Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. 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 simply contracted by the landowner 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. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

j-dub vs Egg card


j-dub
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4958 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 J-dub.

 

That would be very helpful if yoy could let me know the other lines of defence. I will up date you on any progress i make. I cant find any threads where someone has been to court with Egg , have you seen any. I would like to know if the aproved limit error has been tested.

 

Maybe we are the first. Drydens seem very bullish.

Hi Ronlook at PTs thread 'egg card agreements and what i think is wrong with them'
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hey J-Dub

 

I'd be interested to know who the companies are that are dealing with the legals for you. My pre 1999 Egg card has just been passed onto to Cabot.

 

Cheers

Support this great site where free invaluable advice is provided.

I've saved £1000's because of this site...so could you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Way-hey! Got a letter today from my Solicitor and Drydens have told him that they wish to fast track the case to make it lower on court costs, but that they accept that the court is going to find that the agreement is unenforceable and they're not going to contest that! :) My solicitor has told them that he DOESN'T want it fast-tracking, as if we go down that route, we can't get them to pay for removing the CCJ they have against me, and it also severely limits the legal costs we can claim back from Egg/Drydens which we don't want to do as it'd mean that I'd probably be out of pocket once we'd got the CCJ removed...

 

Anyway, it's good news... next court date is the 22nd December, so I'll update after that... :):D:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi J-dub.

 

It all sounds very promising.

 

Why don't Drydens just drop the case if they know its unenforcable ?

 

I have been dealing with them recently and they are far from stupid.

 

How much will it cost to remove the CCJ , I would think it would be a fairly small sum for admin charges.

 

My solicitor was going to fight them on a technicality which would have got it thrown out , but they could have corrected the mistake and filed a new claim straight away. The costs my solicitor was talking about was in the region of 6K for him , lord only knows what Drydens would have charged if we lost.

 

Can your solicitor get insurance to cover costs in the event you loose ? Its worth considering if he can. It also means an insuran underwriter has looked at your case and feels its winable ( no guareentee ).

 

I have read dozens of threads on here and I think what appears to be a straight forward case can be lost in court if the court is sympathetic to banks / financial institutions.

 

There are many cases on here where the banks have won even where there is no CCA ! Which is totally wrong , but if the judge feels that way then it can happen.

 

I dont mean to be negative , but realistic. Has your solicitor advised of the fees involved if you dont win ?

 

I have searched and searched and only found one mention of people winning with approved limit angle. That was PT who says he has won 5 cases. The should be a test case soon which should be before December , lets hope that goes well.

 

Cheers Ron

Debts settled £135K

discount so far £68K :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Ron,

 

I have insurance (now for all three of my card claims!) which has been sorted out by my solicitor, and all three claims have been looked at by barristers and a retired judge who all agree with my solicitors arguments against the cards (different for each card)... The cost to me if we don't win is the balance on the card, and that's it... :)

 

I have details of another case which was won against Egg with exactly the arguments we're using including case names and reference numbers which will be mentioned in my case.

 

From what I understand, we're now taking Drydens to court to get the original CCJ overturned... I'll post more details up when I have them and fully understand them in case they will help anyone else...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Great.

 

I understand now. Egg/Drydens have already registered a CCJ against you and now you are getting it removed. Well done.

 

As you say the insurance will pay for everything so you can rest easy that if you get a couirt that favours banks you will only owe the balance on the cards.

 

If you have case names and numbers it would be very useful for me.

 

I have agreed verbally to settle with Egg, but I have not signed anything yet or paid any money. If you dont want to post them up here you could private message them to me.

 

Also the name and number of your solicitor would be good , does he need more work. If you dont want to post up here I will pm my number to you to pass to your solicitor if he wants some more work.

 

Your Egg agreement looks identical to mine and all the others on here.

 

Good luck for the 22nd.

 

Cheers Ron

Debts settled £135K

discount so far £68K :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Ron,

 

I have insurance (now for all three of my card claims!) which has been sorted out by my solicitor, and all three claims have been looked at by barristers and a retired judge who all agree with my solicitors arguments against the cards (different for each card)... The cost to me if we don't win is the balance on the card, and that's it... :)

 

I have details of another case which was won against Egg with exactly the arguments we're using including case names and reference numbers which will be mentioned in my case.

 

From what I understand, we're now taking Drydens to court to get the original CCJ overturned... I'll post more details up when I have them and fully understand them in case they will help anyone else...

nice one j-dub a weight of your mind and hope to others .
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 6 months later...

Well, there's been a lot of changes in the law since I started this thread, so time for an update...

 

The company I was dealing with has shut down due to the court decisions late last year/early this year meaning that their business model no longer worked... They were a subsidiary of a large Manchester based firm of Solicitors, so I do have some comeback, but I've never paid them a penny, so haven't lost out, unlike those unfortunate enough to have tried this with Cartell...

 

An agreement identical to mine above has been found to be unenforceable by the local courts, but Egg then passed it onto a higher court whose judge (in his infinite wisdom :-x ) sided with Egg, meaning that, although the original court judgement was very critical of Egg and their agreement, it's now become an enforceable agreement again...:mad2:

 

I don't have the exact case notes etc to hand at the moment, but I do have a full breakdown from my solicitor which I'll post up notes from during the week...

 

Basically, unless my solicitor and the barrister for the case that went to court can come up with something interesting to argue with, it's looking like I'm going to have to pay this lot back...:|

 

I'll update with info about the case that went to court during the week and with any other info I get....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...