Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • AndyOrch
      Lowell/Overdales letter of claim now claimform - 2019 paypal EU debt

      By AndyOrch · Posted

      Include that in your witness statement along with that letter as an exhibit.
    • London1971
      Lowell/Overdales letter of claim now claimform - 2019 paypal EU debt

      By London1971 · Posted

      Yup, well so far they have lied to me about responding to a CCA,  are threatening me with a default notice that they don't have, produced a knocked up version of my NOA, sent me 29 pages of spew for an agreement. No wonder they pay 5 p in the pound for that crap.
    • BankFodder
      EVRI have lost parcel £300 model kit

      By BankFodder · Posted

      Paragraph 2. I think there should be further down and also you should make the point that the payment to was made unilaterally and without the imposition of any conditions. Paragraph 3 – this is unnecessary because you are not claiming as an entitled third-party. This worries me because it makes me feel that you haven't fully read around because this is a paragraph which you would include where you were suing EVRi as a beneficial third party because you had actually made your contract with Packlink or some other broker. I think you need to revisit and do some more reading. I'm afraid I have a sense that you have simply copied this from somebody else's witness statement without understanding that it wasn't necessary. Please can you post the amended draft. Other than the suggestions above, it looks okay – but let's see it again for a further appraisal. In terms of the evidence, parties bundle, I think it might be an idea to start off with the correspondence with EVRi and then go onto the other evidence. You will have to amend the index page accordingly. You could shorten this bit. Take 19 is pretty well blank and you may as well miss it out also, there seems to be some repetition of emails and the email chain. I think will be worth going through and getting rid of duplicates if you can. 49 pages is a bit long and it would be a good idea to try and reduce the number. I have a feeling that 50 pages as the County Court limit anyway. The judge will be happier with you if the bundle is smaller. Maybe you could reduce the size of some of the images or messages et cetera. You have got several messages which straddle onto a second page so that things like sign off information and standard confidentiality information become orphans. A bit of manipulation and they could be joined to their parents I think. Page 31 as an example. So is page 19. You may only be up to shorten the whole thing by 56 pages – but I think it would be a good idea. 56 pages is, after all, 10%. If you can do more then so much the better
    • NewsBot
      Heineken £39m investment to reopen more than 60 closed UK pubs

      By NewsBot · Posted

      Investment by Dutch brewing giant will create 1,000 new jobs and reopen dozens of closed pubsView the full article
    • NewsBot
      Qantas 'ghost flights': Airline agrees payouts to settle lawsuit

      By NewsBot · Posted

      Qantas agrees to pay millions to settle lawsuit accusing it of selling tickets to cancelled flights.View the full article

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

smt37 vs Morgan Stanley/Goldfish/Barclaycard ** ORDER TO PRODUCE CCA CPR31.16 WIN ***

smt37

By smt37
in Debt Collection Agencies

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5174 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

the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
why do you not include within the CPR31.16 A FULL AND COMPLETE AUDIT TRAIL ?

 

I believe there is a danger if we attempt to move away from the already laid out templates and procedures that pt2537 has put forward in his thread that a judge could see it more of a fishing exercise rather than a precise strike to get the document we all hanker for.

 

The SAR is the place to request all other personal information and I believe to protect against costs and being turned down the CPR should be used only for a specific document you are seeking disclosure of.

 

Just my opinions though.

 

S.

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinions. These opinions are based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal or debt related training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 318
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

diddydicky

diddydicky

Posted
Posted
I believe there is a danger if we attempt to move away from the already laid out templates and procedures that pt2537 has put forward in his thread that a judge could see it more of a fishing exercise rather than a precise strike to get the document we all hanker for.

 

The SAR is the place to request all other personal information and I believe to protect against costs and being turned down the CPR should be used only for a specific document you are seeking disclosure of.

 

Just my opinions though.

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinions. These opinions are based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal or debt related training.

