Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
  • 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

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5064 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 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I have just requested for my Facebook account to be deleted as it decided it was a waste of time with all the drivel posted by "friends" on there. I use the term friends loosely. Also saw pictures that a friend posted on another forum regarding a young lady who posted a little bit too much info about herself. The pictures were taken in a morgue!

Edited by Surfer01
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question...

 

In the High Court, the NatWest 2001-2003 Ts&Cs were found to possibly include penalty charges (BBC NEWS | Business | New NatWest bank charges ruling), and this was never appealed, right?

 

So, I'm helping a mate with a NatWest claim which dates back to then, but I haven't seen a right lot about continuing with the penalty aspect of those historic Ts&Cs. Anyone got any info on that?

 

Obviously he's now received the standard "We won" letter from NatWest (the court claim is still stayed), so am just trying to compose an appropriate reply....

 

Well, 2 weeks later and nothing about the NatWest possibilities. I wonder if this particular argument's been lost in the general "noise" of the judgement fallout since November. Anyway, maybe I can sort that one on my own (BTW, did the Judge go back before 2001-2003 on those Ts&Cs?).

 

However, my mate just got a letter on Tuesday from HSBC's solicitors along with an order from the Court. This claim was stayed in 2007 with a 3 month timeline post-judgement to apply for further directions. Apparently the solicitors wrote (NOT applied) to the Court about the SC judgement, etc... and advised the Court that the claim would fail. The Court have then struck the claim out without a hearing ("The claim is struck out as disclosing no subsisting cause of action").

 

Debating whether to fight it, but just wanted folks to beware of these backhanded methods....

 

Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, 2 weeks later and nothing about the NatWest possibilities. I wonder if this particular argument's been lost in the general "noise" of the judgement fallout since November. Anyway, maybe I can sort that one on my own (BTW, did the Judge go back before 2001-2003 on those Ts&Cs?).

 

However, my mate just got a letter on Tuesday from HSBC's solicitors along with an order from the Court. This claim was stayed in 2007 with a 3 month timeline post-judgement to apply for further directions. Apparently the solicitors wrote (NOT applied) to the Court about the SC judgement, etc... and advised the Court that the claim would fail. The Court have then struck the claim out without a hearing ("The claim is struck out as disclosing no subsisting cause of action").

 

Debating whether to fight it, but just wanted folks to beware of these backhanded methods....

 

Cheers

Michael

 

Wasn't aware you can send a post it note to the court advising cases will fail and the judge will just roll over and wait for a biscuit. Whatever happened to formal process?

 

Can you imagine what would happen if a Litigant In Person did the same?

 

They'd need mighty good biscuits I suspect. Chocolate Hobnobs or Cadbury Animals ought to do it :D.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi landy/kenny, I had that letter landy had and just a week later got the sod off letter... 4 different banks , not all for myself but thay all said pretty much identical stuff..... These letters have been prepared in anticipation of the govan letters I can assure you... They are to similar not to be pre organised....

There is no hope of getting money back they have the bat needed to smash claims back... supreme court ruling.... we are all losing sight of right and wrong.... read an earlier post I copied from bob bankbuster... sets it all out very clearly... this is a set up and we are able to do nothing there are 1800 daily guests on here and just 300 caggers they now what everybodys next move is and have already prepared response.... I would suggest a little more direct action be discussed..... ie stop paying unsecured debt, clear out savings and cause a run on a bank and a mass protest at how we are having teh wool pulled over our eyes.... supreme court stated decision would not solve myriad of cases, however it clearly has.... you will see when you get response letter in a week or two????

 

Hi Fergal et al,

 

Today I received a further letter from LTSB saying they have passed my GLC letter to their Bank and Card Charges legal team 'as they are the best people to help you. They will contact you soon'.

 

Landy x

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, my mate just got a letter on Tuesday from HSBC's solicitors along with an order from the Court. This claim was stayed in 2007 with a 3 month timeline post-judgement to apply for further directions. Apparently the solicitors wrote (NOT applied) to the Court about the SC judgement, etc... and advised the Court that the claim would fail. The Court have then struck the claim out without a hearing ("The claim is struck out as disclosing no subsisting cause of action").

 

 

That's an abuse of process Michael and both the court and the sols should be told so. Your mate should have been given the opportunity to

1. agree, or

2. request a further stay, or

3. submit revised pocs.

 

A strongly worded letter to the court, methinks, with a copy to the sods (whoops, sorry, sols).:wink:

 

Els

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an abuse of process Michael and both the court and the sols should be told so. Your mate should have been given the opportunity to

1. agree, or

2. request a further stay, or

3. submit revised pocs.

 

A strongly worded letter to the court, methinks, with a copy to the sods (whoops, sorry, sols).:wink:

 

Els

 

DO NOT be fooled into thinking there are no 'BANKING Moles' on this sight...

 

Do not be discouraged.!!!

