Vauban
-
Posts
127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Vauban
-
Solicitor/negligence claim:
Vauban replied to callum1999's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
No, I don't believe it would (though I am not a lawyer, and only have my personal experience to draw upon). Though you don't say so explicitly, I am interpreting your answer to my question a) as a "no". There is a clear process and timescale for lodging an appeal, and if you do not adhere to these then I understand that the option of appealing falls away - regardless of the merits of the case. The Court should have indicated to you how long you have to do this - but from recollection it is not all that long. Perhaps others can advise about this. -
Solicitor/negligence claim:
Vauban replied to callum1999's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
I am puzzled, callum1999, why you are prepared to write long posts like that above, but refuse to answer simple questions that require only short factual answers. People will conclude that you are either deliberately hiding relevant facts or you are not genuinely serious about taking this any further, and simply want to vent. That's fine (my own reading of your thread persuades me there is nowhere for you to take this) but it does means no one here can help you any further, and that the thread has probably reached an end. But perhaps one last try, with three short questions: a) have you sought leave to appeal yet, and from who?; b) how long do you understand you have to lodge an appeal?; c) on what basis, in simple non-convoluted terms, are you seeking to appeal? If you cannot, or don't wish (which is your prerogative), to answer these questions, then I think this has gone as far as it usefully can. -
Solicitor/negligence claim:
Vauban replied to callum1999's topic in Data Protection and Default Issues
To be honest, I think this is all irrelevant and unlikely to help you to mount an appeal - assuming that you are still within time to do so. My understanding (but I'm not a lawyer) is that you won't be able to appeal any of the court's "findings of fact" but only either due process or misinterpretations of the legal principle. Nothing - and I'm afraid I do mean nothing - that you have written here addresses either of these points. So I think you are going to struggle if you are serious about appealing this outcome (rather than just venting). The circumstances around the venue of the court do not constitute a failure of process, as others have repeatedly stated, and the questions about the nature of your relationship with the solicitor are either not relevant to the case you presented (in your particulars of claim and their defence) or have now been considered by the court and rejected. It has no bearing, as far as I can see, on the grounds for a successful appeal. I'm not a lawyer, but I do have experience of successfully taking a large company to court as a litigant in person (where they were represented by a London barrister). And I have to say - and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but make the point for anyone reading this thread who might also be facing litigation - that if you conduct yourself in court (and in preparation for court) in the way you have engaged others here, with tendentious, aggressive and largely irrelevant argument then it is a recipe for disaster. Rhetoric isn't the same thing as legal argument. I am sorry to be blunt, but you are in a hole here. And doubling down with no obvious prospect of success isn't a smart strategy. Perhaps if you could answer, clearly and without obfuscation, the questions others have put to you, people here might be able to offer you some ideas. But it seems unlikely to me, to be honest. -
If possible I always book direct with the airline - it's so much easier when things don't go to plan (rather than relying on a travel agency to send you details of schedule changes, etc). And when booking with a return to/from Europe with a EU carrier, always make sure that you are not on a non-EU carrier for the return leg (ie into Europe). Travel with BA or Virgin, and get a significant delay, then they are liable for hotel, food and compensation bills. But travel on a non-EU airline - even if booked with an EU carrier under codesharing - and you have no protection at all. Most websites tell you if you are booking a code-share flight, but it is not always obvious. Look carefully!
-
This is absolutely not true. The Regulation is very clear about this: "operating air carrier" means an air carrier that performs or intends to perform a flight under a contract with a passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural, having a contract with that passenger; So if you pay for BA for a ticket, and they put you on a code-share flight, the obligation of compensation under Regulation 261/04 sits with the operating air carrier. It's not "like buying a computer from PC world", because there is a very specific piece of legislation in place that governs the compensation regime. There is nothing to stop you suing BA under another piece of legislation, including basic contract law. But there is no other legislation which gives the passenger a statutory right to compensation in the event of a delay. At least none I am aware of. (The Montreal Convention, which is the other main piece of airline legislation covering liabilities, makes no provision for this at all.)
-
It doesn't matter that he has a booking with BA - the obligation to pay compensation rests with American Airlines, and they are not covered by the Regulation. If the OP was originally down to travel on BA (or Iberia for that matter) but was re-routed onto an American Airlines flight, then that would be different. But I don't think that's the case here. The OP was always scheduled to fly on AA and as such the Regulation does not apply for flying into Europe. If the OP wishes to double check whether s/he has a claim, they could try (with no obligation) the online NWNF lawyers website who have a database of eligible flights and tell you straightaway whether you have a claim. EUClaim and Bottonline both have these.
