Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would if I could tobyjugg  Did the same run today over an hour quicker than yesterday, thats what happens when you know where to go and not just try finding places with the postcode as I was yesterday
    • Thank you, @lookinforinfo. I have updated the VCS v Ward case as below:   VCS v Ward     1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.   63 Airport byelaws. (2) Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws— (d) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;
    • Savers opening its Digital Regular Saver this month and adding between £1 and £50 in April, May and June will qualify. There will be ten prizes of £1,000 each. You can earn 3 per cent on the first £1,000. View the full article
    • Would you want your bank to know how many steps you've walked today or whether you got around to going for your weekly jog? But what if it was promising you vouchers or cash as a reward. View the full article
    • Thank you Andy. A gentleman with your time and advice as always.    I've tidied up my defence below. Is this ok? Or a bit overkill for initial defence?   Many thanks,   MDG   Particulars of Claim    1.The defendant entered in to a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreement with Vanquis under account reference xxxxxxxx ('the agreement')   2.The defendant failed to maintain the required payments and arrears began to accrue   3.The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 27/09/19 and notice given to the defendant   4. Despite repeated requests for payment the sum of xxx remains due and outstanding.   And the claimant claims a. The said sum of xxxx b. Interest pursuant to s69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue accruing at a daily rate of £0.610 but limited to one year being £222.65 c. Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the  particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought to seek clarity from the claimant.   2. Paragraph 2 is noted but I do not recall the original creditor providing either Notice of Default or Default Notice or Notice of Sums in Arrears pursuant to the CCA1974.   3. Paragraph 3 is noted. I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   4. The claimant has since provided alleged copies of a Notice of default, Default Notice and notice of assignment by way of my CPR 31.14 request but until it can provide a copy of the executed credit agreement pursuant to sec 78 CCA1974 the provisions of section 87/88 of the CCA1974 are irrelevant until such compliance.    5. On receipt of a notice of acting letter sent from Lowell Solicitors, the Defendant sent for on the 12/11/2020 via royal mail a section 78 request to Lowell Portfolio Ltd pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This for a copy of the agreement. The claimant has partially complied and disclosed various documents however they were unable to comply with disclosing a valid full copy of the executed agreement on which their claim relies upon.   6. The claimant disclosed various screenshots taken from  the originators software of the application and also confirms on their covering letter the relative legislation The Electronic Communications Act 2000 with regards to wet signatures and the requirement of a tick box to validate the application.The screenshots  are devoid of any tick box or any authenticity of IP address conformation check.Therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and pursuant to section 78  6 a of the CCA1974  the claimant is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.   7. On receipt of this claim form I sent a CPR 31.14 request on the 11/2/21 via royal mail to Lowell Solicitors and again the claimants solicitors only disclosed exactly the same documentation. The claimant therefore after a second attempt by the defendant remains in default of said request.   8. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement ; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

thomas cook/insurance


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4883 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

my next door neighbour, a pensioner, has booked a holiday to mexico (cancun) for 7 nights in november. he made the booking and paid cash about 3 weeks ago.

 

he had a phone call today, to say that he could collect his tickets.

 

when he went to the agency, he was asked for his insurance documents.

he told them that he didn't have any. the agent told him that she could not let him have his tickets without ins. docs.

 

so he purchased insurance there and then from the agent at a cost of £40! he was also told that there would be a departure tax of $45 payable before he left mexico.

 

to me, this appears to be a very poor customer service!

 

£40 for just 7 days! im sure that if he had been able to shop around, he could have got it cheaper. unfortunately he dosen't have internet access.

 

obviously, now he's paid, he's not looking for his money back, but i said i would try and find out if thomas cooke had acted properly and if not, he could write and complain.

 

i appreciate that he booked through a travel agency, so it could be there responsability.

 

any thoughts would be appreciated,

 

bartymuv.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I did a quick comparison on one of them sites, based on a 70 years old, 1 week in November for Mexico starts at £32 and goes up to £95, so I don't think that he's been done.

 

He would need to check his T&Cs, if it states that travel insurance is a condition to book the holiday, then they've done nothing wrong (although it doesn't have to be theirs).

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks bookworm,

 

your right! he checked the small print, and there it was.

 

still think the agent could have told him though, especially an oap!

 

oh well, the mind boggles.

 

thanks again,

 

bartymuv.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...