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.

callum1999

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    497

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by callum1999

  1. callum1999
    Yes but the car was registered as being the Club car with DVLA. Yesterday afternoon i took over ownership of the car and taxed it. The car is now mine and not the Clubs so am i liable for any debt or action resulting from that debt left by the previous named owners the Club.
  2. callum1999
    The car was taxed by the Club who were shown as owner of the vehicle. I have now taxed the car and i am now the new owner. The clamping company are saying that because it has been clamped and as a result of the previous owners (Club) not meeting the DD PAYMENTS for it to be taxed the new owner is now responsible for that debt. me. It is not my debt it would be the Clubs debt so why should anyone be liable for someone else debt.?
  3. callum1999
    Woad i would suggest that you wind that long neck of yours in. And thanks for the advice but i do not need you telling me how i should accept responsibilities for my actions, who are YOU.
  4. callum1999
    If a car is registered to an affiliated club and the affiliated club fail to tax the car and it is clamped for that reason. Would any new owner who has now taxed the car and taking ownership be liable for any debt of the previous owner which would include paying for the clamp to be removed. The clamping firm are saying that i need to pay the release fee but i am saying that as the new owner i am not liable for any penelties imposed by the previous owner, the Club. Any help would be appreciated.
  5. callum1999
    But there always seems to be an answer to how the solicitor has acted correctly. Surely if a professional and regardless of how that professional has conducted himself cannot and is unable to proof put himself or herself as to be placed in a position to even be in a position to act negligent as a professional its makes no difference anyway its all irrelevent.
  6. callum1999
    But my problem is not being resolved. This is now the fourth time that i have now asked what the procedure and how would a solicitor would claim public funding from the Legal Aid for representing a client and under the Legal Aid at Court criteria. It is a straight forward question but know one seems to know the answer.
  7. callum1999
    I sent up the DD for the 6th of each month. DVLA are saying that because they went for DD on 2nd and 6th the 6th counts as the second time for payment.
  8. callum1999
    OK where would it states this Andy? About one strike and that is it.
  9. callum1999
    Car clamped this morning no tax. Bank saying DD is still active and is showing that on on-line banking. I set up DD for 6th of each month but bank are saying DVLA claimed on 2nd and 6th of month. DVLA are saying that they have cancelled DD because two attempts to claim DD were sent back by the bank, insufficient funds. Tried explaining this to DVLA but they are having none of it. Can they just cancel a DD or can that just cancel a DD?
  10. callum1999
    Andy DVLA are claiming that they stopped the DD payments because the bank returned the DD with insufficient funds one month. I have never cancelled DD and the bank has told me that the DD payments is still active.
  11. callum1999
    Whether it had valid grounds or not, your opinion. Why would the court consider this application if they have not considered other applications?
  12. callum1999
    Andy I am not telling certain posters to give advice. Because the forum feels that others would be better served advising others ive no problem with that. But to close a genuine thread because others would be better served by certain posters and on a public forum seems a bit harsh. If the posters who would be better off advising others want to do that i am not stopping them so why should the thread be closed based on their advice rather than how the forum should be, to seek advice. It is your call but you should not let a few dictate who what and why the forum is here to help people like me.
  13. callum1999
    And on what basis do you believe any application to appeal will be treated any different or rightly considered as the others that have been ignored?
  14. callum1999
    You tell me. You have had an answer for everything else that would remotely show that i was wrong but everyone else was right and i would include you in that little circle. Had? Permission to appeal? Who should be considering? what level of judge?
  15. callum1999
    And is that right i have never posted up any grounds for appeal on here? Are you sure of that? Think you will find that and not for the first time you have convinced yourself that because you believe in that it must be true. Or are you bluffing like the solicitor who laid claim to representing me.
  16. callum1999
    Legal Aid, anyone know the rules on claiming for work done? Seems to be a topic that no-one seems to know the answers too.
  17. callum1999
    Had? Permission to appeal? Who should be considering?, what level of judge?
  18. callum1999
    Of course it had merit, the solicitor as well as applying for an injunction could have applied for a Section 33 as their evidence clearly would suggest. Add to that the solicitor could have also appealed the strike out claim which would not have been subject to any limitation periods that is three applications missed and probably because there was no funding nor a legitimate contract for the solicitor to make one application to the Court let alone make three. He just was not interested in working for the profit which he will have to pay back because that is public funding that would have been more better served on the old or the vulnerable rather than being sat in some two bob solicitors bank account who has the morals of a water rat.
  19. callum1999
    I honestly believe the case and the circumstances are now to far advanced for the same local DJ to decide whether there is a case or not. What do you think?
  20. callum1999
    But it would have been relevent in my claim it would further show just how negligent the solicitor was who has clearly relied on the limitation period as a means of defence which was used successfully to have a case thrown out.
  21. callum1999
    add to that the medical evidence that the solicitor requested and was provided again the Court would have had more than enough proof to use its powers to grant an extention. Or was requesting a providing the Council with medical evidence to establish the PI just another clever move by the not so clever solicitor. Or this was just another Bazza bluff being played out by the not so clever solicitor who pretended to represent me and without the needed authority to act in any event.
  22. callum1999
    And of course its all academic, it would be now the limitation period would have been irrelevant despite that being defined as the main reason why the solicitor and according to most advice on here have relied on which giving the solicitors very own evidence proves the complete opposite. Just for the record and giving the evidence from Shelter and their legal team extending the limitation would have been a formality.
  23. callum1999
    OK i get it because Bazza says it was just a bluff lol, it must be true and set in stone, if only. And why are you assuming again it is much easier to deal in fact rather than keep assuming but on the other hand we will just rely on the assumption that section 33 was JUST TACTICS AND ONE BIG BLUFF Still this must be true about the tactics and not forgetting the bluff the solicitor is a professional when it comes to this, PREMIERE LEAGUE standard. He is that good at it that those representing him are blessed with the same enigma, bluffing the last judge (cougth) or wannabee judge that never will. What the same Bazza who before today saying that the claim was status barred but now has suddenly decided on the fact of evidence that hold on the claim was not just status barred the solicitor was merely bluffing, lol, you could not make it up Gn.
  24. callum1999
    And pigs will fly as well, as per norm ifs buts and just maybe's, BUT NO REAL SUBSTANCE.
  25. callum1999
    Go on then, i have giving reasons and why the solicitor was in evidence advocating and with good reason section 33, the red herring theory is just that, a myth and another excuse, you tell me why neither applications were applied including the one that puffed and chipped away from the original application because the solicitor was that clever that he deflected and ignored following correct procedure because he failed not once but twice. And he still made a profit:lol:, a fraud and not a very good one tbh.

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...