-
Final destination arrival 3 hrs late
Vauban replied to king12345's topic in Holiday & Airline companies
I'm afraid not. The Regulation governing compensation payments says that if you are informed more than 14 days out of the date of the flight about the change then you are not entitled to compensation. You could argue that you were not informed, but it would be hard to prove that you didn't receive an email. Even if you were able to establish you had not been informed (or at least show on the balance of probabilities you were not) then you would struggle to make a claim for compensation. The first hour delay is likely to be caused by non-extraordinary factors (it's an operational failure not to have a crew for a new flight) but the second hour will have been caused by Air Traffic Control restrictions following the aborted take-off. This is classed as "extraordinary" and would exempt the airline paying compensation. Sorry but definitely no claim. -
I am afraid this is simply wrong. It does not matter at all with whom you book the ticket - either directly with BA, another airline or a travel agency. The ONLY people who are liable to pay you compensation is the airline whom you travelled with. The Regulation makes this absolutely clear in preamble 7: "In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates [ie compensation] should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight" As the Regulation does not apply to non-EU airlines flying into the EU, Americans Airlines (as the operating airline) owe you nothing. If you were flying from the UK to the US, then you would be covered - as all airlines (regardless of nationality) leaving the EU are subject to the Regulation.
-
You would only be entitled to compensation (under EU Regulation 261/04) if: a) You arrived at your final destination three hours late (or two hours, if you were re-routed); and b) If a connecting flight was involved, you were on a single ticket booking; and c) If flying into the EU, you were on an aeroplane operated by a European carrier (from the EU, any airline is liable). Only the first of these seems definitely to apply in your case. Just because you booked through a travel agent doesn't mean you were on a single ticket, which creates problems when you miss connections. But you claim properly fails on the last of these - you were flying back into Europe on a US airline, which means Regulation 261/04 doesn't apply.
-
Hello folks - grateful to anyone who can help with this. My wife has worked in the same organisation for the last four years. She has had four separate one-year contracts during this time. Her contracted hours have varied slightly from contract to contract, but for the last two (one-year) contracts has had 19 per week. She was told a few weeks ago that, due to the fact she's been there for four years, she is being put onto a permanent contract. The permanent contract however offers three fewer hours per week than she currently works, even though they will expect her to work the same number of hours this year and claim the three hours as "overtime" (though this "overtime" is not paid at a higher rate.) Is there some disadvantage to her with this arrangement? Her holiday entitlement will presumably be determined by her contracted hours, rather than the contract plus "overtime" worked regularly. Is this right? I guess the employer misrepresenting her normal hours worked, perhaps in order to maintain some flexibility if they decide they don't want her to work the extra three hours after all? Can they do this - putting her onto a permanent contract with three fewer hours than she has had over the less couple of years? What options does she have, if this arrangement does actually work against her unfairly? Many thanks to anyone who can offer advice.
-
That's good to hear. I also have had the experience of glasses not quite being right - don't uncomfortable to see through, but not providing as much correction as I've been used to. The optician said this was just me getting older, but I'm not so convinced. What was causing the issue in your case?
-
Where have you read that the judge is corrupt? That's a serious allegation.
-
Scottish Power have lost touch with reality !
Vauban replied to danny49's topic in Utilities - Gas, Electricity, Water
So since you moved into the property in early 2014, how much have you been paying for your gas and electricity usage? You've said yoou partner had paid £1000 over the period (a little over 2 years?) - but how did they manage that if SP didn't have her account details? Sorry if I've misunderstood something. -
Some charities are about poverty alleviation. But many are about raising money for medical research, or international development. And the people donating to charity shops want their goods to raise as much money as possible for their chosen charity, not give a bargain for the e-bay reseller.
-
Not really. The point of the donating goods is to raise money for the charity, not to allow other businesses/people to pick up valuable donated goods for a dime and flog them for personal profit on e-bay.
-
Why did the judge award costs against you? That is very, very rare on the Small Claims Track. What did the Judge say? My (non-lawyer) understanding is that you cannot appeal on findings of fact (i.e. the judge's determination of what happened) but only either an error in law (i.e. a wrong legal principle applied) or an error of process/procedure. But you have been so unclear about what actually happened, I'm not sure anyone can advise you on how to proceed.
