Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
  • 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

1st credit


rooferboy03
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5579 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 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi all

Papers have been sworn in so i guess it's a waiting game to wait for a set aside hearing date.

Since receiving the SD !st credit kept ringing me constantly for about 10 days but they have not now phoned for at least a week. Do you think they were waiting to see if i would apply for a set aside or just hoping that i would'nt so they could then petition me for bankruptcy.

Any thoughts much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give the court a call every week RB, to check when the hearing will be....and don't forget to do your research, and submit costs in 24 hours before the hearing !!.....if you do happen to pick the phone up by accident to them, and they ask about the SD, just say that you will allow them to discontinue if they pay your costs !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they might write to you seeing that you have solid grounds to set aside and lose their bottle !! But if the judge goes ahead with a hearing, then if it was me i'd ignore what 1st Credit say (unless they commit to paying your costs) and appear in court to show the judge how disgusted I was at them abusing the insolvency service !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a clear abuse of the insolvency process if the debt is disputed to issue a stat demand

 

they know this is the case and yet they still issue them

 

i bet the person named on the demand is not contactable as well which goes against Rule 6.2 Insolvency rules 1986

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Paul....you try and ring Mr Silcock and you will never get through....

 

statutory demand must show a named person or persons from the Creditor or their agent/solicitor whom you can contact directly. This is Rule 6.2 of The insolvency Rules 1986.

This means that if the statutory demand doesn't give the name of a person you can speak to then it is not valid. If you try to contact the named person and they won’t put you through then it is also invalid

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the judge I have in my set aside, not understand anything, should I have taken my complaint further, as my debt was clearly in dispute and she wouldn't listen to me. Just to warn Rooferboy that not every court awards costs and not all judges will award the costs???? But ask anyway...........:):)

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Remember to get your costs into the court 24 hours before the hearing either by fax or guranteed delivery sent 48 hours pervious...

 

Use a sheet of paper entitled LITIGANT IN PERSON COSTS

 

Or use this sheet kindly provided by X20 BUT edit it to say LITIGANT IN PERSON COSTS

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/156641-capquest-statutory-demand-help-4.html

 

You can claim £9.25 per hour (for example 10 hours of research into the Consumer Credit Act and Insolvency Act

Mileage at 40p per mile

Parking

Postage

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All

I am a bit dismayed about the outcome of my set aside hearing as it did not go well.

The Judge dismissed my case entirely basicall saying you owe it you pay it.

He was not interested in any points of law or anything else i had to say.

He did however produce paperwork from the other side that they downloaded from this site, specifically information given out by 42man.

He then said that all i had done was copied my affidavit from the internet and he was not impressed.

I told him that i did seek help from the forum and that my affidavit was my own creation from my research into the site.

They have still not produced a cca, but does this really matter now as it seems they have been given the green light by the judge to do what ever they like.

At this time i am very dispondent and am just waiting to see what evil trickery they come up with next

Thanks RB

Link to post
Share on other sites

County court judges should abide by HIGH COURT case law... -

 

THE WILSON CASE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IN THE EVENT OF NO ACCEPTABLE CONSUMER CREDIT AGREEMENT THEN THE CREDITOR COULD NOT RECOVER MONIES OWED UNDER ORDINARY CONTRACT LAW REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY COULD PROVE THE DEBT EXISTED OR NOT – THIS WAS THE DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE BINDING IN THIS COURT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it sounds incredible does'nt it.

I even stated about the way in which they served the SD and his reply was it doen'nt matter how they served it the fact is they have.

He said i had no grounds to show that the sd should be set aside.

I am obviously now just waiting for the leeches to make their next move and see what happens RB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Rooferboy, my judge was awful too, completely believed the other side, and wouldn't let me put my side.

As in criminal courts, can we not appeal a decision, or go to a higher court???? Just an idea, as this happens in the criminal courts, they appeal it if they don't like the decision.....

I am really annoyed for rooferboy, and it just reminds me of my own case.

 

Lily

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I would suggest reporting to the OFT...it is staggering enough that this was not set aside, but one other cagger had the same experience and is NOT happy...but is seeing it through... - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/170237-citifinancial-1st-credit-sd.html?highlight=digitalburnout

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...