Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

Help needed with a very tight one...thank you!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5285 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

If they dont file their AQ ontime then they will be issued with a Unless Order alowing a final throw of the dice,if they still fail they lose their case and the claim will be struck out.

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, I've just been trawling around referance the section 69 interest and the claimant not being able to add this or claim for it as some posts have stated and I have come across this linked here;

 

House of Lords - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank

 

 

Of particular interest is paragraphs 5 and 6 which seem to state that pre judgement interest can be added and claimed for and the basis for County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1184) is for post judgement interest.

 

5. But a lender seeking to enforce a regulated credit agreement is in a different position. He is obliged by section 141 of the 1974 Act to sue in the county court. Until the Lord Chancellor, exercising his power under section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984, made the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1184), the county court lacked power to award statutory interest on any judgment debt and, when such a general power was conferred by the order, judgments given in proceedings to recover money due under agreements regulated by the 1974 Act were expressly excluded from its scope. It was further provided in the order:

 

    "3 Where under the terms of the relevant judgment payment of a judgment debt -


      (a) is not required to be made until a specified date, or


      (b) is to be made by instalments,

    interest shall not accrue under this Order -



        (i) until that date, or



        (ii) on the amount of any instalment, until it falls due,

    as the case may be."

6. Thus a lender under a regulated credit agreement who obtains judgment against a defaulting borrower in the county court will be entitled to recover the principal outstanding at the date of judgment and interest accrued up to that date but will not be entitled to an order for statutory interest after that date, and even if the court had power to award statutory post-judgment interest it could not do so, in any case where an instalment order had been made, unless there had been a default in the due payment of any instalment. The lender may recover post-judgment interest only if he has the benefit of an independent covenant by the borrower entitling him to recover such interest. There is nothing to preclude inclusion of such a covenant in a regulated credit agreement, unless it falls foul of the fairness requirement in the regulations.

 

Any comments please on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I use this in my defences to cover the above should the claimant try for section 69 interest in their P.O.C

 

 

Regarding that which is denied, the claimant seeks to claim statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum. It is therefore averred that this claim is brought in relation to a personal loan which is credit as defined within the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the defendant notes that the claimant is not entitled to do so and attention is drawn to The County Courts Interest on Judgment Debts Order 1991 Section 2 (3)(a) which sets out that this is the case as this claim is in relation to a debt regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

The Claimants have not established any legal right to issue a claim or proven that any debt exists. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s claim is entirely spurious and without merit and should be struck out for the aforementioned reasons

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy,

 

have you used this successfully ??

 

It will prohibit them from being successful on the Statutory Interest side of the claim that's for sure

 

however if the agreement provides for post judgment interest, then they may be able to add that on in its place

 

I have used the same sort of wording in a few successful defences for a few of our clients so it does work

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

You need to inform the Court you have not recieved a copy of their AQ .

The Court expects each party to file their AQ at Court, and each party is required to serve a copy on their opponents. The exchange of documents between parties, is expected from the beginning of the case. So that would include AQ's, disclosure statements and pre-trial checklists as an example. AQ's are not confidential and if you don't send your opponent a copy, chances are they will file an Application Notice looking for your case to be struck out,and visa versa this option is open to you also.

 

I trust the above is of help

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

Edited by Andyorch

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again andy.

 

Would this form a breach of pre hearing protocols ?

 

I still have not heard a thing from Link, I have had a letter stating in response to my latest SAR that the requested documentation is 'still on order' and apologising for the delay. It's been 68 days since I first requested the information and they are 14 days late submitting there AQ's to me!

 

I don't understand what is going on, they either have or haven't got the CCA, but surely they must be able to supply the NOA and default ????

 

Rang the court last week and Link supplied their AQ's to the court on time and it was supposed to be before the judge for allocation on the 1st September but the court had not proceeded. (???)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you request a copy of the claimants AQ from court? you are entitled to see their response and as previously advised the exchange of all documents is expected The Court expects each party to file their AQ at Court, and each party is required to serve a copy on their opponents. The exchange of documents between parties, is expected from the beginning of the case. So that would include AQ's, disclosure statements and pre-trial checklists as an example.

if you have not requested a copy i would advise you to insist on one and speak to the case Manager,for all you know they might have made an Application which is also another reason why you must see their AQ.

 

Regards

 

Andy;)

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well actually there has been a development in that I spoke to the court today for a progress update and mentioned that they have not served me with an AQ and the guy said " Well actually now that I've looked at this they haven't even supplied us with their AQ yet and the judge was supposed to be looking at this on the 1st of September !!! "

 

So they have not supplied and are 14 days late with supplying the court let alone myself.

 

This then raises other issues, should I approach the court pointing out the fact that they have not followed procedure or if left will the court get to the point where they throw it out ??

 

Advice please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Claimant's failure to file the AQ on time leads to two breaches by [1] the non-filing of the AQ and [2] the non-payment of the AQ fee.

 

Both these breaches can be tackled by the court under CPR 3.4(2)© and CPR 3.7 respectively and there is nothing further for you to do because, in the situation you describe, the court will very shortly issue an order (you will be sent a copy) in which it will be stated that unless the Claimant files his AQ and pays the AQ fee by (a date usually being not in excess of 14 days from the date of the order) the claim will be struck out.

 

If the Claimant persists in disobedience, on the claim being struck out, you will have an automatic right to costs under CPR 3.7(6).

 

x20

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, thank you very much for that x20 and 42man, I have just been in contact with the court again for confirmation of the non supply of AQ and they confirmed that no AQ has been submitted by the claimant and no fee has been paid. The court rep said the file was already with the judge, that it was 'shocking' and that I should wait to see what the judge states.

 

So I'll sit back, thanks again guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update the judge has decided that an order should be drafted that unless they supply the AQ within 7 days of the issue of the order the claim will be struck out, however due to delays the court officer on the phone said that the order was unlikely to be issued for another week due to a backlog in the system.

 

Anything I should do about this ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, got home today to find they have sent me a default notice.....not the original but one dated 23/09/08 and including the section 69 interest included in the original POC.

 

I have not got a clue as to what is going on now ????

 

Any ideas or suggestions ????

 

They still have not supplied the court with a fee or their AQs and will be served with an order demanding they supply these within 7 days by the court tomorrow.

 

What is going on ???

 

Comments welcome please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is the right answer but surely thay cannot be so inept as to include in the defaulted balance monies (the section 69 interest) that should and cannot be included in the balance until the court awards such and that is well post the default notice stage in any case :???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is the right answer but surely thay cannot be so inept as to include in the defaulted balance monies (the section 69 interest) that should and cannot be included in the balance until the court awards such and that is well post the default notice stage in any case :???:

 

Can you think of a smart reason for doing what they did? Or may be a reason which would discount ineptness? I can't coz there ain't no good reason for this whatsoever. It is ineptness at the most infantile end of the scale.

 

x20

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

OK.... 4 pm deadline today so I rang up the court......the girl who I spoke to did not sound too sure of herself but Link have not supplied their AQ's as per the unless order issued a week ago.

 

I said to her that this must now mean that the case is struck out to which she replied that she presumed so....a little bit ambiguous, is there anything else that I need to do with regard to this ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that this means that I have won (?) :???:

 

Do I need to do anything with regard to what the court said this afternoon ?

 

What about costs etc ?

 

What is the likelyhood of any further action and is there anything that I should do with regard to the CRA's ?

 

Is there anything I should do with regard to Link, they have not responded to CCA or Data Protection Act request ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...