Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
  • 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

Locked in car park


Patma
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4570 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

They haven't been listed as claimants. Is it possible for someone to be a hidden claimant? Surley not.:eek:

It might be worth asking Royal and Sun Alliance if they are joint claimants. If they're not, then I don't see how the £968.60 can be included in the claim (even if the repair/replacement cost as much as Plymouth College of Art say) because Plymouth College of Art have already been paid it by Royal and Sun Alliance

Edited by bedlington83
SEO
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

They have to stand by their statements of truth signed by them, they sent them to the court, if they have lied, then the rest is a lie, Lord Woolf

Let Lyons Davidson put that in their pipe and smoke it.:D

Edited by Patma
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be worth asking R&SA if they are joint claimants. If they're not, then I don't see how the £968.60 can be included in the claim (even if the repair/replacement cost as much as PCAD say) because PCAD have already been paid it by R&SA
I fail to see how they can claim for the policy excess and the cost of the claim.

 

How much money was paid by the college, and to whom.

 

How much money was paid by the insurers, and to whom.

 

If the college was required to pay an £2,500 excess, that would cover the cost of the repair in its entirety, surely. It's a case of paying the greater of the two amounts, not both of them.

 

(I realise that this has probably already been asked, so my apoligies in advance).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is just to show that Lyons Davidson are anwerable to a higher authority and that higher authority will now be receiving an update , detailing the new false claims made with a statement of truth.....oops:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a fascinating thread. However, it would appear that maybe you have cornered a couple of wild animals and given them no option but to fight to the death. OK so you rightly want the police caution quashed but what other outcomes do you see. The sacking on the College principle, the striking off of their solicitors etc.

I do sincerely hope you guys win but I do think that by progressing things to court that the College may have a trick or two up their sleeves.

Just out of interest have you offered to settle out of court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am struck by the desperation of the en forces here. I wonder if, at the end, it will transpire that someone reached a point of no return and decided that the risk of continuing was less than the risk of giving up.

 

Solicitors are like prostitutes - they will do whatever their client wants as long as the money is there - but I suspect that someone at PCAD is very, very worried.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Solicitors are like prostitutes - they will do whatever their client wants as long as the money is there"

 

And no doubt there could be some debate on which gives the better value for money. I suppose if prostitution were to be legalised it would be interesting to hear some of the claims under SOGA.

 

Maybe a thread for another occasion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW, I'm sunned.

 

Pulls up a seat and opens the popcorn.

 

I can't wait to see what TLD has planned now :D

TLD is incommunicado just now. If I were Plymouth College of Art and Lyons Davidson that would get me VERY WORRIED:eek::D

He's more dangerous when he's quiet:eek:

Edited by Patma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Patma,

 

With the current situation, you may want to start keeping everything behind the sceens.

 

Looks like Lyons are keeping a sharp eye here.

 

Jogs

Wise words, thanks Havinastella. In fact there's more going on behind the scenes at the moment than can be revealed openly just now, but all will be revealed as soon as it's safe to do so. That's a CAG promise:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

TLD is incommunicado just now. If I were PCAD and Lyons Davidson that would get me VERY WORRIED:eek::D

He's more dangerous when he's quiet:eek:

 

Yeah sorry TLD had a very unexpected visit from some old friends so has been 'entertaining' with one eye on the screen for updates. I'm sure he'll have some words of confort for Fred in the morning.

 

That is if he can stop laughing long enough to sit down and type them out.

 

I'm sorry but this has got 'DESPERATION' writ all over in capital letters.

 

There are some very fundamental errors in their clever strategy which I shall bring to the attention of Patma in the morning.

 

Suffice to say the allegations of 'extortion' which are being dealt with by one of the highest ranking Police Officers in the Devon and Cornwall district have effectively been substantiated with this latest attempt.

 

They have repeated certain errors this time the possible benefit of being able to plead such claims were made 'unknowingly' cannoy be pleaded, and they've opened themselves up to a whole new line of defence or more accurately attack from Fred.

