Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Under duress and without prejudice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5990 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

No protection at all. Do not sign anything that gives up your rights. This has to be negotiated and they can not force you to sign these sorts of things.

Are you a member of a trade union? If not then may i suggest you join one and ask them to look into this. In the mean time, tell your employer that you will sign after and only after you have consulted a legal adviser.

If my comments have been helpful please click my scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally wouldn't mark anything as being 'Without Prejudice' as in the event of legal action it may result in the document not being admissible as evidence. The note that the document has been signed under duress will make a point, but why sign it at all if you disagree? You cannot be disciplined unless you act unreasonably, and it is not unreasonable to ask 'why' or to ask for more information about exactly what you are signing.

 

You are probably better off in raising a formal grievance that you are worried that the changes to your contract may constitute a loss of rights and seek clarification in writing. For example, you will need to know exactly what websites might be taken as the 'wrong' ones, highlighting your need for research and expressing anxiety that such a sanction might affect your ability to do your job. Many companies have a clause in the employment handbook relating to inappropriate use of IT facilities, and it is reasonable to seek further information as to exactly what might be seen as 'inappropriate'. You cannot agree to instant dismissal, whether under duress or otherwise as an employer cannot lawfully dismiss an employee without due process, and misuse of IT facilities would have to be more specifically described as to what would constitute 'misconduct' and more seriously 'gross misconduct'. An employer might invoke disciplinary action resulting in a formal warning for staff spending work time looking at their football club's website, but treat the use of MSN Messenger resulting in a virus being brought onto the network, or looking at pornography online far more seriously and we would certainly classify the latter as Gross Misconduct which could result in demotion or dismissal. One has to know the boundaries before knowing what is acceptable however.

 

Similarly your employer is entitled to revise disciplinary procedures as potential problems present themselves, but such changes have to be reasonable and if neccessary negotiated. The clause about the pay rise looks a little strange, but then again a pay rise is not a right, and can be witheld has the employer sees fit unless it is a stated term in your contract that you will receive an annual increment. He does though have to be even handed in his treatment and act reasonably, so would again have to have a clearly defined policy and disciplinary guidelines to state that a particular breach of the rules could result in suspension of a pay increment. Do you have a Union? Do these changes affect all members of staff doing a similar job?

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your Trade Union is recognised by the company then any negotiations should be carried out with them and in turn they will consult you as members. Do you have a Rep on site? If not contact your local office for help and insist that they approach the company about these fundamental changes. If the Union is not recognised and these proposals affect everyone it might be a good time for your colleagues to join. If 50% plus 1 join you could force recognition so long as there are at least 20 employees.

 

I hope this is useful.

 

Regards,

 

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken to signing anything I do sign with the header of this thread above my signature, but does this offer any real protection to me?

 

No, of course not.

 

How could it offer protection? You are intending a statement to never be read by anybody other than your employer yet it is your employer who appears to be making unreasonable work rules.

 

Your actions are actually protecting the employer.

 

However, even if you did sign letters 'without prejudice' in response to your employer reducing your rights then the letters would still be admissable at a tribunal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...