-
. It appears that you want your day in court regardless, though I don't think it should be regarded as a form of entertainment! The fact that you have a serious offer means, as others have said, that Halfords are far from confident they will win. But don't underestimate the capricious nature of the small claims process - it can throw up unexpected results and there must be a serious risk you will get nothing at all. But if you are accepting of that, then I wish you the best of luck!
-
First Utility harassment
Vauban replied to firstutility-nightmare's topic in Utilities - Gas, Electricity, Water
I am struggling to reconcile your point in post #3 that you owe £15-20k with what you say in #6 that the disputed amount relates to 11 months' of gas usage of about £1.8k. Forgive me if I have missed something, but could you explain? I'm no lawyer, but three observations from me: a) I don't think that the behaviours you describe really meets the bar for what might constitute harassment, given you clearly owe FU money; b) if you are suing for damages, your £1000 seems quite arbitrary. How have you reached that figure? You talk earlier about being put against your will onto an uncompetitive tariff. But you don't seem in your claim to try to plead this, I guess because you are not suing FU. You need to be smarter, if you really think you have a case, at quantifying your loss - and I agree with others that your case is actually against FU not their collectors; c) when some of these issues are going before a court in the next couple of weeks, wouldn't it have been better to wait for that outcome before beginning a claim against Hydron? -
Why do people not eat dogs.
Vauban replied to Consumer dude's topic in The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
Woof justice? -
The car broke down in March, but you think you might have had it at Kwik Fit in October? I don't see this claim going anyway, IMHO.
-
Well I've never thought that's what CAG is about - but perhaps that's my mistake rather than yours. I'm afraid I don't know the basis on which Sky gave you the charge card, and therefore on what grounds you could possibly try to welch from your debt, but I'd be surprised if it was given to you with no understanding that you would have to pay it back. It' seems to me a slightly odd arrangement anyway: my employer gives me a corporate credit card, but it's on the understanding that it is for business use only. I am not allowed to use it for personal purchases.
-
This is very unclear to me, especially when you say "it's not a legitimate bill". It's quite simple really: is your spending on this card for items or services purchased on behalf of your former employer, or was it personal spending? If the latter, what possible excuse could you have for not paying off your debt?
-
Until recently, I used to commute into Waterloo every working day. There has always been a member of staff on a platform - yours or an adjacent one - whom you could approach to buy a ticket from. The fact that you a) didn't seek out a SWT employee on the train or the platforms and b) then proceeded to walk through the barriers will, in my view, provide sufficient evidence to secure a conviction on both points. I have read cases on here where people have sought out the prosecutor immediately before the case in heard in court to plead for an administrative settlement, stressing the disproportional impact on your personal or professional life. I understand you will need to take several hundred pounds in cash with you in order to settle the matter there and then. But there is no guarantee they will agree of course.
-
The UK Council for International Student Affairs [http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/] say the following on their website: "Criminal convictions, driving offences Being convicted of a criminal offence in the UK may have serious consequences for your current immigration position. Your current permission to stay can also be curtailed in some circumstances. You will also need to declare any criminal convictions on any future immigration application. Applications for entry clearance or further leave to remain in the UK can be refused on the basis of a person's criminal history. Certain punishments other than a prison sentence, such as fines, police cautions and being disqualified from driving, count as non custodial sentences for immigration purposes, and can also be treated very seriously. If you are in trouble with the police, we recommend that you seek legal advice from an immigration specialist, as well as from a criminal law solicitor, as soon as possible. It is important to establish what the consequences may be for your immigration status if, for example, you are convicted of an offence or accept a caution. If you are about to make an application to extend your immigration permission, or if you have already made an application and you are waiting for a decision, seek advice. Your International Student Adviser may be able to advise you or help you to access more specialist advice." So depending on if you need to re-enter the UK during your studies (when your immigration status might potentially be reviewed), you might also seek out some professional legal advice (or the Citizens Advice Bureau) to see what your options are.
-
That is exactly what I meant. I find RLP's practices as reported on here deeply disturbing - and frankly (as a non-lawyer) am astonished they are legal. It is deeply objectionable; I'm not sure how it differs from extortion. But - and this isnt meant as castigation of the OP especially - I have no issue with your visa being rescinded, I'm afraid. There doesn't appear, from what you post, to be any mitigating circumstances around your theft (nor do you seem especially apologetic for it). Whether that will happen I can't advise, but I think you have little option but to come clean with UKBA. If you're lucky they may judge that a caution is insufficient to nullify your visa. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS