Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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

HUMBLEMAN vs HFC-WEIGHTMANS COURT ACTION


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5150 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

  • Replies 883
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello Humbleman

Just had a quick look through this thread. I appreciate that your court date is imminent, so timing is limited, but I too had a NoA from W for Phoenix. When I recieved it, I sent an SAR to HFC, who evetually sent me back some information, including dated statements from the OC, Marbles, dated 10 months AFTER the alleged date of assignment.

For what its worth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have agreed to attend court with humbleman to assist with his case.

 

Humbleman... you need to contact the original creditor and ask to speak to the debt sale team and ask who the account was sold to and on what date :-) It might come up with something interesting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have agreed to attend court with humbleman to assist with his case.

 

Humbleman... you need to contact the original creditor and ask to speak to the debt sale team and ask who the account was sold to and on what date :-) It might come up with something interesting!

 

Vjohn

 

I will ring them on Monday and see what they come up with, I am pretty sure that there has been no sale of any sort between HFC and Phoenix. What I think is going on is, Phoenix agrees a fee for them using the name to try and complicate things for the debtor.

 

Why on earth would Phoenix buy a disputed debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. In order to prove its claim the Claimant must establish a number of matters.

 

 

Firstly that there was an agreement between myself and xxxxxxxxxxxx Bank,

 

 

secondly that such an agreement complied with the requirements of The Act (and all consequential regulations made thereunder) both at the date of inception and at all times thereafter.

 

 

 

Thirdly it must establish thatxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bank complied with all of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“the Act”) in that it must show that it served a proper default notice upon myself prior to terminating the agreement and prior to commencing proceedings.

 

 

Fourthly, if the Claimant was not xxxxxxxxxxxx Bank then it must establish that there was an “absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor” (S136 (1) Law of Property Act 1925). Fifthly that proper notice of any such assignment was given to the Defendant (S196 Law of Property Act 1925.

 

 

 

Finally it must establish that the sums claimed are lawfully owing both at the date of the alleged assignment and at all other times.

 

golden five

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just gone through the tread well not all,

 

 

What on earth is going on?

 

What has been disclosed

 

What have they been ask for?

 

The cca, is well not a cca, should not be enforced

 

I revised the WS for humbleman on this... this case is truly shocking Lil.

 

I can't reveal anything here of what I know but I'm not happy. I would consider asking for a transcript of the hearing if it was me but hey... one thing at a time.

 

I think we have all of the bases covered but those golden 5 you posted tie up with what I was thinking of adding into my notes for when I attend with humbleman on Tuesday...

 

Wish us luck!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish you luck vjohn....;)

 

You are a star to go with Humbleman. This case certainly needs sorting.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I revised the WS for humbleman on this... this case is truly shocking Lil.

 

I can't reveal anything here of what I know but I'm not happy. I would consider asking for a transcript of the hearing if it was me but hey... one thing at a time.

 

I think we have all of the bases covered but those golden 5 you posted tie up with what I was thinking of adding into my notes for when I attend with humbleman on Tuesday...

 

Wish us luck!!!

 

oops forgot i was sure there should be six

 

so the 6 golden rule

 

Further, it is submitted that the mere fact of giving a notice does not, of itself, create an assignment and that there must be an actual assignment in existence. It is the actual Assignment, not just the Section 136 notice, under which the Claimant derives title to bring the claim and the Claimant is put to strict proof that such Assignment exists. It is further averred that I am entitled, in any event, to view the document of assignment as a matter of law (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968 [3] All ER 824)

 

 

vj as you know we go back some time on this site and i have watch you develope i am very proud of you and without saying i wish you the best of luck.

 

however please remember it is not the answers we seek but the questions

 

As always kind regards lilly white

 

 

Edited by lilly white

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FS LW

 

Vjohn has been doing quite a bit in the background for me, and I am really pleased I have got some company on Tuesday.

 

It is truly shocking especially when their own legal team advises them that the paper they supplied is not enforceable, and I ask what are Phoenix doing buying a disputed debt.

 

All advice is welcome on here to help me and Vjohn prepare for Tuesday

Link to post
Share on other sites

humbleman.

 

you are in safe hands

 

regards lilly

 

Seconded.

 

Good luck, both of you....

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received schedule of their costs today a whooping 6K.

 

Hope you've done yours, HM. ;)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you've done yours, HM. ;)

 

TBH, I haven't I was really hoping they would have discontinued by now, I am extremely surprised that they have gone so far. They must have been very lucky in the past with the Judges in my area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cant really offer any assistance im afraid, landed back in the UK on the 8th jan and have a mountain of cases to review due to the recent High Court and Court of Appeal cases and i have to digest these judgments, so sadly there is little i can do to assist here.

 

sorry

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) Nice to see you back pt - thought you'd emigrated for good.

(Can't say I'd blame you though if you did!)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi humbleman

 

I have read some of your thread but not all so if I am off track ignore me.

 

I have been trying to establish if anyone on the forum knows of a case actually reaching court when the original agreement has been destroyed and they are relying on a copy application without the original terms.

 

It appears not according to the opinion on this thread:

 

Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.

 

I am of the opinion that to just refer to terms and conditions without actually stating 'overleaf' or 'attached' does not make them part of the same document. Therefore, without producing the original agreement in court they cannot satisfy the court that you were aware of the prescribed terms when you signed the agreement which would render the agreement 'irredeemably unenforceable' under section 142 of the CCA.

 

In Wilson vs Hurstanger 2007 the judgement made it clear that under section 61 they must be in a single document and 'they cannot be found in another document', which is basically their case.

 

Good Luck tomorrow, stay cool, stay focused.

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...