Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In answer to your questions yes even though it wasn't called that, it was the NTK. Had it been a windscreen ticket you would not have received the NTK until 28 days had elapsed. In earlier times if the warden was present then a windscreen ticket would have been issued. It nows seems that the DVLA and the Courts don't see a problem  with not issuing a ticket when a warden is on site. A period of parking must mean that ther e has to be a start time and a finish time in order for it to be considered a period. A single time does not constitute a period. I am not sure what you mean by saying it could be taken either way.  All they have mentioned is  the incident time which is insufficient. There are times on the photos about one minute apart which do not qualify as the parking period because they are not on the PCN itself. The reason I asked if the were any more photos is that you should be allowed 5 minutes Consideration period for you to read the signs and decide whether you want to accept them and you do that by staying longer than 5 minutes. if  more  do not have photos of your staying there for more than 5 minutes they are stuffed. You cannot say that you left within the 5 minute period if you didn't , but you can ask them, should it get to Court , to provide strict proof that you stayed longer than the statutory time. If they can't do that, case over.
    • I recently bought some trainers from Sports Direct and was unhappy with them and their extortionate delivery and return postage charges. I tweeted about being unhappy, and received a reply from someone claiming to be from Sports Direct asking me to send my order number and email address by pm, so a claim could be raised. Which I (stupidly) did. The account used Sports Direct's name and branding, and a blue tick.  The following day I received a call from "Sports Direct Customer Service", and with a Kenyan number. They asked for details of the issue, and then sent me an email with a request to install an app called Remitly. They provided me with a password to access the app then I saw that it had been setup for me to transfer £100, and I was asked to enter my credit card number so they could "refund" me. I told them I was uncomfortable with this (to say the least), and was just told to ring them back when I did feel comfortable doing it. Ain't never gonna happen.  I just checked my X account, and the account that sent the message asking for my details is gone. I feel like a complete idiot falling for what was a clear scam. But at least I realised before any real damage was done. if you make a complaint about a company on social media, and you get a reply from someone claiming to be from that company and asking for personal details, tread very carefully.   
    • The good news is that their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  Schedule 4.. First under Section 9 (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; The PCN does not specify the parking period. AS you rightly say the ANPR times do not include driving to the parking space and then from there back to the exit. And once you include getting children in and out of cars especially if seat belts are involved the time spent parked can be a fair bit less than the ANPR times but still probably nowhere near the time you spent. But that doesn't matter -it's the fact that they failed to comply. Also they failed to ask the keeper to pay the charge.  Their failure means that they cannot now transfer the charge from the diver to the keeper . Only the driver is now liable. As long as UKPA do not know who was driving it will be difficult for them to win in Court as the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Particularly as anyone can drive any car if they have the correct insurance. It might be able to get more reasons to contest the PCN if you could get some photos of the signs. both at the entrance and inside the car park. the photos need to be legible and if there are signs that say different things from others that would also be a help.
    • Farage rails and whines about not being allowed on the BBC ... ... but pulls out at the last minute of a BBC Panorama interview special. It was denied it was anything to do with his candidates being outed as misogynists and Putin apologists, or that farage was afraid Nick Robinson might throw some difficult questions at him ... despite farages recent practice at quickly cowering in fear.   It was claimed 'it wasn't in Nigels diary'     Nigel Farage pulls out of BBC interview at last minute amid Hitler row WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK ‘Panorama’ special postponed as Reform UK party faces row over candidate who claimed UK would have been ‘better off’ if it had...   Waaahhhh
    • i'd say put lowells to strict proof of where the payment came from. cant hurt to send SB letter, even if proved not. at least they get your correct address. they'd have to link the old IVA times scale to a payment  these IVA F&F pots (if thats where it came from) most mugs dont even know they are not only taking most of your payments on fees but also creaming money off to supposedly offer F&F's.  funny when the IVA fails or is complete these sums of money in F&F pots never get given back or even mentions... these IVA firm directors esp with regard to knightsbridge and creditfix were fined and struck off more times than Paul Burdell of Link Fame and still managed to continue to scam people.
  • 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

Cabot/Morgan Solicitors-Court Action (ex Goldfish account)


barns66
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4070 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

Hi Cym

 

Im sure that the 'balance of probabilites' is used more so in small claims track, off the top of my head and without reading back I cant remember which track has been allocated.

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 631
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi.thanks for everyones comments,i will wait and see what the court sends me as Hadituptohere suggests

it baffles me where July 4th comes from,i can not see how they could receive my application form,send me back anything to sign and send me a card to use,in that time.I still can not see where it states on the application form any reference to terms and

and conditions.I think Hadituptohere it's allocated to fast track,i will checlk in the morning.

 

barns66

Link to post
Share on other sites

it baffles me where July 4th comes from,i can not see how they could receive my application form,send me back anything to sign and send me a card to use,in that time.I still can not see where it states on the application form any reference to terms and

and conditions.

 

barns66

 

That is the meat on the bone, along with the assignment, s69 interest which is a joke and other things which im sure has been raised previously

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yours was a very poor judgment Cym where the judge ignored legislation and the law, and left your case wide open to solid ground to appeal.

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,i have just checked my credit file equifax and it's marked on there that i settled a Barclay Credit card in May 2006,i never had a Barclays Credit card,it's the same last 4 numbers as Morgans have on the court papers they sent me on Saturday and the amount would have been around that amount at the time.i did not settle it.I have learned from the site earlier that Barclays did not take over Goldfish untill 2008.I just wonder who put this marker on equifax,i can not see it could be Barclays as they did not own Goldfish at the time.