 

Whoever is responsible for this little brainwave........ well I can't possibly say what I think on a Public forum but I think many of you got there before me.

 

Geoff 1248 You ask if Fred has considered making an offer to settle out of court.

 

I'm sorry but Fred would have to be mad in the head not to want this to run its course now, he can get far more out the claimant by permitting them to continue their claim.

Why should Fred offer to settle when he has done nothing wrong and can prove so many of the allegations against him are unfounded or simply vexatious? Fred did however jvery recently offer the claimant the opportunity to withdraw gracefully, they rebuked the offer without so much as a 'no thank you'.

 

I note the claimant would like to go against the formal agreement struck between the court and both parties and introduce the caution as proof of liability.

Imagine how embarrassing it might be if having based their case upon this caution they subsequently reach Court and find no such caution exists?8)

 

Fred has particularly good grounds for the caution to be expunged, introducing it to the civil claim constitutes sufficient grounds to stay proceedings pending a Police investigation.

The initial grounds for expunging surrounded one breach of procedure, Fred has subsequently discovered a further three breaches and we have provided case law direct from the DPP that just one breach of this type is sufficient for a caution to be expunged.

 

I can see Fred making an application to the Court himself before the week is out. :wink:

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Geoff 1248 You ask if Fred has considered making an offer to settle out of court.

 

I'm sorry but Fred would have to be mad in the head not to want this to run its course now, he can get far more out the claimant by permitting them to continue their claim.

Why should Fred offer to settle when he has done nothing wrong and can prove so many of the allegations against him are unfounded or simply vexatious? Fred did however jvery recently offer the claimant the opportunity to withdraw gracefully, they rebuked the offer without so much as a 'no thank you'."

 

So Fred did make some sort of offer to try and bring this to a conclusion. What I cannot get my head around is just what is spurring the College on to continue with this. Each day more evidence is coming out which, as a layman, would indicate that they are going to get slaughtered once this gets to court. Surely they must realise the consequence if they lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I cannot get my head around is just what is spurring the College on to continue with this. Each day more evidence is coming out which, as a layman, would indicate that they are going to get slaughtered once this gets to court. Surely they must realise the consequence if they lose.

 

Arrogance! Look through other threads where legal action has been taken (especially the banks because they are probably the worst for it) The opinion is 'we're a big company/organisation with insurers and solicitors, you're one person.. on your own... without the know-how or experience to stand against us... If you dont do as we say we will bully and threaten you until you do and no one will do or say anything to stop us because .... well because we are who we are'

 

Until CAG... and all of a sudden Joe Bloggs on the street is being empowered with information and support that gives him the know-how and experience of others in his position. With people like TLD and JC who have the legal knowledge so that all of a sudden we are able to comfortably enter the litigation arena without feeling intimidated. The banks are starting to catch on (look how quickly some of them back off now as soon as you ask for a CCA) but the news doesnt seem to have reached this college yet.

If you find my post helpful please click on the scales at the top. Thank you

FAQ SECTION HERE

 

Halifax Bank Claim filed and settled

Halifax Credit Card settled

Argos Store Card settled

 

CCA requests sent to

Halifax Credit Card

LLoyds TSB Credit Card

Capital One

Moorcroft (Argos)

NDR

18/06/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knowledge is power.

 

Having read this thread, I am still not clear what the £2,500 excess claim is all about.

 

I insure my car with £250 excess.This means that I have to pay the first £250 of any claim.

 

The college alledge the repair bill is £968, so would have to pay this themselves as it is a great deal less than £2,500. So why is someone claiming £2,500 as well as the repair costs. Was this money paid out to someone, and if so why?

 

If the £2,500 is not an excess, but a loss of a type of no claims bonus, the college would have a duty to keep costs down, i.e pay the £968 out of their own pocket and pursue Fred for this sum.

 

Good luck to Fred. CAG is fast becoming a major player in consumer rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4570 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...