Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..
  • 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

"The letter" regarding libel case


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5678 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

Still don't know what LB stands for:confused:

 

 

It does not matter

 

LB did not start the legal action.

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

True but I can not post the name you will get directed to disney land.

 

And that is not sarcasam

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

is that it ? is that all you have to say?

 

Well at least I know I was not imagining it then.

 

Thanks for the acknowledgemnt any way and I hope now you will put people right when they blame the whole of LB for this sorry state of affairs.

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

As as already been pointed out, the solicitor's letter is not from LB. It is from an individual. The case has not been bought by LB against CAG.

 

The constant referrals to this are, in my opinion, making things worse and inflaming the situtation, and are having the effect of furthering the "us and them" mentality. There are ppeople who use both sites, who should not be made to feel that they have to choose one or the other or be made to feel like traitors to CAG if they use LB, and vice versa.

Edited by HSBCrusher
Link to post
Share on other sites

But I didn't say the action was brought by LB, did I? :-?

 

(just double checked, nope, definitely didn't. )

 

Nevos asked:

Anyone tell me what is LB? and where to find the bones of the dispute cheers.
so I 1) linked him to the relevant thread, 2) told him what LB was, IMO.

 

If you decide to interpret this as me saying that the solicitors' letter was from LB, then I suggest that it is your issue, not mine and you really need to read posts properly before commenting. :rolleyes:

 

Jansus: You have your opinion, I have mine. What's to discuss? You don't like my style of posting or what I have to say? That's ok, I care little for your opinion in the matter. :-D Tip: There's a button on your user CP where you can "ignore" anyone you like. I used it to great effect when one of our most unpleasant but now thankfully removed users was posting some of his most inane ramblings and I was asked not to raise to his poorly worded baits. Feel free to do the same with my nick if my posting style upsets you so. It's all the same to me. ;-)

 

Before either of you tries to take the moral high ground, let me remind you that I personally think that it is all much ado about nothing and that the planned action is unreasonable, ill thought out and of no benefit to anyone that I can see. Common sense dictates that in a case like this, the aggressors are the ones who should withdraw. Maybe common sense is all that is needed in this instance? ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thhis whole forum is for people to air their views about the libel actiojn - not to slate another site.

 

We have never tolerated the attacking of any other site on the CAG before and I don't intend to let it start now.

 

Please don't do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As as already been pointed out, the solicitor's letter is not from LB. It is from an individual. The case has not been bought by LB against CAG.

 

The constant referrals to this are, in my opinion, making things worse and inflaming the situtation, and are having the effect of furthering the "us and them" mentality. There are ppeople who use both sites, who should not be made to feel that they have to choose one or the other or be made to feel like traitors to CAG if they use LB, and vice versa.

 

I think that this is probably correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you are right . Just two comments close together #

 

and you inferred it inthis post

 

 

Now THAT makes sense, in fact it is a BRILLIANT idea, and one I believe was expressed by BF on another post by this sentence (I paraphrase): "Why don't they just leave us alone?" All they have to do is go away, all it takes is one letter from the solicitors saying: "we have been instructed not to carry on with this action", and voila! LB can go and do their own thing, CAG can carry on without this worry on their head, CAGgers for whom this site is a lifeline can carry on safe in the knowledge that their haven is safe for a while longer... It's a win-win situation all round, surely?

 

 

My mistake

 

I will be more careful in future .

 

And I will use the ignore button thanks for that.

 

Moral high ground ? Will have to think about that .

 

And when this is all over I hope you remember my posts yesterday that I deleted and take then in the spirit they were intended.

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thhis whole forum is for people to air their views about the libel actiojn - not to slate another site.

 

We have never tolerated the attacking of any other site on the CAG before and I don't intend to let it start now.

 

Please don't do it.

 

 

That is what I tried to do

 

And it was just assumed I was taking sides

 

I WAS NOT

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies for that, nothing was "inferred" at all, "they" referred to the instigator of the legal action and her backer, and that if she dropped the action, she could then concentrate on her role on LB, but I can see it could have been misconstrued. I am happy to put things straight in the matter.

 

"When this is all over?" Can't be too early for me. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've supported CAG from the beginning of my membership & will continue to do so, but come on guys & gals, this bickering is getting nobody anywhere, it's taking up the valuable time of some very experienced & respected forum members whose efforts should be directed to those who need help & quite frankly it's becoming degrading.

 

You can please some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time. If you don't agree with the site team's decisions, you don't have to donate or even belong to the group. It's a personal choice. :)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are people waiting for answers on there first post check them out COME ON CAGGERS were here to help the NEWBIES

Cheers B4E

NEVER TALK TO A ---D.C.A ON THE TELE[PHONE UNLESS YOU`RE DMD

GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING

 

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w.../CAG-LIBEL.jpg

forum-rules-please-read

ConsumerWiki - A-Z Index

PLEASE DONATE TO CAG,EVERY LITTLE HELPS

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

Any Advice given by me is based on solely on my experiance or opnion. I have no Legal background.

If i have helped in any way please feel free to click my scales

Thank You blue4ever:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can please some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time. If you don't agree with the site team's decisions, you don't have to donate or even belong to the group. It's a personal choice. :)

 

Well said.

 

I think it incredibly selfish of anybody to even think that they can question the judgement of the decision to defend the claim.

 

Its people like that, that are more likely to be the reason for any site closure, than the claim itself.

 

After years of selfless involvement in getting the site where it is today, the team ask for a little help in return, and people question that request ???????

 

I think that ANYBODY who even has the front to think that its the wrong decision, is bordering on being rude.,

 

I said it before, and i will say it again.

 

If you support the site, PUT UP. If not SHUT UP.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.

