Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • 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.  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?.
  • 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 
        • 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

Me vs Big Supermarket (DDA Claim)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5754 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 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Can you just say if the clause on not bringing similar proceedings over the next two years was included, please?

 

That clause, and no clause similar, had been agreed to.

If I've been helpful, please add to my rep. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That clause, and no clause similar, had been agreed to.

 

Then a double WELL DONE!!!

 

[Maybe I'll look into making such a claim now! Lol! ;)]

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

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the thread. I'm not aware of any other "large supermarket" whose name begins with T and has five letters. :)

 

For the avoidance of doubt and for my own legal protection I would like to point out and confirm for the complete avoidance of doubt that at no point in this thread have I indicated the name of the supermarket against whom I have issued the claim. The use of the T word within this thread has in no way been precipitated by me or my posts, and I would like to make that clear.

 

I would also point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that I neither confirm nor deny that the referenced company was the other party to this matter.

If I've been helpful, please add to my rep. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Seftonview, it just goes to show what happens if you stick to your guns.

 

Hope you now have your own parking space with a red carpet :)

PLEASE DONATE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN

 

 

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw

 

 

 

 

Go on, click me scales (if I have helped) :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting up to let everyone know that settlement has been reached with the Defendant in these proceedings (subject to contract), and that the matter, for the timebeing, is now closed.

 

Terms of settlement are confidential and will not be disclosed.

 

Thankyou to everone for their contributions (even the plain stupid ones).

 

:)

 

That's a convenient copout seeing as you rejected it in the begining because of that clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a convenient copout seeing as you rejected it in the begining because of that clause.

 

Actually, Conniff, if you read the thread nowhere does seftonview say that that's the reason he rejected the first offer, and nowhere does he say that this offer was the same as the first offer or an upgraded offer.

 

In fact, it seems most likely that the clause that seftonview rejected the first offer on was that no further similar claims be brought by seftonview over the next two years - which was not included in this offer.

 

It seems habitual part of CAG that people don't read threads before posting. An excellent example above is 'meagain' misreading who the post about Tesco was from therefore criticizing me for not reading the thread.

 

I can't say I'm perfect, and we all make mistakes, but if people actually tried reading the threads in more detail before posting it would make life a lot simpler!

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

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to let you all know, I have rejected outright the offer of settlement, for a number of reasons:-

 

1. They offered me a non-negotiable financial sum which was not a sufficient sum of money to compensate for injury to feelings, let alone the terms of the settlement agreement they wanted.

 

2. They required that I agree to total confidentiality relating to circumstances and settlement.

 

3. They wanted me to agree not to bring another Claim again, the clause being worded in such a way that it would encompass further, seperate discrimination.

 

I will be posting up full details of all correspondence, including particulars of claim, in the next few days.

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems habitual part of CAG that people don't read threads before posting.

 

I quite agree:

 

Just to let you all know, I have rejected outright the offer of settlement, for a number of reasons:-

 

2. They required that I agree to total confidentiality relating to circumstances and settlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conniff, how many times do you have to be asked to stop looking for fights? I won't ask you again.

 

FYI, there is a material difference between confidentiality of settlement, and confidentiality of circumstances and settlement.

 

Now please troll elsewhere.

If I've been helpful, please add to my rep. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the post. seftonview didn't reject it just for that clause but the other two clauses as well.

 

So it wasn't the reason he rejected the first offer, but one of the reasons, and as can be seen from seftonview's response to my earlier post, clause 3 of the original offer, was not included.

 

Addition: And as seftonview has backed me up by pointing out the difference between the two versions of that clause, whilst similar are still different. Thanks seftonview :-)

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

:!: All the information I impart is my advice based on my experience. It does not constitute professional advice. If in doubt, always consult with a professional. :!:

 

:-) If you feel my post has been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the hell did you bother posting this in the first place? You got advice ,some of which you did not like and now you have an outcome you wont tell anybody what it is; Have you been gagged! as part of the settlement?

 

You go all holyier than thou and get indignant when somebody tries to put a different spin on it or dissagrees with you.

 

Come on was it worth the complaint, would you recommend others to do same?

