Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Avg. Content Per Day

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ericsbrother last won the day on April 9

ericsbrother had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,285 Excellent

About ericsbrother

  • Rank
    Royalties Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. sorry but you are missing the point about how the connections are made and their likely influence. It dioesnt matter it here are a hundred mats connected if the mains link going into the board is done incorrectly. also your use of wording such as "the installation" doesnt give much help, yes the fire started in the thermostat but WHERE ? the board has a number of parts that get warm but the most likey culprit is hwere the mains is switched on and off and that is the bit that is doen by the installer. generally you will have a neutral tht stays "on" all of the time and mains that goes into a switch that is connected to the sensors that then switch the power on and off whilst stioll using the live unswitched connection to provide the current for the low voltage parts of the system. It is qwuite easy to misred the installation of this as the same board may be used for several differnt systems and thus the links need to be made in a different configuration for each system. Confuse type 1 with type 2 and you may well be passing a current permanenty though the system causing it to heat up to a point of no return. that si why you need to get a decent copy of the circiut diagram (not the installation diagram) from the makers so you can pass that on to your tame electronics bod to see what they make of the remnants
  2. di you record the call? If you had then you could have not paid them at all as they refused the payment and that is covered by the term "mitigating a debt"
  3. do you know how many people you need to take a group action to court? It is why you see so few of them in the UK
  4. then you need to consider the (almost) oldest bit of law regarding health and safety and that is Rylands v Fletcher. A lot has changed since then but that is a good starting point. in short they have a common duty of care and have to pay for damage done. Now you need to be able to put a figure on that damage and vague thoughts about possible subsudence in the future wont wash. get them to admit liability and agree to pay for a proper survey and them indemnify you for future loss if a problem is found. They wont like it but will hate the alternative if they have been found to be obstructive.
  5. regarding the mice. If you keep your house in order so as not to encourage them it is the landlords responsibility. The fact he owns the land they come from is irrelevant BUT it will ake the council's job easier when you report the infestation to them from that land. dont allow the common ownership cloud the process, they are separate matters
  6. Yes, the debt may well be SB but if they take you to court and you dont defend they still get a CCJ. So what was the other CCJ matter about if not this crowd? You will have got the paperwork so did you look at it and respond?
  7. chances are it is a dud debt and unenforceabel and you shouldnt necessarily pay anyone. Tell us who the original creditor was, how old, when was it legally assigned to Cabot and how long have you been paying and do you get annual statements of account that show the amount of debt, payments made and new balance? You may well end up not paying anyone so the sooner we know the sooner we can advise on the next step
  8. read the last 2 years worth of the Parking Pranksters blogspot as you will fins a number of court cases there that you can quote when it comes to it. By reading them now you will start to understand what this is all about. we can advise but we cant force you to understnad so you need to read widely but the place suggested is always accurate and consise as there is little in the way of comment that doesnt hammer the points home
  9. you MUST read these letters carefully so you dotn jump to the conclusion they want you to. solicitors act as DCA's because they already have a CC licence but Dca's arent on the solicitors roll. ask yourself why the bill has goen up to £186? read thre POFA paragraph where is says about notices via the post only and you will see that they can ony charge the invoiced amount as the keeper couldnt have read the signs to agree to furhter amounts being added. So, they either say you were the driver and lose when you say you arent or they stick to the rules and create a keeper liability. this limits the amount of money they can earn so they tell lies. you can tell they are lies because they are written down and sent to you when you werent the driver--end of as far as the law goes but they will want to try and get "their" money. they are all ex-clampers and are still used to getting ther way by violence and intimidation so difficult to break old habits
  10. TBH your phrasing of what you want from the council isnt that clear. You need to ask them if planning permission has been granted under the 2007 Act for the signage and cameras at....... Your version looks like you are vaguely asking for planning permission to put cameras up! Now with the DVLA you give your personal and vehicle detaisl and ask WHO has accessed your personal data, WHEN and what was the stated reason
  11. Ok signage first- not only is it likely to be invitation to treat ( see other signs etc) it also prohibits other users so prohibitive for others as well. That means they are damned under 2 different sets of laws and as already said if it was a contract then there is no mention of anyone paying ECP a bean so they are triple damned by their own words.. Now as for photography. The problem here is who is taking the pictures and whet else do they do with that phone. Is it their own phone and they upload the pictures to ECP somehow? if so who are they because if they arent an employee of ECP directly they will need their own ICO registration for the data processing. Not wearing a badge or uniform is irrelevant but if you wrestled them to the ground and claimed that you were sufferering from fear or alarm of their likely assault ( doesnt have to be physical contact) they can get done for that and a free kicking to remind them you were frightened. Now, I am not suggesting that anyone abuses the law but as it is written if you THOUGHT it was a firearm as far as the law goes they are carrying a firearm or an imitation firearm and can you imagine their face when surrounded by armed coppers because of their suspicious behaviour? possession with intent to cause fear etc applies to whatever the object turns out to be
  12. why are you asking instead of pulling your finger out and doing things? email, fax etc they all get there. you had had warnings and time to get this done but you have sat back and done nothing until it all becomes critical. Yiou had better have a judge that cuts you some slack and appreciates that you actually have evidence to show you could have beaten this years ago but the way you are going the judge may think that you are not bothered so start looking up the court fax number andat least show that you have something even if it cant be used on the 24th. If ScS pitch up you can be damed sure they will go for the kill as you havent filed in time but the judge should know that you do have something. fax it to SCS as well so they lose soem of the wind in their sails
  13. exactly right, this limit is soemthing judges understand much better than contracts with open ended but unproven terms. All useful stuff and PP is not retrospective for contract forming purposes
  14. there you go, get them to make a noise pronto and search them out on social media and complain like hell if they dont intercede at once
  15. yours is one of the easier ones, "1)The defendant does not belive the claimant has the authority of the landowner to offer contracts to the public nor to make civil claims in their own name and thus having no locus standi to make such a claim. 2) in any case there was no offer of a contract to consider so there cannot be a cause for action by the claimant against the defendant" they know this but they are hoping you dont. Read up on nay of the NO STOPPING cases and you will see why, (prohibitive signage, lack of performance etc) all the detail comes later
  • Create New...