Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank goodness it's not your roof and you get to foot the bill! How big are these bits of mortar? How often are they falling into your garden? Hourly, daily? Just go ahead with your plans, of course, they're not going to be worried by your time pressures and the urgency of the situation, so simply carry on as you would have done and I'm sure everything will go fine. Unless there is a danger to life and serious structural issues which mean you cannot venture into your garden, then IMHO there is little more you can do less for what you have done so already and made them aware of the issue.
    • Hi all!   Thank you in advance for any help you can give me!!    I parked up (at 18:08) in a rush, entered my Reg and paid for an hour of parking. At 18:20 I got a ticket for not paying for parking.    I've just looked at my receipt and noticed why ... I put "22" instead of "21"  when i put in my Reg. yes... what a stupid mistake.    I seem to remember there being a court case or a rule change about entering the wrong reg but the company wasn't at a loss because i had paid for the parking just technically for the wrong car. Am i making that up?    Any advice would be gratefully received, even some key points i have to hit when doing the appeal      
    • You haven't returned to the thread to give us your views, but a couple of other things strike me which you should consider: 1. You say that at no time was your father's licence revoked by the DVLA. It didn't have to be revoked. It expired in September and his "entitlement to drive" (of which the licence provides proof) expired along with it. He could only continue driving whilst his application was being processed by virtue of s88, and it seems clear to me (based on what you have said) that he was not able to take advantage of the benefits provided by that section. 2. The letter he received threatening to revoke his licence was probably a template letter sent when any medical issues are brought to the attention of the DVLA. But it is clear that beyond September until it was eventually renewed, your father had no valid licence to be revoked. I believe a "not guilty" plea in court will fail. The basic facts are that your father's licence expired in September, it was not renewed until February because the DVLA were looking into his medical declaration and he could not take advantage of s88. So in December he had no licence and no entitlement to drive under s88. The facts that he believed he was fit to drive and that his licence was eventually renewed may mitigate the offence but they do not provide a defence. I also asked whether he had received a summons (very unusual these days) or whether he had received a "Single Justice Procedure Notice". The way to proceed from here differs slightly depending on what he has received so if you let me know, I'll advise further.  
    • Well, what I've read from various sources suggest if a CCJ is 6 years old that if becomes pretty much ineffective for enforcement purposes in its original form.  And that if it's about to expire then the claimant needs to apply to the court to extend the original CCJ within the final year.  Even if they do apply for an extension within the 6 years they have to have a very strong argument for doing so such as the person being out of the country or could not be traced, basically show they were actively still perusing the debt I guess. Now if a claimant ever does apply within the 6 years to extend the CCJ, would the person named on if be notified by the court that such an application has been made?.  In my case I've heard nothing from the court so assume no such application has been made.  The original CCJ in my own case is now a year beyond the 6 years of issue so must now make things even less likely again. So whilst the CCJ exists that they have not enforced it in that time must surely make it unlikely they can now take it back to court because as said it would be very rare for a judge to agree to such action now. That said, I guess they now can't use the CCJ to continue with any action for an attachment order to our mortgage either?
    • Donald Trump now banned from countries including Canada and UK as convicted felon WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK There are 37 countries that bar felons from entering, even to visit.  
  • 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

Sminole v Nat West Bank- Set Aside Hearing 12 Jul 2006


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6395 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

I'm in court with Nat West on Wednesday 12 July at 3.30pm.

 

Nat West are applying to set aside my CCJ against them on the basis that my claim is statute barred. This will be an opportunity to try to deploy the deliberate concealment argument and it will be interesting to see if this flies.

 

If anyone wants to come along, I'd welcome a gallery to play to. The hearing is as above and will be held at the Central London County Court, Civil Justice Centre, 13-14 Park Crescent, London, W1N 1HT.

 

Please could you let me know if you're planning to attend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if I can come but I will certainly be there in spirit. The very best of luck to you.

 

 

BTW I thought there was no statute on CCJs?

But then again, what do I know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to come but I too am far away. Good luck (like you need it ;):D )

Initially owed £76

Phone call to NatWest - £19 refunded

Now claiming £57

Visit to local branch - Nothing done

Initial letter - Standard refusal letter from Mr. Higley

LBA - Another refusal letter from Mr. Higley

Action filled Monday 7th August - court costs £30

Now claiming £87

10th August - Natwest acknowledge the claim, intend to defend in full

23rd August - Received a latter and cheque from RBS for the full amount

24th August - Send letter to RBS accepting payment on the condition that payment is not confidential

30th August - Payment cleared.

Case closed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seminole,

 

Best of luck for tomorrow.

 

Shame I can't make it.

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

Good luck to you!

 

Remember, we are all with you in spirit!

 

"Knock 'em down"

 

Y

Credit Cards

Barclaycard -WON! Amex - WON! MBNA (x2) - WON!

Mint - WON! Monument - WON! Morgan Stanley - WON!

Egg - WON! Halifax - WON! Sainsbury's Bank - WON!

Citi Cards -WON!

 

Banks

 

08/06/06 Claim against NatWest started.

01/11/06 Case Closed :)

 

08/06/06 Claim against Halifax started

24/08/06 Case closed :)

 

 

Visit my forum: http://www.planet-watch.org/forum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from Seminole's hearing. Although I was a little late (you ever tried to find empty bike parking in London at that time of the afternoon? argh!) I did get to hear most of the proceedings, and meet up with a few other people after.