 

Whats your advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly

 

CONGRATULATIONS

:D :D :D :D :D

 

I for one am glad you started this thread and made people aware that they are able to claim because of this .. for that THANK YOU

 

as a long standing user of CAG I also feel the need to apologise to you for the way some people have been right the way through your thread .I can assure you that the majority of the users in CAG are not like this .

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

Why the hell did you bother posting this in the first place? You got advice ,some of which you did not like and now you have an outcome you wont tell anybody what it is; Have you been gagged! as part of the settlement?

 

As stated in my post yesterday, the terms of settlement are subject to confidentiality by agreement with the other party.

 

I have taken on board all of the advice I have been given, however I've had to endure a good amount of rubbish and distraction on this thread from a number of users of the forum, some of whom have not given good or accurate advice. Where I know someone to have incorrect knowledge I have provided information, in much the same way I would hope users would if I gave bad advice. We are all on the same team here I would hope.

 

You go all holyier than thou and get indignant when somebody tries to put a different spin on it or dissagrees with you.

 

What I've done is refused to get into irrelevant conversations - those relating to concessions who aren't disabled under the DDA for example, because they aren't relevant to the thread and the problem at hand. I didn't post this up for a talking shop, I wanted constructive and relevant advice and discussion. I made it clear more than once that this was a discussion of law and rights, rather than morality and ethics. If you're not happy with that, feel free to make another thread, to which I will happily contribute.

 

Come on was it worth the complaint, would you recommend others to do same? Whats your advice.

 

I feel my complaint was very worth it, and I am extremely glad that I 'reclaimed the right'. I would not hesitate to suggest anyone else does the same either!

If I've been helpful, please add to my rep. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

as a long standing user of CAG I also feel the need to apologise to you for the way some people have been right the way through your thread .

 

I hope you are not including me in that apology, I don't need others to speak for me.

I have nothing to apologise for and never offered advice, but did ask questions that would help me understand the real reason behind the claim, I never received any answers.

 

I have made up my mind what I think this was all about, but it will remain confidential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you are not including me in that apology,

if you feel you was one of the people who was just plain nasty at times then yes .. if you think your posts have been helpful to the OP then no ..

 

I don't think it needs a genius to see the reasons behind your posts .. but of course my thoughts on your behaviour throughout this thread remain confidential :D

 

now go and bait someone else as I think you have failed to bait the OP and you will have even less chance of baiting me :rolleyes:

 

oh did I say CONGRATULATIONS seftonview anything you may have got is IMO well deserved and may hopefully get retailers to start abiding by the law .. or at least a step in the right direction :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

...and never offered advice, but did ask questions that would help me understand the real reason behind the claim, I never received any answers.

 

Here's that advice you never gave sweetheart:

 

Post #20: "Yes you should accept if your true motive is to keep disabled bays free from non disabled parking."

 

Post #31: "You should be writing to your MP and asking that he/she introduce a bill in parliament that will give disabled bays legal standing."

 

There's probably more but I'm watching TV!

 

I have made up my mind what I think this was all about, but it will remain confidential.

 

Please do keep it confidential. I'd hate to have to start a thread about bringing a defamation suit against a member of CAG. It doesn't mean I wouldn't do it though. Capiche?

If I've been helpful, please add to my rep. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you give me and anyone else who might be interested a link to this law please.

 

You , no :D

 

anyone else who is interested would of done the same as me and actually done some research and found out for them selves :rolleyes:

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

Girls and boys, don't make us take the toys away.

 

Play nice.

..

.

 

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

Girls and boys, don't make us take the toys away.

 

you might as well as my batteries have ran out :rolleyes:

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

Thank you seftonview. I have read through it and can see no mention at all of 'blue badges', however, the very first line reads:

 

19.

Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services.

— (1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person

 

You have discounted anyone without a blue badge as disabled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Girls and boys, don't make us take the toys away.

 

Play nice.

 

Don't stop it now - all I need to see is something that will convince me that someone with a broken leg is not disabled and not entitled to use a parking bay that says "Disabled parking only".

 

If that is forthcoming then I will be the first to grovel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...