Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If that was the reason then that is good news. The whole reason that being able to charge £100 for breaching private car park rules is because the law Lords decided in a celebrated case that the rogues had a legitimate interest in keeping their car park spaces available for all motorists . {parking Eye v Beavis]. However when the business is closed then there is no legitimate interest in keeping spaces free so to charge £100 is a penalty. As such any Court would automatically throw out the case when the penalty charge is accepted.
    • gives them a feeling of grandeur. dx  
    • yep they can be a bit like the TV licencing lot. for 4yrs ive been getting a series of about 8-10 diff letters that just go round a loop. currently upto 61
    • thread tidied. new thread for the court claim is here  
    • new thread created for this claimform please post here now for anything to do with it now . 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.  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 CCA Request running to the claimant . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/ .. Leave the £1 PO unsigned and uncrossed . get a CPR  31:14  request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] ... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . .use our other CPR letter if the claim is for an OD or Telecom Debt or Util debt]  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ on BOTH type your name ONLY Do Not sign anything .do not ever use or give an email . you DO NOT await the return of ANY paperwork  you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count] ..............  
  • 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

next directory ppi/ppp


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4954 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 pawnbroker

just got back from abroad and yes very little help on here but will fight on.

i will help u as much as i can but i have very little experiance. You can have my poc with pleasure and i will tell u what i think.

anyway rang court today and got, told still no defence.

thursday applying for judgement.

no doubt they will apply to have it set aside, be interesting to see on what grounds, because in their recent letter they said that back 1991 they automatically added ppp without permission. And I got that in writing

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm in the same boat with Next. Will be looking at this one after my battles with MBNA, HSBC and Egg!

 

I would be interested in seeing your Prelim, LBa and POCs.

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok see today wether they have defended or not, rang the court yesterday to see wether I needed to allow for post, they said no, that they have allowed for post, and that if no reply was forth coming today, apply for judgement.

which I will do as soon as court opens tomorrow, no doubt thats when it gets interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi pawnbroker

just got back from abroad and yes very little help on here but will fight on.

i will help u as much as i can but i have very little experiance. You can have my poc with pleasure and i will tell u what i think.

anyway rang court today and got, told still no defence.

thursday applying for judgement.

no doubt they will apply to have it set aside, be interesting to see on what grounds, because in their recent letter they said that back 1991 they automatically added ppp without permission. And I got that in writing

 

My acct opened 2000 and letter says you opted in, by not saying NO,

must send them an invoice every week and tell them they opted in.

 

waiting to see what result yu get at court, but remember solicitors always get things set aside, for reasons you and i would be laughed out of court for, so until judgement day -dont hold your breath that its over.

 

meantime good luck, and await update - pb

Link to post
Share on other sites

as i said before be interesting to see what grounds, they want to set it aside with. they have stated that they automatically put the ppp on so they cannot defend that, I also asked if they had permission to consult

cra s they cannot defend that so should be interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites

okjust got back,

rung court today who said that next have notified the court to say they are going to defend snd they have a further 14 days to lodge there defence.

I feel an offer coming my way, any way we shall see

Link to post
Share on other sites

well saying they will defend is normal par for any claim, so nothing new there. i would also expect them to actually file a defence - in the normal way, saying everything in your poc is basically a load of tosh, and asking to dismiss the claim. but that too is predictable, ill be keen to see what these beggars actually do do - await report and tks sg, very very helpful for all of us lining up to go the same way - pb

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

right ok,

28 days ran out wed 24th march but believe it or not the court were on strike. so i went to court anyway yesterday and they had not opened post from previuos day at that point.so i took advice from one of the court clarks and applied for judgement,hoping that they didnt file defence.i think that if they didnt file, it would be difficult for next to set aside because on the 14th day they informed the court that they were going to defend in full which gave them 14 more days. so the judge will no they new about it. anyway will ring court today and find out if they did sneak a defence in in time:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

interestingly i rang first assist today, they are the administrators for claims for ppp, which is was insured by nextthemselves. First assist told me that any body who took out the policy had to be in full time employment. In the letter we recieved the other day from next it said that the insurance was added automatically. So how did they no wether you have a job or not.

pb you seem to be the only person reading this what do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont quite understand first assist bit SG, i have not got that far with next, they just said they dont want to play, so you have far more info than i do - expand who and what they are and how they are involved - i am at presnt a bit mistified by their involvement. - are you suggesting that next carried their own risk on these insurances, because thats what i have inferred in my last letter to them, as they have not supplied insurance details, and they have employed first assist to settle these problems for them?? am i getting warm - pb

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes spot on,first assist told me that they only sort out the claims for them next are the insurers.

 

Thats what i thought when they didnt send any insurance detail, greedy b---stds, didnt even want to give a bit of the gravy to a broker.

 

still it does explain there rather inept attitude to claims handling, they think they know it all - well theres a hard lesson for them to learn and your what else should cheer us up, it will come out of the profits, not an insurance comp.

 

would be very pleased to chuck in my assistance wherever i can, just need more info.

 

Well if thats the fact then first assist are a firm of solicitors working for a pay check, nothing for them to loose - so that cannot make it harder, because, we actually know our rights, and these solicitors, will only know what NEXT tell them - let me know asap - thanks for input you have helped me and im sure somewhere along the way a lot of other Next "ripped off" customers - cheers - pb

Link to post
Share on other sites

well now as my part 18 request, i will ask for a recording of todays conversation which i timed, when they state you have to be employed to have this insurance.my mrs hasnt been employed since 1988. i am sure they will like that

Link to post
Share on other sites

none of that should be neccessary, you cant sell anythiong to anyone by saying were gonna charge you for this if you dont say NNOOOOOO -

 

premise - someone is slipped a mickey fin - their unconscious, salesman comes in - im charging you 1% of your wealth until you die.

-

thats not legal doesnt matter which way anyone wants to cook it up -

doesnt matter how long ago - you didnt agree - you were unaware of what it was -

 

in your innocense and trust in "next" you paid whatever they put before you -

 

they abused that trust - underlined by the fact they didnt even bother to go to an insurer to cover the

.potential losses - they knew there wouldnt be any.

so the greedy pigs, took you to the cleaners and now they have to repay plus the debited interest taken, plus restitution interest - yeah matey -

im with you - pb

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am trying to get the same interest that they charged me-it worked with mbna so hopefully it will work with next.

i am waiting for this reched defence that will make it clearer.

are you legally trained?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...