 

I think it incredibly selfish of anybody to even think that they can question the judgement of the decision to defend the claim.

 

Its people like that, that are more likely to be the reason for any site closure, than the claim itself.

 

After years of selfless involvement in getting the site where it is today, the team ask for a little help in return, and people question that request ???????

 

Well done on bringing back up a fairly dead conversation.

 

Quite annoyed at that post.

 

I do not think it is incredibly selfish whatsoever - I said what I said with the best interests of the site at heart.

 

You could argue(and I was) that it is incredibly selfish to defend such a claim, of which there was no need to defend, with money acquired from people via donations they can ill afford.

 

You ask people to give money, but not to question why. That is fundamentally both wrong and stupid tony - and, indeed, highly selfish.

 

To perhaps reinforce my point, I personally have given a lot more to this forum than I have taken(without blowing my own trumpet), and as such, I feel that I am entitled to say something, being a key contributor in the tenants forums.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they aren't abusive. At the end of the day, this is a forum and therefore the correct context for debate - we may not all agree, but life wouldn't be the rich tapestry that it is if we all did, would it? :D I think we all agree this site is important and that this horrible business should be concluded as soon as possible with the least detriment to the site and owners as possible. However, we may disagree on how that is best achieved.

 

It's always important to question and I personally cannot see anyway that Mr Shed has been wrong in dong so. Debate has been opened up and, for the most part, has been incredibly civil.

 

As it happens, I don't agree with Mr Shed's opinion, but would certainly defend his right to hold that opinion, as I believe BF, Dave and the site team would too. That's what makes this site so great.

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could argue(and I was) that it is incredibly selfish to defend such a claim, of which there was no need to defend, with money acquired from people via donations they can ill afford.

 

The owners obviously saw it as real threat or perhaps, they wouldnt call for help to fund a defence via donations. I do beleive many people are 100 x better off for the free and trieless help they get on CAG. So why not put a bit back, seems reasonable. Most people will have no concept of how much it costs to run such a big site :)

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are both wrong. End of.

 

And i dont care how annoyed any of you are.

 

The queston was, can you help ?, not what should we do ?.

 

All the facts have been posted for us to make a decision on whether we want to donate.

 

Despite posting the fact that their own money, and houses are on the line, they have STILL chosen to defend.,

 

So im sure that you questioned it with the best interest at heart, but,

 

NO people, you have NO RIGHT to bring their decision into question. None at all.

 

Just the right to decide whether you want to donate or not. Or even being part of this community.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Nevos. I meant the 2 above you.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm staying out of this one, except I will say. This site is free (obviously), but If there was a price to pay for the help I have received on it, then I would have paid it.

 

Regardless of any libel case.

 

 

If all else fails, kick them where it hurts and SOD'EM;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonycee, I'm not annoyed and I actually support BF and have made several posts to that effect and have tried to help in other ways too. However, I disagree that Mr Shed has no right to question whether there is a better way to do things.

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they aren't abusive. At the end of the day, this is a forum and therefore the correct context for debate - we may not all agree, but life wouldn't be the rich tapestry that it is if we all did, would it? :D I think we all agree this site is important and that this horrible business should be concluded as soon as possible with the least detriment to the site and owners as possible. However, we may disagree on how that is best achieved.

 

I agree in principal with everything you say. I just dont agree that anybody has any right to publicly question the decisions of its founders.

 

It's always important to question and I personally cannot see anyway that Mr Shed has been wrong in dong so. Debate has been opened up and, for the most part, has been incredibly civil.

But the subject wasnt opened for debate. It was opened for help. Its only now being debated because some people think they are more important to the site, than the saving of the site itself.

 

As it happens, I don't agree with Mr Shed's opinion, but would certainly defend his right to hold that opinion, as I believe BF, Dave and the site team would too. That's what makes this site so great.

 

Opinions are given in open forums

 

THIS particular subject was never opened up as one.

 

Again, we werent asked for our opinion.

 

I'm not annoyed and I actually support BF and have made several posts to that effect and have tried to help in other ways too. However, I disagree that Mr Shed has no right to question whether there is a better way to do things.

 

My comment about annoyed was not directed at you.

 

Do you not think, after, in their own words, months of debate with solicitors, that they have made their decision based on whats best.

 

I have to date, failed to see how ANYBODY can question their decision.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just made small but perfectly formed donation.

 

I have no idea what all this hoo ha is about but I am glad the site is here and more than happy to make a contribution. Please feel free to use it to make a point, say it with flowers or put it on Debtors Revenge to win the 2:15 at Newmarket!

 

Good luck team!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Bookworm said: Before either of you tries to take the moral high ground, let me remind you that I personally think that it is all much ado about nothing and that the planned action is unreasonable, ill thought out and of no benefit to anyone that I can see. Common sense dictates that in a case like this, the aggressors are the ones who should withdraw. Maybe common sense is all that is needed in this instance?
I think it fair to say that there is 'no smoke without fire', if Karn did not genuinely feel that her character has been besmirched then why commence proceedings.

 

I think it unfair of BW for blowing this off as 'much ado about nothing' and from what I can see any aggression is sadly mostly one way and from this site.

 

IMHO BF and Dave should apologise and bring the matter to a close, if for no other reason than 'botching' icon11.gifthe exit of Karn from their employ. I do not agree that they should do so publically.

 

Asking for funding in what is purely a personal matter is not something I can support. If the attack were from an organisation seeking to close CAG down then I'd be swift in writing a chq.

 

Set up a meeting buy Sharon lunch and then apologise. Job done everyone move on.

I'm not an expert so check everything I tell you, however click me scales if I've been useful.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

 

There is no freemasonry like the freemasonry of Golf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...