Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

County Court Judgements - charges and fees


pauli
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6591 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

Apologies for misposting this originally..it was not intentional. Anyway...here goes again hopefully in the right place this time!!

 

I just had a court judgement against me in respect of a credit card default. I deliberately did not defend the claim despite the fact that it includes a number of late payment and overlimit fees.

 

I am now intending to ask for a variation order but will also explore the possibility of having the judgement set aside on the basis that the judgement debt includes monies that has been unlawfully charged.

 

Effectively the County Court will now have to make a decision on the legality of the charges?

 

If the judge agrees to set aside the debt he is effectively ruling that the charges are unlawful.yes??

 

Or am I missing something crucial..any help would be appreciated in respect of the legal argument

 

I am also inyterested in hearing from anyone who has had a judgement enforced by a charging order on their home. The point is raised in another post but has anyone defended a claim where an unsecured loan has effectively been securitised in this way. I can't quite believe that this is indefensible given the obviuous unfairness..particular in view of the fact theat the lenders could have offered a secured loan in the first place and have charged an interest rate on the basis of the additional risk involved in the laoan being unsecured.

 

thanks pauli

Link to post
Share on other sites

A variation order would only vary the payments. how long ago was the judgment? But probably the only approach would be to start a new action on the amount you dispute but on the new grounds.

Eben this might cause probelms.

Read up "Res judicata"

 

Setting aside a judgment does not indicate that the judge agrees with your legal analysis - only that he thinks that you should have a chance to defend.

Were a judgment to be set aside, a likey order would be judgment set aside, dfence within 14days or judgment restored in default.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that..my understanding of "res judicata" is that it does not apply to the appeal process..I am in the process of appealing against the original judgement. Admittedly on the grounds of varying the original forthwith order to one that allows me to pay over time..but can I also introduce an argument against the inclusion of unlawful charges in the judgement at this stage. I am assuming an argument could be made that had I known of the unlawful nature of the charges I would have defended the claim originally?

 

I guess though, in terms of the main point regarding legallity of charges. The fact that the judgement is set aside does not imply a ruling on the legality of the charges so gets us no further forward. Presumable though if I am allowed to defend and the claimant contests my argument that the charges are unlawful a decision to exclude the charges from the new judgement debt in my favour would be a positive ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smudge against Nationwide is in the middle of doing just that. Thee is a hearing to set aside a jdgment dated 14th dec - fixed for 22nd March

 

What does become interesting is that if it is set aside, then a defence will be put in. The the bank will have to prove their charges. Normally where they are merely defending, they don't have to do too much.

 

So on the same basis, if you can get leave to defend, just watch the wriggiling. You can put them to proof. Have you been defaulted? If you have, then i would amend to include an inaccurate default as prt of your case. - by way of counterclaim.

 

With the banks as claimant and shoiuldering the burden of proof, there is apossiblity they will withdraw. They wil consider it, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent..I will follow that..another interesting aspect is that the claimant is not the original creditor.

 

The card was taken out with another US bank who were aquired by Citfinacial in 2002. Either the debt has been assigned or sold to the claimant Hillesden Securities (who also appear to be a part of CitiFinacial).

 

I have made a DPA request that I suspect they will have difficulty in complying with as the original data will be with Citifinancial and before that the original credit card company. That should muddy the waters a bit.

I wonder what happens if they cannot provide the information that allows me to calculate the total value of the unlawful charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Got the same problem with a debt to MBNA which is now owned by Link Financial.

 

They have told me that they have the information I am requesting or can request it from MBNA if required.

 

Can't see a problem since if they were unable to provide data to back up their claim, then I doubt they could pursue you in the courts for it.

 

Only my opinion though.

 

Regards

Just another 21 Banks to go......

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

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 there.

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6591 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

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...