Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So to sum up. 1.  You & your friend did the right thing on 28 December and are in the right legally. 2.  You are in the early stages of the threatening letter cycle.  We've seen these letters quite literally over 10,000 times.  For the moment your friend has nothing to worry about. 3.  No-one will turn up at your friend's door. 4.  If months down the line this got to court, you would win.  It's blatant disability discrimination.  Some time back I looked through the results of Excel v Caggers court cases, well we won 85% of the time, and you would be 100& certain to win. But this is the bit that you won't like ... 5.  Excel don't care that they are legally in the wrong.  They want your money.  They will go on and on with their letters hoping you'll give in. 6.  They are also the most litigious of the private parking companies and it's perfectly possible, months hence, that they will take your friend to court.  You have to be prepared for this.  They would lose.  But they don't care about the losses since, sadly, presumably so many people are afraid of court and so give in and pay.  7.  We will of course support you all the way!
    • Hi, Just updating that I'll be submitting the SJPN shortly this evening electronically.
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • thank you ftmdave . they sound like tthe lowest of the low ticketing the taxi driver - surprised about that😯 and utterly stupid. would they take into consideration that we take longer than normal on another appeal as i did say that in the original one (that i done for my friend) and (i think it was the isa) they rejected the explanation?
    • thanks, that's what i'm thinkning although heart will be pumping when I get off the plane! Lawyer in dubai says nothing against me and also confirms very rare for bounced security cheques to be raised and escalated to police case unless massive, criminal or corporate.  
  • 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

Sandra v the YB **SETTLED**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6404 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 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I understand entirely Sandra, and for any other bank I would agree entirely with Tink. The defence is not a problem, and if it is the usual one then it is a pretty poor one. Denials and little more. For me it is also a matter of principle to get every last penny to make up in some small part for the worry they put us through, but you must do as you see fit. Perhaps think about it for a day or two, but if you are happy with it I am pleased for you.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this really gives me hope that an offer for me must be close.

 

My date on the mcol acknowledgement is 17 October, so they have 28 days from then. In my reckoning that gives them till the 14th November to reply.

 

12 days to go.....

Yorkshire Bank Plc £3553.77 Prelim letter sent 14/9/06 LBA sent 22/9/06, MCOL Sent 10/10/06 MCOL Notice of Issue Rcvd 12/10/06, MCOL Acknowledged 17/10/06, £929.00 Offer Rcvd, 03/11/06 - Rejected, 09/11/06 YB Defended, 10/11/06 Transferred to Local Court, AQ Returned;) 30/11/06 Copy of Banks AQ Received, 1 month extra asked for by Clydesdale, 09/01/07 £2140.00 Offer Rcvd, 09/01/07 - Rejected, 11/11/07 Allocation To Small Claims Track, Court Date Set - 05/03/07, 15/01/07 £2590.00 Offer Rcvd, 15/11/07 - Rejected, 07/02/07 £3773.77 Offer Rcvd (FULL), 12/02/07 - Accepted, 21/02/07 - Chq Received for FULL AMOUNT. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...