 

barns66

Edited by barns66
adding
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,i have just checked my credit file equifax and it's marked on there that i settled a Barclay Credit card in May 2006,i never had a Barclays Credit card,it's the same last 4 numbers as Morgans have on the court papers they sent me on Saturday and the amount would have been around that amount at the time.i did not settle it.I have learned from the site earlier that Barclays did not take over Goldfish untill 2008.I just wonder who put this marker on equifax,i can not see it could be Barclays as they did not own Goldfish at the time.

 

barns66

 

When a debt is sold the responsibility for reporting the debt to the credit reference agencies passes to the new owner, they cant change the date of the default or shouldnt but they should report under there own name and not the original company... hence golfish/msdw will have become barclays

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,i have still not heard from the court what's going on and what i should do.it is 2 weeks tomorrow since they had to have what court asked for,i presume they did send to court what they sent to me.I was clearing som old files out yesterday and came across these.I do not know if it is of any relevance.I can never remember replying to the one that says the card was suspended,where they got the idea i about the £50 month from suprises me.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/barns66/APEX.jpg[/img]

 

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/barns66/SCAN002.jpg[/img]

 

barns66

Edited by barns66
adding
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi barns

 

Id ring the court and get up to speed where there at with this one, ask for the case manager and see what they have or dont have

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi barns

 

Id ring the court and get up to speed where there at with this one, ask for the case manager and see what they have or dont have

 

Hadituptohere

 

Hi,Hadituptohere,it was 3 weeks before i heard anything from the court after i went last time,i will give them untill the end of the week to see if they send anything,if they do not i will do as you suggest early next week.Once again thanks for all the help and advice you have given me.

 

barns66

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi,I have received this from court after nearly 6 weeks,after they where orderd to produce certain documents by the court.They had amened the POC and,then i received this from the court.Is it telling me to summit my defence again,before the date given on the forms.

 

 

A1.jpg

 

A2.jpg

 

A3.jpg

 

 

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/barns66/QUESTION2.jpg

 

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/barns66/QUESTION3.jpg

 

 

 

baens66

Edited by the_shadow
Changed URL tags to IMG to display info on thread
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Point 2 is good in that its forcing them to think about resolving the claim outside of the court process, if they dont wish to then they have to serve a witness statement to you 28 days prior to the trial stating why they think it shouldnt be resolved out of court, you then have 14 days to respond, both these statements will be looked at at the end of the trial and if the judge feels they should have settles then costs could be denied... we are talking on a fast track case approx costs of between 5k-10k so not small change.

 

As to the actual orders, its not asked for a new defence just given the timescale of the trial process I'm afraid.

 

Documents list to be exchanged by 5th April

Inspection requests to be complied with before 19th April

Witness statements to be exchanged before c.o.p. 19th April

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, Point 2 is good in that its forcing them to think about resolving the claim outside of the court process, if they dont wish to then they have to serve a witness statement to you 28 days prior to the trial stating why they think it shouldnt be resolved out of court, you then have 14 days to respond, both these statements will be looked at at the end of the trial and if the judge feels they should have settles then costs could be denied... we are talking on a fast track case approx costs of between 5k-10k so not small change.

 

As to the actual orders, its not asked for a new defence just given the timescale of the trial process I'm afraid.

 

Documents list to be exchanged by 5th April

Inspection requests to be complied with before 19th April

Witness statements to be exchanged before c.o.p. 19th April

 

Hi Shadow,thank you once again,i thougt i had posted up the the documents i received from them.on the Saturday,before they had to produce the documents court orded.It was a amended POC.all the difference is a different account number.i could post it in awhile,if it would help, to see what they have sent.I will do it wheni return back home.

 

barns66

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi barns, 3B is a good inclusion on the order, my thread around post 234 I requested to see the original documents and morgans failed, which led to an unless order

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?127059-Hadituptohere-V-Cabot-**-CASE-STRUCK-OUT**COSTS-PAID**/page12

 

Hadituptohere

  • Haha 1

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hadituptohere,thank for vyour advice.Do i send a request to Morgans to request to see the original agreement,t&c at the time,default notice,notices of assignement from both Cabot & Goldfish.any other documents i thinkof.Once again thank for all your help.

 

barns66

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi barns

 

You need to sort out your disclosure list, post 187 onwards in my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?127059-Hadituptohere-V-Cabot-**-CASE-STRUCK-OUT**COSTS-PAID**/page10 might help.

 

Once youve sent and received their disclosure you can request to view the documents they are relying on, like the Consumer Credit Agreement, Default Notice etc

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hadituptohere,thank you for the link,i am going through it and trying to digest what i require to do.I did sent a CPR 18 request before they amended the POC,i received the same copy of a application form,terms and conditions that i couuld not read in large parts and what they say is the assignment,in the parts that have not been blacked out it appears the agreement to sell the Goldfish account was signed on the 30th November 2007 yet hey state the the account was assigned to them on the 18 th April 2008,would tht not be the date it was assigned to them.I think i might ask them as it is a amended POC to supply all my documents again.I will keep looking through the link.I will try to take what it says in.Once again Hadit thank you for your help.

barns66

Edited by barns66
amending
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi barns

 

whatever they include in their disclosure you have the right to request to view the original off, likewise with your disclosure for them,.

 

If the agreement is illegible and doesnt comply with CCA74 thyen this can be brought up in your witness statement along with the difference in assignment date, there is also an cpr request you can use for verification of the documents that might be of use for you but cant remember the CPR number, am sure that someone knows and will call it along with if it would be of any use to yourself, its there in my thread if not.

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...