 

All very interesting. I'm not going to comment on the case before Seminole's had a chance to post as it wouldn't be fair. However, all I will say is thanks for giving me the opportunity to attend, nice to put faces to a few names, and I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next from the bank :)

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hurry up seminole we are all sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for the news :-D

When you want to fool the world, tell the truth. :D

Advice & opinions of Janet-M are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any

doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah hurry up :p I'm bursting to discuss what happened today a little further.. but my lips are sealed as I said..

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, thanks to everyone for their good wishes.

 

In the event it was a bit of a damp squib. The Judge made it clear that today's hearing was about whether the claim should be set aside and nothing else. I had prepared on the basis that the claim was likely to be set aside and the bank would ask for it to be struck out immediately. I therefore prepared my paper to defend against that possibility. I believe that they could have done this today but in the event the judge closed off that avenue before they could even ask for it.

 

The judgment was set aside. All the defendant has to do is to show that they have a reasonable defence to the claim. They did this by putting forward the Section 5 Limitation Act argument. The judge said that he wasn't concerned with whether the argument would succeed in court but rasiing the issue in these circumstances was sufficient. Interestingly he did comment that the issue of whether Section 5 would apply was a matter for debate so he didn't laugh it out of court and I really need to find someone who really knows how the Limitation Act should work. Anyway, the Section 32 argument wasn't discussed because it wasn't something that the bank had raised.

 

The upshot was that the bank and I have August to file a defence, a rebuttal to the defence and our Allocation Questionaires.

 

The most interesting points raised were the potential test case(s) in the Mercantile Court. The Judge suggested that I should discuss with the bank's solicitors whether my case might be suitable as a test case and more importantly, I should contact Judge Mackie's office to discuss this. I will be up that particular drainpipe like a rat as it will hopefully enable us to gain some insight into what's going on.

 

Overall, it could have been worse and I think the bank knows it's not dealing with a fool. I suspect that they will proceed to defend and they will probably also be seeking a stay if the case doesn't go to the Mercantile Court. Given this claim involves rather different issues from the majority, it probably isn't suitable for that route.

 

Towards the end the other side's barrister was looking a little smug that she had got her set aside (although quite why, as it was never really in any dount) so I dropped a small bombshell on her that wiped the smile off her face.

 

Earlier today, I was telephoned by the bailiff at the court and told that they were off to execute the warrant that I issued earlier in the year. I told them about the set aside hearing in the afternoon and so the guy said that he'd better go this morning then :D . I did actually suggest to the bailiff that this might not be a good idea but I got the impression that he WANTED to do this and that "as you're not a judge, I can't take instructions from you". I don't know what happened but it certainly cased the bank's barrister to break out in a cold sweat when I mentioned it and even the judge looked a little perturbed.

 

I got a small amount of costs for loss of income plus the £55 warrant of execution fee refunded but frankly, for the entertainment value it generated, it was worth every penny!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming you had no contact for over 6 years then?

 

No it's not as simple as that. The charges were applied to the account in 1998 and 1999. Since then I paid a couple of thousand to them (the last £500 in 2001), they sued me, got a charging order and I repaid in rull in 2004. The question is whether the fact that the charges are older than six years means that they can't be challenged although a general claim under the contract wouldn't be statute barred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that it's because of when the cause of action accrued. Not sure I'll read up some more.

 

But that leaves you in the anomalous position that one party's rights may be statute barred whereas those of the other are not. A bank could pursue you for an account balance that includes charges levied more than six years ago but you can't challenge the lawfulness of those charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The day went as well as can be expected then, well done.

  • Haha 1

BEFORE starting your claim read through the FAQ's and if there's something you aren't sure of then ask.

If you win, donate to this site

Contents of my posts are purely my own personal opinions, some formed by personal experience and some from research. If in doubt seek qualified legal advice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But that leaves you in the anomalous position that one party's rights may be statute barred whereas those of the other are not. A bank could pursue you for an account balance that includes charges levied more than six years ago but you can't challenge the lawfulness of those charges.

I can quite clearly see what's wrong now. My NatWest account I'm pretty sure has charges well over 6 years on it. It's wrong they can enforce it after say 7 years just because you are still in contact or admitting liability by paying on the account. If what the court did was correct then surely that leaves us with the same defence if they try to CCJ us? Surely if you had a really bad account (like mine) you could argue that the amount owed is less if you have left it for longer than 6 years. You could argue that all the charges and interest before then are statute barred surely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just ask, as I don't think it's very clear, what was the exact reason for them applying for the judgement to be set aside?

Surely they couldn't have just used the statute barred argument as surely that should have been made in their defence statement before the judgement was obtained? Did they not try to argue they didn't recieve the summons or something like that?

 

FWIW I'm claiming from the Halifax at the moment (court papers going in Monday) and my claim includes £100 from over 6 years ago (4 x £25 charges between June 1999 and March 2000). Will be interesting to see if they try to defend part of the claim on that basis (and I don't mind going into court and arguing it either :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I think we have to draw our own conclusions about what has happened. Seminole hasn't posted so I think that probably means he's won and agreed not to talk about it. Only my guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...