Jump to content

MrNumbskull

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About MrNumbskull

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. This is a somewhat complex story, so I'll try to keep it brief. On 6th September, I was the victim of a very sophisticated hack. I have no idea how it was done, and because of this it really does bother me about online security. I have accounts at several online key retailers. These keys can be bought (in the form of a code) to enter into online platforms such as Steam, Xbox, PSN etc. On 6th September I briefly saw an email from PayPal whilst I had my browser open. It was a receipt for some game keys. I did not recognise the amount (£43
  2. I think the same. We are now in a situation where if I am awarded greater than I have offered to settle for, the judge would be able to say that the defendant could have saved us all time and money by accepting my offer.
  3. Why is it a problem that it can be disclosed before judgement? It shows that I'm the only party attempting to avoid the increased costs of a hearing. In contrast, the defendant has been very unreasonable in a number of ways in which they have behaved, which I intend to show in the chronology of my witness statement in terms of action they have / have not taken leading up to the claim.
  4. Thank you for the swift reply BankFodder. The real question is whether I had committed a legal blunder by not formatting the letter correctly, or not including certain terms. The claim is about the clutch and associated fault. Because the garage have refused to fix the issue and it's dragged on so long, I found it unbearable to live with the vehicle and so have traded it in. The idea (upon a successful claim) was to have the work done elsewhere and return the faulty parts to the garage. Now I have got rid of the vehicle, I won't be doing this, but can I demonstrate a loss to the cour
  5. I believe this deserves its own thread as it's a discrete legal topic, although is related to another thread I have. Short version: I started action against a garage over a car repair. The garage filed a defence. We had a mediation meeting where they offered ~25% of the claim to settle. I rejected that offer and decided to end the mediation as it was clear our positions were (financially speaking) too far apart. Obviously the content of the mediation is confidential so I cannot refer to it at the hearing. Their offer was made 'without prejudice' but did not mention Pa
  6. Because it was mediation, I didn't speak to them. The mediator went between parties on the telephone. I am quite sure that Part 36 was not mentioned at all. I do recall that 'without prejudice' was mentioned though.
  7. A month ago I had a mediation appointment, where the defendant made me an offer of 20% of the claim value, which I refused. As of now, there has been a change in circumstance where it is no longer necessary for me to pursue the claim. (The claim was for a poor car repair, but I have sold the car without having the work re-done). This leads me to consider that there isn't any 'loss', i.e. I am not out of pocket because I did not have the work done elsewhere. The only consideration is the time and grief involved. I understand that anything discussed / offered during mediation is confid
  8. So finally they've had the car to look at and although acknowledge each fault that I have reported, have blamed every one on something else, where even those with a rudimentary knowledge in mechanics can see is BS. Although most of the problems are easy to fix, they have not offered to do so. For example, the rattling noise has been blamed on a slightly leaky exhaust (a gas leak that is). The problem with this is that the leak has only been there since I fitted a new part (the joint is a bit loose) a couple of months ago, the rattle was going on months before that. When I went to col
  9. Just an update to say that I had a response from Civil Enforcement today, notifying me of cancellation of the charge. I had used the PoFA argument where I wouldn't name the driver and the NTK was outside 14 days
  10. May be irrelevant, but looking at the notice it does not say what you are supposed to have done, unless it is explicitly stated in the redacted parts. It says in the blurb below that you have either not displayed a ticket or remaining in the car park longer than permitted, so which is it that they're claiming?
  11. And it's nice that you came back to report the outcome
  12. I'd be of the opinion that we should let them continue as is. There are few greater pleasures in life than seeing a waste their money to end up snookered, legally speaking. I suppose the argument to that is how many people will be through ignorance, though just because someone may be ignorant is not a reason to take advantage of them. Edited to reword.
  13. I'm just curious as to how this works. Presumably you enter the car park which ANPR records and then purchase a ticket. Is this related to entering the number plate or something? How are ANPR cameras used to determine that you don't have a ticket displayed?
  14. I sent them a letter in May requesting a satisfactory invoice and their plan of action to rectify the faults. I asked for a reply within two weeks - quite reasonable; not for them to fix it, just a reply. It said that if it was not satisfactory then I would be looking to take formal action. I heard nothing, and so sent them an LBA after six weeks. I fully intend(ed) to proceed with a claim and had to send them an LBA because it is part of the required pre-action conduct. They replied after about ten days offering to investigate the faults, but not sending the invoice I requested. I w
×
×
  • Create New...