 

spot on- have t

Link to post
Share on other sites
patrickq1

patrickq1

Posted
Posted

yes i do aggree shadow but i cannot see why the audit trail should be excluded as this should give access to all screen prints including letters etc...and they have to accompany all this along with all documentation old and new it was just a thought

patrickq1

as it stands i think barclay s now have a bank full of barristors lol looking specificly at the request for cpr 31.16 and they must feel they have a get out of jail clause as we are seeing just recently

Link to post
Share on other sites
diddydicky

diddydicky

Posted
Posted
yes i do aggree shadow but i cannot see why the audit trail should be excluded as this should give access to all screen prints including letters etc...and they have to accompany all this along with all documentation old and new it was just a thought

patrickq1

as it stands i think barclay s now have a bank full of barristors lol looking specificly at the request for cpr 31.16 and they must feel they have a get out of jail clause as we are seeing just recently

 

i think people are getting these knock backs BECAUSE the requests ARE including more and more fishing requests as shadow says

 

basically want you want is the credit agreement, DN and termination notices

Link to post
Share on other sites
AA99

AA99

Posted
Posted
as it stands i think barclay s now have a bank full of barristors lol looking specificly at the request for cpr 31.16 and they must feel they have a get out of jail clause as we are seeing just recently

 

I've been thinking that (all night!) and wondered if there is anything else we should know:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
patrickq1

patrickq1

Posted
Posted

Disclosure statement

Standard disclosure requires a disclosure statement by the disclosing party in which he must include a certificate that to the best of his knowledge he has carried out his duty to search for, locate and disclose documents. This certificate is reinforced by CPR, rule 31.23 which says: 'Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false disclosure statement, without an honest belief in its truth'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
smt37

smt37

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Quick update on this: I sent a letter to the court explaining that Barclaycard had not complied with the Order and the Court replied to me this week saying:

 

"Your letter dated 6 June 2009 has been placed before the District Judge who directs that:-

 

It is not for the court to advise the claimant as to what steps he should take"...

 

I guess my only option is to stop paying and invite Barclaycard to try and enforce it using the wrong agreement...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlyboyAgain

FlyboyAgain

Posted
Posted

Y'know what I can't fathom about this trouble some Caggers are having re CPR31.16 This instrument, if you will, is not available under Scots Law, yet my Bank has furnished me with correctly laid out agreements and ones that are, possibly, unenforecable. But not without some prevarication, I might add. So why are you guys having such a problem when you seem to have a tool at your disposal.

 

Any idea why it's like this in England, or am I missing something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlyboyAgain

FlyboyAgain

Posted
Posted

 

I guess my only option is to stop paying and invite Barclaycard to try and enforce it using the wrong agreement...?

 

That's what I'd do, assuming you are confident the agreement is cak-handed. In my short experience with all this, I have found that they will eventually send you a copy of the correct agreement - assuming such exists - after only a little firm prodding; if the don't have it, they will dither, prevaricate and say that they will produce it in court.

 

Now why would they want to do that, eh? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlyboyAgain

FlyboyAgain

Posted
Posted

Also, I have had them stating, in writing, that I dispute the debt, which I am not! Be aware of this tactic if any of your are fighting HBoS. I have asked them to copy back to me the letter in which I deny liablilty. Stranegly, there has been no response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
smt37

smt37

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

FBA, you need to start from the beginning of the thread. I've already taken BC to court and they were ordered by the judge to produce a true copy of the original. They sent me an agreement which related to an old account which was settled and closed two years before I opened the one in dispute. Advice on here was to tell the court that they have not complied with the Court Order, suggesting contempt, which I did. The court replied by saying that they will not advise of my next steps. Seems they don't care that BC produced another incorrect agreement. They clearly don't have it, so I think I can easily just stop paying and wait for them to react or I can seek an injunction.

 

I would rather seek an injunction as this is what the judge hinted at during the hearing.

 

PT/anyone else familiar with the injunction route - please can you help?

Edited by smt37
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
FlyboyAgain

FlyboyAgain

Posted
Posted

Apologies, but you know what it's like, picking up on a thread one hasn't visited for a while.

 

I guess you want to use the injuction to force them to supply the correct agreement? I'd just stop paying them until they do. Why waste more of your time with court procedures?

Link to post
Share on other sites
diddydicky

diddydicky

Posted
Posted
Y'know what I can't fathom about this trouble some Caggers are having re CPR31.16 This instrument, if you will, is not available under Scots Law, yet my Bank has furnished me with correctly laid out agreements and ones that are, possibly, unenforecable. But not without some prevarication, I might add. So why are you guys having such a problem when you seem to have a tool at your disposal.

 

Any idea why it's like this in England, or am I missing something else?

 

is it cos we's white!

Link to post
Share on other sites
smt37

smt37

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Apologies, but you know what it's like, picking up on a thread one hasn't visited for a while.

 

I guess you want to use the injuction to force them to supply the correct agreement? I'd just stop paying them until they do. Why waste more of your time with court procedures?

 

I want an injunction against them ever trying to enforce the debt, then I don't have to wait six years for it to disappear. This is what the judge asked me if I was trying to do and I agreed - then she granted the order.

 

I can't risk getting a CCJ - I will lose my job.

Link to post
Share on other sites
slick132

slick132

Posted
Posted

Hi Smt,

 

I've again asked for help in getting the final stage of your case sorted.

 

It's important, not only to you, but to all who have followed your thread here and the CPR thread.

 

:)

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 OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
FlyboyAgain

FlyboyAgain

Posted
Posted
I want an injunction against them ever trying to enforce the debt, then I don't have to wait six years for it to disappear. This is what the judge asked me if I was trying to do and I agreed - then she granted the order.

 

I can't risk getting a CCJ - I will lose my job.

 

You will lose you job over a CCJ?

 

It looks as if you have all the cards, though. Go for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
smt37

smt37

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm registered with 'a certain' regulator, and a CCJ would probably mean that I would lose it - and could not continue in my current employment.

 

If I start the injunction, then the worst case is that the judge could order me to pay costs. If I stopped paying and BC got an enforcement order with an agreement which is illegible and the wrong one anyway (not unheard of), then I would get a CCJ. It's a huge risk for me to take, so the injunction seems the way to go!

Link to post
Share on other sites
angel_1

angel_1

Posted
Posted
The whole basis of the system not recording a ccj for 30 days after it is awarded is to allow people to dispute debts -so IF you have the funds to pay within 30 days of a ccj being awarded if you lose the case then it is not recorded

 

 

hiya just nipping in , so do you mean that after a ccj is awarded say but you do manage to pay it all off within the 30days, and even the full costs if awarded then the ccj wouldnt show, ?

 

sorry late for me so im off to bed incase i drop any more not so smart questions;)

 

 

laters have a sunny day all tomorrow angel x

Im happy to help with support and my own thoughts, but if I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action.:)

 

my new motto is,,,",Taking back control of your life and home - such peace is priceless"

 

This is all due to truecall device , have a serious peek at this you will be thankful like I am x laters angel :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
diddydicky

diddydicky

Posted
Posted
hiya just nipping in , so do you mean that after a ccj is awarded say but you do manage to pay it all off within the 30days, and even the full costs if awarded then the ccj wouldnt show, ?

 

sorry late for me so im off to bed incase i drop any more not so smart questions;)

 

 

laters have a sunny day all tomorrow angel x

 

correct

Link to post
Share on other sites
militantconsumer

militantconsumer

Posted
Posted
The whole basis of the system not recording a ccj for 30 days after it is awarded is to allow people to dispute debts -so IF you have the funds to pay within 30 days of a ccj being awarded if you lose the case then it is not recorded

 

If it works the same way as for a company, then in fact the CCJ is immediately recorded on the register.

 

If you pay within 28 days then it is cancelled and all trace disappears.

 

If you take longer than 28 days to pay then it can still show as "satisfied" but the a record of the CCJ will remain for 6 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...