Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Hi everyone, out of the blue my husband yesterday received a call from the employee who lost the key the first time and asked to settle the bill plus court costs. Apparently the boss said that if he didn't pay he would be sacked. My husband asked for this in writing, got it and payment followed. So we discontinued the claim and marked as settled. Apparently the employee who lost the keys the second time is paying for the other carpenter's bill plus court fees because he'd started court proceedings as well. So, all is solved. Thanks everyone! -
With thanks. Updated defence. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Halifax PLC part of the Lloyds Group of Companies but do not recognise the specific account number referred to by Claimant and on which its claim relies. To enable clarification a sec78 request pursuant to the CCA1974 was made dated 11 May 2024. The Claimant provided various documents which appear to be incomplete with page numbers missing and incomplete Terms and Conditions. If this is a copy of the original agreement it appears to be unexecuted by the original creditor. 2. Paragraph 2 is noted. I do not recall receipt of a Default Notice which the Claimant refers to within its Particulars of Claim and on which its claim relies. A CPR 31.14 request was made dated 11 May 2024. To date the Claimant has not provided a copy. 3. Paragraph 3 is noted. Although I had not recalled a copy of the Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) I requested a further copy from the claimant which has since been provided in response to the CPR 31.14 request dated 11 May 2024. 4. Paragraph 4 is noted. It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. (b) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice Pursuant to s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 5. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief. -
By unclebulgaria67 · Posted
"Testing the stability" ? I suspect the Tesla Map would have picked up that the car was being driven in a car park and the default safety settings required a shut down. Reassuring that Tesla have public safety built in, to try to stop drivers driving in a way that may be risky. -
-
A friends Tesla shut down for 10 minutes after he was 'testing the stability' in a car park and the info screen reported to him that the vehicle would shut down as it was been driven 'in a dangerous manner' or something similar. He had to sit and wait for it to start again.
-
-
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
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 5271 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts