Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
    • No the first LBA was delivered by royal mail, but I responded by email, sorry if I didn't make that clear.   I look at redacting the emails tomorrow, got to get some sleep now.   Thanks
    • ok well that changes things alot. you've accepted one before by email  and now they are doing it again ..   might have shot yourself in the foot until now lets get some 1st aid done.   gonna be a pain to redact but i'm gonna need to see all the emails in/out please in ONE MULTIPAGE PDF from/inc  date of their last PAPLOC   redact them properly !! read our upload guide carefully   you may  think this is immaterial, but its not, esp important is their and your exact wording
    • OK I've looked back at my emails and it appears I've been dealing with shoosmiths since the start of 2019 when they sent a LBA that I'd totally forgot about.   I replied that I didn't recognise the debt and we got into a big letter tennis over the facts.   They then went quiet and then contacted me again in April 2020 asking for income and expenditure details to work out a payment plan with them.   After I responded with my covid comments they went quiet again.   And now they are back with another LBA and I haven't responded to that.   Hope that clears it up. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Re: Help Please Re: CCJ From Northampton CCBC


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4260 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dont see any anything there on how and when you would pay, no rates etc., is that it, just the one page? No T&C?

I assume you filed your AQ?

DG:)

Ok seems the letter crossed over with my post.

I have no legal training my knowledge comes from my personal life experiences

Please help keep the forum alive by making a donation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the default notice a true default notice as sometimes they aren't correct.

Have you checked that all dates tally sometimes they cock up on that. Thats what I found on mine they had cocked up big time with dates and couldn't prove it.

Reading through you seem as if you were in a similar situation to me and I truely hope the outcome comes out like mine and is struck out, lets hope so.

DG:)

I have no legal training my knowledge comes from my personal life experiences

Please help keep the forum alive by making a donation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats another thing you've got going for you they state in their letter that they have sent a copy of the default notice er what default notice.

Sorry this is a quick reply but I've got to go for an interview of a job been for 4 not got 4 so hope I have more luck this time.

Will come back to you soon.

DG:)

I have no legal training my knowledge comes from my personal life experiences

Please help keep the forum alive by making a donation

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the original t&c’s are a separate document and the application was approved pre April 2007 then they fail under s127 (3) of the CCA 1974 and the agreement would be unenforceable – clearly this is an application form.

I bet they would settle for that amount as well – they probably paid peanuts for it in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest you email the court (this will be the local one) or phone them (if they don’t have an email address) for a status update on this case.

It might be that Cohens haven’t filed an AQ yet and will need pushing by the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken to a lady called Rebecca at the court today. she confirmed the Claimant had filed their AQ & asked when mine was filed. I advised her it was in March. She said I have to wait now until the two AQ's are married up.

 

Thing is I had a letter from the court 2 weeks ago to say if the claimant had not submitted their AQ by 13 May, then the case would either be stayed ot struck out.

 

What Cohens have done is filed their AQ in the 11th hour and sent me the letter asking me to settle.

 

I'm thinking they have realised the supposed 'agreement' which is dated 2004, is insufficient and trying to get me to agree before the court looks at the case.

 

Thing is they have provided pages of statements and I'm a bit concerned the judge may rule in their favour.

 

I'm going to attach the supposed DN, which I have now found. I missed it cause it's from Mercers Monkeys.

 

scan0003-2.jpg

 

scan0004-2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Well thank you again peeps - It looks like this one is going to be stayed.

 

I did what Atwozee suggested in getting them to provide the proof in court.

 

court have written to me to ask if I have received the documents I requested and I have sent a reply back to say they have not complied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...