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

So - they don't like these forums !!


psmith64
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5617 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 574
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

this bit cracked me up

it is important to

recognise that there will always be

rogue customers looking for ways to

delay or avoid payment of debt.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogue customers us no i think not ppl fighting against illegal practises and fighting the rights we have layed down in law for us yes.So to call us ROGUES isnt realy accurate im refering to what it says in the docuement if anyones wondering.Makes me blood boil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was written way back in January 2007 when Herr Ken was Chair of the Debt Purchasers & Sellers Group. He's still not learning is he?

 

"it is important to

recognise that there will always be

rogue customers looking for ways to

delay or avoid payment of debt." .....

 

And there'll always be CAG and the Cabot Fan Club looking for ways for them to delay and avoid collection if they do not abide by the CORRECT laws :D

 

 

Sarah

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its so nice to see them on the back foot!!! Hope it keeps them awake at night!:D

I have only just started to sleep again :smile:

 

Isn't it a great feeling :D

When you've had all the help you need, make sure you stick around to help others too!

Just think, if everyone left the site after they'd got their help, there might not be anyone left the next time YOU come back needing more assistance!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am so grateful there are forums like these its helping me lots I didn't know where to turn!

 

Makes me laugh though

 

"it is important to

recognise that there will always be

rogue customers looking for ways to

delay or avoid payment of debt."

 

What about the people like me that have been trying to pay off my debts and I am being now railroaded with a stat demand!!! by one of these companies that the debts been sold off to!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the people like me that have been trying to pay off my debts and I am being now railroaded with a stat demand!!! by one of these companies that the debts been sold off to!!

 

Thats 1 of the reasons why DCA's should never be paid a penny unless its sorted out via a county court...they are ungrateful sods who will just kick you when your down by doing things like that or wanting to increase the payments etc...

Be darned with the lot of them :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats 1 of the reasons why DCA's should never be paid a penny unless its sorted out via a county court...they are ungrateful sods who will just kick you when your down by doing things like that or wanting to increase the payments etc...

Be darned with the lot of them :mad:

 

I'm still paying them even though they have issued the stat demand, more so that it might go in my favour when i put in the set aside application

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What about the people like me that have been trying to pay off my debts and I am being now railroaded with a stat demand!!! by one of these companies that the debts been sold off to!!

 

 

DCAs like to think that everyone in debt is a 'won't pay' rather than a 'can't pay'. Imagine working for a DCA; if you were told the truth - that behind debt there is often bereavement, separation, redundancy and illness, and that their executives and their foreign bosses grow rich by preying upon this misery - you would probably not be able to do the job successfully. Many of the phone monkeys and their supervisors are young, greedy and naive; their world doesn't extend much further than their phone cubicle and getting sh1tfaced in a club every weekend.

 

Maynard, the equally odious Herr Obermaier (the current fuehrer of the DBSG), and their ilk, maintain the pretence that people in debt who assert their legal rights are 'rogues' because it suits their purpose to do so. They have become so used to bullying that they will go to any length to portray themselves as proper businessmen. They are irritated by anyone who questions their perceived invicibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting read !!

 

http://www.cabotfinancial.com/download/token/48bfc491e2f81

 

So, when they buy these debts they are hoping to rely on the 1925 property act !!

 

Dream on, don't you think

 

That's handy - I've saved his email address because I'm trying to avoid a debt with Cabot at the moment!

 

Fred

Edited by Fred Bassett

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that behind debt there is often bereavement, separation, redundancy and illness,

 

The truth as you say.

 

The probably have another name now but underwriters used to refer to these as 'lifetime events' and admit, (behind closed doors), they are the driving factor behind most serious default. Statistically, they can to some extent be predicted and scoring can be tweaked by occupation etc. But that however takes no account of the individual.

 

As a statistician who worked on scoring systems for some major lenders, once pointed out to me,

 

"They may have a big income, brilliant credit record and a fantastic score, but what's the good of that if the b****rd's wife takes him to the cleaners, just after you've lent him a wedge."

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first line of the CCA 1974 act says it is for the protection of the consumer. So why cant I use my legal rights as the DCAs do. They have been granted credit licences and as every other licence holder whether it be a driving or a pub licence they must obey the law. As I read in a recent book by a celebrity following their recent bankruptcy people fought for these rights. I hope he calls me a rogue because I will start a new thread about defamation

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first line of the CCA 1974 act says it is for the protection of the consumer. So why cant I use my legal rights as the DCAs do. They have been granted credit licences and as every other licence holder whether it be a driving or a pub licence they must obey the law. As I read in a recent book by a celebrity following their recent bankruptcy people fought for these rights. I hope he calls me a rogue because I will start a new thread about defamation

 

 

A point a lot of these companies need to realise is that their licenses are a "Privilege" and not a right!!!

 

Rules are also there for these "privileged" companies to adhere to - it's hight time these companies kept to obeying their part of the law that they are governed by.

 

Like the old saying goes "Practice what you preach" comes to mind :D

 

My question is how do these companies bend the rules and regulations the way that they do and expect consumers to just allow it to go on?

 

Doesn't matter whether they call us Rogues, Dilinquents or any other names - we are here and won't allow companies to do this without a fight on our part.

 

All these companies need to do is act responsibly and adhere to the laws and regs too. It's really simple isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What they don't realise is that the more this site wins the more info it gets to ensure the right advice is given.

 

I was told by a solicitor that the judges know about the sites......

 

Does that mean they want to close the site down so they can win again by not having to work for their money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What they don't realise is that the more this site wins the more info it gets to ensure the right advice is given.

 

I was told by a solicitor that the judges know about the sites......

 

Does that mean they want to close the site down so they can win again by not having to work for their money.

 

 

In a nutshell ' YES ' ! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...