Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to be sure it is a N279. not that they pull any underhand stunts of course   but we have seen it. your bal is now £0 but we'll still attend court as you'll probably not as we've said we've closed the account and we'll get a judgement by default. dx  
    • Sorry, last bit They had ticked that they wanted the application dealt with without a hearing, so is there any relevance that a date and time to attend said hearing has been sent out ?
    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
  • 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

Blackhorse Loan: Missy06 - v - Blackhorse **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5938 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

Update:

 

  • Banked the cheque, waited for it to clear and wrote to them accepting the 111.00 as part-payment. Sent LBA for the balance of 238.91.

  • 15/10/07 - I got no reply within 14 days so filed claim in court.

  • 30/10/07 - They wrote me and said they'd be sending me another cheque for 153.38 as settlement..... however refused to pay me the contractual interest of 85.53 I was claiming for.

  • 1/11/07 - received a letter from Blackhorse solicitors saying that they will be defending the claim. They have till the 17/11/07 to submit their defence.

  • 14/11/07 - received the 153.38 cheque, banked it, waited for it clear.

  • 27/11/07 - wrote them that this again is accepted as part-payment and I'm awaiting the balance for the CI.

  • 3/12/07 - They declined paying the CI saying I should return the cheque for 153.38 and send them the details of my solicitors!

  • 14/12/07 - Wasn't sure where I stood since they've paid most of the claim and I still has the claim in court. Called court to say that they haven't paid balance. What next? Was told I could get judgement against them for the CI as they hadn't filed a defence and hadn't paid up the monies in full. I'll be doing this on Monday!:)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a claim for £349.91 they have to pay you the full amount or defend your claim in court. if they have failed to provide the court with any documentation then ask the court to strike out the defense as an abuse of process and award judgment to you by default.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a claim for £349.91 they have to pay you the full amount or defend your claim in court. if they have failed to provide the court with any documentation then ask the court to strike out the defense as an abuse of process and award judgment to you by default.

 

pete

 

Thanks Castlebest. I'll let you know how I get on.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update:

 

3/12/07

BH have paid all monies but sent me a letter refusing to pay the contractual interest of 85.53.

 

17/12/07

Went to court and got a judgment against BH. They have till the 17/1/08 to feedback.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

3/12/07

BH have paid all monies but sent me a letter refusing to pay the contractual interest of 85.53.

 

17/12/07

Went to court and got a judgment against BH. They have till the 17/1/08 to feedback.

 

Woke up this morning to a lovely surprise.......a cheque from Sechiari, Clark and Mitchell (Black Horse solicitors) for the CI of 85.53!:grin:......I WON!

 

......posting my Wasted Costs Order today!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I wrote to Black Horse a while ago about the charges they put onto my loan account, they wrote back saying that I cannot claim blah de blah as it was a loan and not a current account, the letter was very formal and from their solicitors, and to be honest it scared me off and I have left it. After reading your thread I am definitely going to start the process again, and do the same for my partner, whose loan with them has literally doubled due to charges!!! Hopefully the OFT case will hurry up and go our way!!

Just thought I'd say thanks for your helpful thread!!

POPPY07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi poppy

 

Black Hourse have got it completely backwards - the whole argument about charges and the law on penalties DO apply to loan accounts, the OFT case DOESN'T. Go ahead and reclaim the charges.

 

I have just successfully done the same for a loan account with Barclays.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
I wrote to Black Horse a while ago about the charges they put onto my loan account, they wrote back saying that I cannot claim blah de blah as it was a loan and not a current account, the letter was very formal and from their solicitors, and to be honest it scared me off and I have left it. After reading your thread I am definitely going to start the process again, and do the same for my partner, whose loan with them has literally doubled due to charges!!! Hopefully the OFT case will hurry up and go our way!!

Just thought I'd say thanks for your helpful thread!!

 

Hi Poppy,

 

sorry I haven't been on the thread for a while now....been a bit busy! How are you getting on with your claim?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...