Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
    • No the first LBA was delivered by royal mail, but I responded by email, sorry if I didn't make that clear.   I look at redacting the emails tomorrow, got to get some sleep now.   Thanks
    • ok well that changes things alot. you've accepted one before by email  and now they are doing it again ..   might have shot yourself in the foot until now lets get some 1st aid done.   gonna be a pain to redact but i'm gonna need to see all the emails in/out please in ONE MULTIPAGE PDF from/inc  date of their last PAPLOC   redact them properly !! read our upload guide carefully   you may  think this is immaterial, but its not, esp important is their and your exact wording
    • OK I've looked back at my emails and it appears I've been dealing with shoosmiths since the start of 2019 when they sent a LBA that I'd totally forgot about.   I replied that I didn't recognise the debt and we got into a big letter tennis over the facts.   They then went quiet and then contacted me again in April 2020 asking for income and expenditure details to work out a payment plan with them.   After I responded with my covid comments they went quiet again.   And now they are back with another LBA and I haven't responded to that.   Hope that clears it up. 
  • 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

Fiat finance.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5495 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

I have received my statement of affairs from Fiat.There are amounts for £205.62,£52.88 &£270.00 under the vague decription "legal charges".Should i request a full explanation of this £528.50,or just give them 7 days to refund the money before completing the court forms?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get an explanation.

 

There is nothing wrong with a little caution and being informed as much as possible before stepping out.

 

However, give them a deadline in which to comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read your pm.

 

I think that if you are going to pay these charges you should have an explanation.

 

I'd like more details of the legal charges. Are they the result of a court order or what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankfodder - the final charge of £270 might be as a result of court action,but i`m sure that the other 2 charges are not.The statement from them doen not clarify this,so i`ll contact them today for a full explanation of these charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ask for a full explanation. It seems to me to be reasonable to do so. Ask also for bank statements.

 

What was the court case which incurred the costs? I'm going to say that £270 if you have had costs awarded against you seems to be very little. Quite a bargain actually. What is about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just `pnoned Fiat.The woman i spoke to has no idea what the legal charges were for and is passing the query to their solicitors.I have asked for a full explanation and breakdown of these charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick reply from them.They say that the £205.62 and £52.88 were for sending someone round to my flat for me to pay off some arrears and the £270 was for a "return of goods order".I have asked for this in writing and a breakdown of the figures but they claim that they cannot give a further breakdown.They say that thats what the collector charges for coming to your property.

Do i still have a case for getting these charges back or just put it down to experience?

Link to post
Share on other sites

was the collection ordered by the court. Was it a bailiff?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge,the first two charges were not through a court.The return of goods order may have been.I am sure that the guy who came to my flat was not a baliff.He did come with a truck to take the car away if i didn`t have the money, as he would have been entitled to, as less than one-third paid at the tme.The second charge (£52.88) they claim that the collector couldn`t find me.I have no recollection of this at all.I await full details from them.

Thanks for replying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If people come without court orders - you just send them away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got the info from Fiat.They say that all late payment charges were waived on settlement.The charges were £270 for a return of goods order,

£52.88 and £205.62 for a cash collection agent.Are these fair?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 13 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5495 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...