Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • 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

Carmel Butler / House of Commons


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3340 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

I think Supersleuth is taking a sabbatical..all will unfold in due course.

 

Anyone have an update on the above ?

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 427
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The “Judge” actually declared more than 5 times that he had not had chance to read my defence but chose to strike it out.

 

Would not that be grounds for Appeal ? Was this a Summary Judgment hearing ?

 

The test under CPR 24.2 (Summary Judgment) is whether the prospects of success is realistic rather than fanciful; the court should consider the evidence which can reasonably be expected to be available at trial - or the lack of it: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond [2001] EWCA Civ 550;

 

The duty of a judge hearing such an application is to assess the prospects of success of the relevant party, the criterion being not one of probability but the absence of reality: Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.3) [2001] UKHL 16 per Lord Hope.

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not that be grounds for Appeal ? Was this a Summary Judgment hearing ?

 

The test under CPR 24.2 (Summary Judgment) is whether the prospects of success is realistic rather than fanciful; the court should consider the evidence which can reasonably be expected to be available at trial - or the lack of it: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond [2001] EWCA Civ 550;

 

The duty of a judge hearing such an application is to assess the prospects of success of the relevant party, the criterion being not one of probability but the absence of reality: Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.3) [2001] UKHL 16 per Lord Hope.

 

No it is a possession application and they applied to strike my defence which the judge gave them.

 

I don't have the money for appeals and in any event don't know how to do them. Now I have been told that because my defence has been struck out I have no say in the hearing for possession, I can only speak if possession is granted and that is to ask for time!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone does know of a firm of Solicitors who have a back bone then please post their details on here.

 

Have you tried contacting the Site Team ? I know they've recommended some good lawyers to other Caggers all be it for CCA 1974 issues.

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now when I try to get a “solicitor” or barrister to look at my case (even a barrister who was recommended to my by someone on this thread!) they are not interested.

 

 

If that was me LD, then I'm sorry, when I spoke of the possible introduction he did say he can't guarantee taking anything on but will treat it everything on its merits from anyone. He won't discuss anyone else's claim with me of course so I'll never know why he wouldn't take, all I can say is he worked wonders for me. Anyway, one mans loss is anothers good fortune so we must press on with what you have and make it work for you. Good luck anyway, we tried..

 

SC

Link to post
Share on other sites

he worked wonders for me.

SC

 

Hi Smarterchick, may I enquire - were your successes in relation to a mortgage issue ?

 

By the way, I'm sure Lloyds Defender didn't mean any ingratitude to your kind help, I imagine the stress and frustration LD must be going thru' is terrible. I hope the site team can recommend someone who could act for him / her.

 

Also good luck in your appeal.

Edited by shakespeare62

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smarterchick,

I am very grateful for all the help I have had from this site. Your assistance is very much appreciated. I was having a go at the legal profession because its one of economics and fast bucks as apposed to helping people and they appear to all stick together.

 

Please accept my apologies if my post came across any different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried these people - probono group

 

The Bar Pro Bono Unit: Free Legal Advice and Representation

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Smarterchick, may I enquire - were your successes in relation to a mortgage issue ?

 

By the way, I'm sure Lloyds Defender didn't mean any ingratitude to your kind help, I imagine the stress and frustration LD must be going thru' is terrible. I hope the site team can recommend someone who could act for him / her.

 

Also good luck in your appeal.

 

Answer to your first question is yes.

 

Answer to your second point: I never would suggest LD was implying any ingratitude, I can see what LD is going through and he/she has my full support no matter what reaction may come from those frustrations as I've been there myself and seen hundreds on here facing the same. We just have to thread our way through these jungles of brick walls until we find that loose brick. I found going to a direct access barrister as being a cheaper option than getting a barrister via solicitors which is generally the way most have to go with their cases and I am sure LD is only too pleased to take up on any advice which might ease the pain of all this and the frustrations, this kind of fight is no fun for anyone and I for one would criticise no one for what they try to achieve. We all come up against brick walls and LD is no exception, I'm just sorry when it happens. It's only but for the likes of all the good people on here that pulls each of us through this mire..We just have to keep helping LD and others to find a way through no matter how many attempts it takes. ;)

 

SC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 2 months later...
WOW!!! What a read. Brilliant stuff !!!

 

Seems a bit of an abrupt end though?

 

Yep, didn't seem to get anywhere. In the UK, it all seems legit because it is an uncompleted sale and thus equitable.

 

But doesn't the SPV/Trustee say they own the mortgages, in order to able to offer them on the market? If so, how can they own something not completed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, didn't seem to get anywhere. In the UK, it all seems legit because it is an uncompleted sale and thus equitable.

 

But doesn't the SPV/Trustee say they own the mortgages, in order to able to offer them on the market? If so, how can they own something not completed?

 

Where's that Seutonious when you need him? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's that Seutonious when you need him? :-)

 

He's of the same opinion I quoted in my post above, i.e. that nothing can be done as it's all legal. It may seem unfair to the customer but doesn't seem to be unlawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's of the same opinion I quoted in my post above, i.e. that nothing can be done as it's all legal. It may seem unfair to the customer but doesn't seem to be unlawful.

 

You mean you and Seutonious actually agree on something? :lol: My god the world is changing....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean you and Seutonious actually agree on something? :lol: My god the world is changing....

 

Now now ... i'm only saying how i see it at the moment ... i've not got further than this with the matter. Hopefully things will change and we may have another avenue to chase but at the moment it's gone dead.

 

My bank still hasn't said why they sign their letters with "as administrator" and the FOS won't look at it as part of my complaint on unfairness and reclaiming arrears charges, which they say are not within their remit to investigate but consider them fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

It's a bit late for me to have found this great thread as I have to defend a possession case by Nat West tomorrow and am trying to use Carmel Butler's Memorandum to good effect. Thanks for the great research peeps, how did you find the details of the SPV for Abbey and any idea where I might find who Nat West might have securitized to?

"Modern 'currency' is known as 'fiat money': it is artificially created, has no value in itself and the basis for use in exchange is typically a government edict." Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooops! Just realised I'd only read to page 3 of this thread, much more reading to do. :|

"Modern 'currency' is known as 'fiat money': it is artificially created, has no value in itself and the basis for use in exchange is typically a government edict." Paul Morran, Information Rights Unit of Her Majesty's Treasury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thread is from 2011 well dead now

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...