 

m2ae:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers m2ae, no problem. Just checking!:-)

 

And you're right, this place is crawling with 'interested parties' for much of the time.;)

 

Els

 

From what we've all learned and the absolute a*#e the banking geniuses have made of the global economy I strongly suspect checking in on cag is equivalent to them completing the sort of professional practice needed by people who have proper jobs.

 

The kind of jobs that don't bankrupt entire countries due to incompetence, greed and an inflated degree of self worth to rival any premiership football player. If Quintin, Tarquin and Rubella from the city climbed down from their lofty penthouses paid for by the poor of the world they might actually learn how to do their jobs correctly. For example, how to compose a default notice. How hard can that be?! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

My friend has just had a very interesting letter from DG Solicitors regarding his HSBC claim. HSBC are applying for a strikeout of his bank charges claim. There is one paragraph in the letter that is quite worrying it says:

 

On the 25th November 2009 the Supreme Court ruled that it was not permissible to challenge the fairness of bank charges under Regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR's on the basis that they are too high because that form of challenge is precluded by Regulation 6(2)(b). Regulation 6(2)(b) provides that the assessment (under Regulation 5(1)) of the fairness of a term in a contract "shall not relate...to the adequacey of the price or remuneration, as against the goods or services supplied in exchange". In other words the 'value for money' equation is excluded. The banks argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the informal overdraft charges are part of the price for personal current account services and that, therefore, the Regulation 6(2)(b) exception applies with the consequence that the charges cannot be found to be unfair on the basis that they are too high.

 

I thought that the Supreme Court had only ruled on S.6 UTCCR's and actually went further by directing consumers to S.5 of the UTCCR's as a possible test for fairness of the charges. However what DG Solicitors seem to be saying is that the Supreme Court also ruled that the charges can not be challenged under S.5. Does anybody know if this is correct or is this an error or deliberate strategy to fend off these claims? What should he do?

 

TheyrCriminals

Link to post
Share on other sites

TheyrCriminals,

 

Without even trying to be "facetious" please try to answer this question.

 

How do you know when a *anker/solicitor is being economical with the truth?? :rolleyes:

 

1) When there lips are moving.

 

2) When they put pen to paper, ( CAG friends excepted)

 

 

 

"EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

HAs anyone heard the interesting news on the Music Licenses issue that the pubs were being forced to pay. The Court found them unfair contractually and in practice. :D

 

This has strong parallels to the issue of S.5 guys!!!!!!!

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

I thought that the Supreme Court had only ruled on S.6 UTCCR's and actually went further by directing consumers to S.5 of the UTCCR's as a possible test for fairness of the charges. However what DG Solicitors seem to be saying is that the Supreme Court also ruled that the charges can not be challenged under S.5. Does anybody know if this is correct or is this an error or deliberate strategy to fend off these claims? What should he do?

 

TheyrCriminals

 

You cannot challenge the LEVEL of the charge (the amount at which it is set) under this rule but you can challenge the charge (as a whole if you like) as being unfair (but not that it is a penalty).

 

Confusing isn't it :confused:

 

For example you can not say

 

The charge is disproportionate or

The charge is punitive

 

However, you could say It is unfair that they can charge me for my indiscretions but I cannot charge them for theirs or

 

It is unfair that I (as a person on a low income) have to pay these charges in order for a millionaire to have free banking.

 

I am not suggesting that this is your argument this is just an example to help people understand.

 

That is my understanding of it...

Edited by rdm2006
Link to post
Share on other sites

(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;

 

The act of the banks allowing o/d for x amount knowing they will charge you xx amount seems unfair,but putting it in legal wording is not clear,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't aware you can send a post it note to the court advising cases will fail and the judge will just roll over and wait for a biscuit. Whatever happened to formal process?

 

Can you imagine what would happen if a Litigant In Person did the same?

 

They'd need mighty good biscuits I suspect. Chocolate Hobnobs or Cadbury Animals ought to do it :D.

 

LOL - we're doing just the same back to the court (although not with biscuits :D)

 

That's an abuse of process Michael and both the court and the sols should be told so. Your mate should have been given the opportunity to

1. agree, or

2. request a further stay, or

3. submit revised pocs.

 

A strongly worded letter to the court, methinks, with a copy to the sods (whoops, sorry, sols).:wink:

 

Thanks (as always) Els - we're going back with one of my better letters (if I do say so myself :D). Just trying to draft a NatWest one now!

 

Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

For JGJ

 

BBC News - Pubs win court battle over recorded music charges

 

hope the link explains it bud?

 

 

Thanks for that

 

I have also read it But do you or anyone know the name of the case...I would like to know the thinking process by the Judges that led to that decision and the reasoning behind it.Unfortunately the brief is brief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea, but you can either contact the BBC news dept and they will give you the reporters name and number and/or contact the Pub Landlords association or the maybe the breweries themselves as they seem to own nearly all the pubs in the UK now.

 

Sorry I couldn't be of any further help, but I'm sure a little bit of informed search work will yield the results you're looking for bud.

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...