Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • 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
  • 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

PLP=PPI at A&L? Self-employed query


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5687 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, wonder if anyone can clear up a question I have. I took out a loan with Alliance & Leicester in 2005, paying it off early in 2007. I agreed to take out Personal loan protection, which they said would cover me as I was self-employed. Having looked into this I now see that a lot of PPI policies (which this seems to be just under another name) wouldn't have paid out anyway to self-employed people and I'd like to know if I can pursue them to reclaim the cost - which was a hefty £54.14 a month! I don't have the original policy details, just the copy of the agreement. Any advice gratefully received!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello rothko,

 

welcome and please see this from my post to another newcomer to get them started on reclaim of mis-sold ppi.

 

I would start with this Subject Access Request from the stickies at top of forum courtesy hellhasnofury....

Full S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for ppi

 

You will need to be specific in all the data you ask for in fine detail and whatever format data comes in....see this massive link for S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), complaints and the rest:shock:.....alanalana PPI claim against RBS (looking for some help) please long post with usefull info for letters etc.

The Financial Services Authority ruling on the sale of PPI came into force on 14 January 1995 any loans after this with PPI attached were then subject to the new rulings. However prior to this date there were still regulations in place see this for information....

 

For claims before 2005 and the FSA ruling from which campaign

Payment protection | Were you mis-sold PPI? | PPI - rules before 2005

Payment protection | Were you mis-sold PPI? | PPI - the rules

 

You cans still make a valid claim but check up with the FOS/Information Commissioners Office before submitting.

 

aa

 

keep posting and someone will come along and help this PPI is new territory so it may take a while but the fight for mis-selling of ppi is now on

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

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

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for the information. I'll start with the SAR and see what the T&Cs of the Personal Loan Protection say about self-employment and we'll take it from there. Will return to this very helpful forum!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Right. As I said before A&L knew I was self-employed and it appears on my credit agreement.

 

They've sent me a copy of the terms and conditions of the personal loan protection and it says, under 'Benefits':

If you are self-employed and wish to make an unemployment claim, your business must:

Have stopped trading and/or be in the process of being wound up; or

Be put into the hand of an insolvency practitioner; or

Be a partnership which has been or is in the process of being dissolved.

 

What are the chances that I would ever have been able to claim had I been unable to find work. I was a sole trader, working freelance for magazines?

 

I did see a similar thread on this forum but can't find if it was resolved.

 

Any advice welcomed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,i,ve just sent a letter to a&l asking for ppi back,i was self employed and had a loan with them at the same time as you,what made me request a refund was an article i seen on the fso web site regarding this issue the site address is Financial Ombudsman Service then news & events then ombudmens news issue 71 then next article it says

71/03

consumer says he was not told his payment protection policy offered only limited benefits to the self-employed

Mr D had a small shop specialising in interior design. His complaint concerned the single-premium payment protection policy he had been sold when he took out a personal loan. He thought the business concerned should have realised the policy was unsuitable for him, as he was self-employed and therefore entitled to only a limited number of benefits under the policy.

When the business refused to refund all the premiums he had paid, plus interest, Mr D brought his complaint to us.

complaint upheld

We noted that the benefits available to self-employed policyholders were more limited than those available to employees. In particular, the redundancy benefit was only available to policyholders if their employer had ceased trading or had been declared insolvent. We accepted Mr D’s view that these terms were likely to make the policy less attractive to someone who was self-employed.

In this particular case, although the business clearly knew that Mr D was self-employed, it had not mentioned that this would limit the benefits he could get under the policy. The business had given him a written summary of the policy benefits. However, we did not consider that this leaflet adequately highlighted the limited cover he would get from the policy.

We concluded that the business had not given Mr D sufficient information to enable him to make an informed choice.

We upheld the complaint. We told the business to put the loan back where it would have been if he had not taken the policy, and to refund all of his payments for the policy, with interest.

Edited by tiger33
wrong web address
Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the letter i sent I purchased the above policy from you but now believe that I was mis-sold this policy for the following

(1)This is due to the fact that I was self employed when I took out the policy and I made this aware to your member of staff / your member of staff did not ask me about my employment status when the policy was sold.

(2) This is due to the fact that I was not given the correct information when the policy was sold to me,

  • (3)your salesperson stated / implied that taking out the policy would assist my credit application.
  • (4)your salesperson did not tell me that the policy was optional

  • (5)your salesperson did not give me full information on what the policy would and would not cover

  • (6) the policy was not sold in my best interests.

Unless you can satisfactorily justify to me that the policy was fair and reasonable I am requesting a full refund of all premiums, and subsequent interest on these payments, that I have paid to date. As I believe I have been deprived of this money I also expect 8% statutory interest, the amount a court would award, to be added to each payment made.

I look forward to a full and prompt response to this letter and for the matter to be concluded within eight weeks or I shall be contacting the Financial Ombudsman or relivent financial body to investigate my complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...