Also could you explain para 9 please. Thanks
  19. Basejumper
    Even though I may be hopeful of that unclebulgaria67 I will compile an embarrassed defence but I do not want to waffle. Shall I just say that they havent supplied docs as requested but contest x, y and z and ask for the court to order them to supply what I want:???:
  20. Basejumper
    Thanks MIKE770. I will wait-out
  21. Basejumper
    Hello All. I have been waiting as long as I can for a response to my CPR 31.14 and PART 18 request with no joy. My defence has to be at Northampton County Court by Wednesday. Could I as for assistance with a defence please. I am thinking along the lines of a holding one as I have not received info as mentioned earlier.
  22. Basejumper
    I have had a look at the reason why basic format on Google which is advised to be followed but I do not recall seeing that or anything similar. Its a strange quote you make, "if someone decides to cancel early". It appears, as in my case that if you do you pay the consequence. May I ask, when you do or did sell Life Insurances does the TOB agreement give an amount in £sp for early redemption or cancellation? or is that what is covered in the IDD?
  23. Basejumper
    rennuz - thanks for joining the thread again. The 2.5k came about when I multiplied 48 x £52 pcm I was paying. I am led to believe that the commission was around £1400 for the first 48 then £1.31 pcm thereafter. I am also led to believe that the advisor has given their commission back on this circa £250. I appreciate your assistance and you mention the letters being 'squeaky clean' is there a strict guideline? if so would you point me in the right direction to help speed up my process? So I may understand a little more is the commission front loaded to encourage the customer to continue payments? and finally why do you believe they have switched to a 2 yr clawback instead of 4 and when did this happen? Thanks
  24. Basejumper
    It works out though that 2.5k is 10% of the of the cover taken out.... how strange I think I have my questions now and a good train of thought so off to the post office I can not thank you enough Mike_hawk for your time thus far
  25. Basejumper
    Not only the proof of loss to the Court but being able to satisfy to them the redress of the companies TOB agreement inline with the requirements of the FSA as it alludes to in the links you sent in a previous post. Lets no forget that at the top of the TOB agreement they state they do not charge a fee. What Quantum Meruit would there be surely the agent gets paid off the commission earned. If a customer cancels then they (the agent) give this payment back. Also should it be taken off their(the companies) loss in total and not get paid twice by the agent and again by me? In addition to your it the overall amount. I calculated and got 'told off' by another poster that 'it isnt that simple' 48 payments of what I was paying (£52+p) is approx £2500. I paid £1652 when you minus these figures its less than what they are claiming by £150. I think I am getting distracted and must concentrate on my paperwork

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...