Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Prime Minister's Website


Penfold92
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5856 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

Ok to get off Auds thread…

I still think this is one of the best ways to get some attention to this after all if he can comment on Celebrity Big Brother then surely this huge matter can get a comment too?

What about this for the petition:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to...

 

Look into the upcoming Test Case between the OFT and the High Street Banks regarding Bank Charges

 

It has come to our attention that even though this was due to be heard at the High Court it is in fact being held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street and that there will be space for precisely 11 members of the press and the public. A spokesperson for the centre said that entry will be on a first come first served basis but that the space will be divided roughly equally between the press and the public; and passes will be issued separately for morning and afternoon sessions. This means that, at most, 6 members of the public will be able to attend and no-one will be able to attend a full day. It will be impossible, therefore, for any one person to obtain a complete picture of the proceedings. It will also mean that many newspaper and television/radio reporters will excluded.

 

A spokesperson for the OFT claimed today that he "did not realise that the room would only hold this number of people".

 

We would like the Prime Ministers response to this and also his assurance that Justice will prevail and that since no one person or the media will get the full picture the publics interest will be upheld? Surely the Prime Minister appreciates that this matter concerns the majority to people in this Country and is a National Issue.

 

 

Changes or comments appreciated, remember this will take upto 3 working days to go up so really we want to get this up today and then start blasting the signatures on from mid next week. Then we can also point the papers there....

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That looks fine to me. Just one typo near the bottom:

the majority "to" (should be "of") people in this Country and is a National Issue.

 

 

I think it is a good idea penfold but just a little close to the case to have any effect.

I think contacting the press and MP's might have more results.

Can we get as many links to the press on this thread as possible!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you get the petition link on here when you've done it and i will try and get it round all the forums.

Also what about the wording in Johnnys email to his MP. Is that ok for for all to use? I think it is fine and should be banded around for all to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes and yes...here is the end result...hope no typos! only 1000 words allowed had to shorten...

 

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Look into the upcoming Test Case between the OFT and the High Street Banks regarding Bank Charges

Submitted by Prabhakar Kapadia – Deadline to sign up by: 12 January 2009

Category: Public order, justice and rights

More details:

This was due to be heard at the High Court, but now is being held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre, Fleet Street. There will only be space for precisely 11 members of the press and the public. The centre said that entry will be on a first come first served basis but that the space will be divided roughly equally between the press and the public; and passes will be issued separately for morning and afternoon sessions. This means that, at most, 6 members of the public will be able to attend and no-one will be able to attend a full day. It will be impossible, therefore, for any one person to obtain a complete picture of the proceedings. It will also mean that many newspaper and television/radio reporters will excluded.

Can the Prime Ministers respond to this and also give his assurance that Justice will prevail and that since no one person or the media will get the full picture the public's interest will be upheld? Surely the Prime Minister appreciates that this matter concerns the majority of this Country and is a National Issue. We are concerned that this could be construed as almost behind “closed doors” and therefore potentially not in the interest of the General Public.

 

 

If we can get 50-100,000 sigs then we will get somewhere...I will be emailing my MP next!

 

Prabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

MP been done, I did a slightly different email as I have emailed her (Margaret Moran) several times before and she always replies...I just made it more personal as I emailed her the other day about my hearing for stay to be removed and the fact the defence did not show up yet it was only adjorned yet again...So it directly applies to that email.

 

Prabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newspaper contact emails:

 

The Times - [email protected]

 

The Mail - [email protected]

 

Sky - [email protected]

 

The Sun - [email protected]

 

The Mirror - [email protected]

 

The Telegraph - [email protected]

Not sure that is right, but it is a correct email anyway…

 

The People - [email protected]

 

ITV - [email protected]

 

Something on the BBC website: BBC NEWS | Business | Key test for bank overdraft fees

 

Watchdog - [email protected]

 

That’s a start others can add on this thread…Do we want to do this straight away or wait until the Petition is online???

 

Prabs (Penfold)

Link to post
Share on other sites

something like tjhis should be easy enough for everyone to send off...

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like you to be aware of something that came to my attention yesterday that gives me great concern. It has come to my attention that even though this Court case was due to be heard at the High Court it is in fact being held at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street and that there will be space for precisely 11 members of the press and the public. A spokesperson for the centre said that entry will be on a first come first served basis but that the space will be divided roughly equally between the press and the public; and passes will be issued separately for morning and afternoon sessions. This means that, at most, 6 members of the public will be able to attend and no-one will be able to attend a full day. It will be impossible, therefore, for any one person to obtain a complete picture of the proceedings. It will also mean that many newspaper and television/radio reporters will excluded.

A spokesperson for the OFT claimed today that he "did not realise that the room would only hold this number of people".

As a Press Member with National Reach I hope you will investigate this matter further and publish your findings? It is important that we all ensure Justice will prevail. Since no one person or the media will get the full picture, will the public's interest will be upheld? Surely you appreciate that this matter concerns the majority of people in this Country and is a National Issue. There will be others emailing to express their concerns as we are all concerned that this could be construed as almost behind “closed doors” and therefore potentially not in the interest of the General Public.

Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. From what I can gather, it is the letter ion the above post that needs to be sent by as many people as poss to the papers. (Sorry for not understanding, I've come down with a stinker of a cold, but will do whatever I can to help)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If you think my post was helpful, please feel free to click my scales

 

 

A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. From what I can gather, it is the letter ion the above post that needs to be sent by as many people as poss to the papers. (Sorry for not understanding, I've come down with a stinker of a cold, but will do whatever I can to help)

 

 

HI Jo,

 

yes it is simple and to the point and the volume of emails will ensure someone looks at it. Then one of them at least will push it further....We hope so anyway,

 

Prabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. done mine. I will post up the links and letter on to the threads that Freaky created in the other forums with a little side note explaining what to do.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If you think my post was helpful, please feel free to click my scales

 

 

A prudent question is one-half of wisdom.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. done mine. I will post up the links and letter on to the threads that Freaky created in the other forums with a little side note explaining what to do.

 

Thanks Jo,

 

then in a few days I will post up the petition url once i have it from 10 Downing Street and we can attack that too...

 

Hear goes nothing then....Let's hope I'm wrong and we can get enough emails flying through the ether and someone somewhere takes note...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jo. Could you also add this link to a thread in the General forum? There seems to be some good info coming in on that one!

 

OFT test case moved to tiny room. Only 11 spectators allowed (including press)(

 

 

Added thsi one to that one so hopefully they will join in here...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...