Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject.   My original  CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  So at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them.   Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.  
    • whats the court claimform for? return of goods order? please complete this:  
    • std DWF letter. typically £157 something. lots of them here already doesn't say WILL anything. read it properly dx  
    • Have you read our upload guide [click on the word] for advice on how to post up documents? Pdf files are best, jpegs won't be accepted. HB
    • Sunak's already had enough of travelling like the little people. Rishi Sunak flies back from Devon by helicopter after gushing about 'great' train travel - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Rishi Sunak told broadcasters: 'The train was great, I've been taking lots of pictures and videos' - but he skipped the 3-hour, £55 train home in favour of...  
  • 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

Is it 10 items or a quantity of 10


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5868 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

This has happened on a few occasions, I have been into the supermarket to purchase a few things.

I get the items along with a several bottles of water, I then go to the "ten items or less" checkout, whereupon people start to complain that I am in the wrong que, because they say I have to many "items".

Sharkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until they start putting up signs that are grammatically correct and make sense in English, then I'll just use them regardless of how many items I have.

 

The sign should say 10 items or fewer. If it says 10 items or less then it makes no sense.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could wait until the new James Bond movie comes out on DVD, buy 1 dozen copies or so and when challenged say you dunno how many - just a quantum of solace.....

 

Either way I think mesing with semantics in a cheque out queue just gets you, the shop and everyone else wound up. But yes, it should say 10 or fewer.

 

And i have seen some rather bizarre situations where multipack items have been bought, or where someone has bought twenty bottles of the same thing, just passed one through and told cashier there's 19 more. This followed a refusal to servcewhich wasted more time than it would have done than to simply press a couple of buttons. And don't get me started on people who actually count how many things you have....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I saw somebody buy a bag of grapes at the "10 items or less" [sic] checkout. There must have been more than 10 grapes in the bag.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waitrose is the only supermarket I know of that actually has this correct.

 

Technically, anyone in the queue in a "10 items or less" checkout with more than one item the same is breaking the rule. If you had 10 boxes of cornflakes, you'd be ok, and 10 boxes and one of coco-pops and you'd be fine, as you only have 2 items.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me its the number of items on the receipt, if you go to the till with two trolleys filled with the same item they would not enter all, they would simply ask how many and punch that in, so time is not an issue.

Sharkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...