Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) 'possible (lol) electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer     Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
    • Isnt there some indication in there of at least intent to inform arbuthnot? IF he wasn't then it would seem to be Vennells decision to keep him 'uninformed .. Although seems to me if arbuthnot was unaware - he was either incompetent or should have very detailed records of denials. Seems vennells is constantly at the core of all the lying about all these issues though.
    • Paywalled/subscribe HB I'm unaware of the details on this HB but why is it a potential taxpayer burden? Hasn't a judge already ruled port has rights of access - so shouldn't costs be on the private company (South Tees Development Corporation) trying to change established access?     LIVE: High Court updates as CEO gives evidence in access rights row between STDC and PD Ports - Teesside Live WWW.GAZETTELIVE.CO.UK The face-off between the Teesport operator and Mayor Ben Houchen's South Tees Development Corporation continues in the High Court  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Teebum V Abbey **** WON !!!! ****


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6119 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 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Teebum,

 

Yes the 8% interest should go up on a daily basis on your spreadsheet, However remember that it is only a small amount. On my claim for over £8K it is only £1.55 Per day. So check the amount before deciding that the spreadsheet you is using is crap. If the defendant has not given you the information required to issue your claim ten they are at fault not you. You requested such information under the data protection act, so there fore you should be entitled to it.

regards bish

Abbey : £8070.41*PAID IN FULL*14/02/07:D

Capital one : LBA sent 17/09/06 £1,087.22

Marbles : LBA sent 17/09/06 £720.00 ; £720 offer accepted:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have today received a letter from SHabbey, they are now sorting out the microfiche statements for me. Can this hold up the court action, the Judge is at the stage of allocating track

 

Hello teebum

 

It should'nt necessarily hold it up. I think that there are 2 ways to go about it:-

 

1. You can write to the Judge & the shABBEY asking for their consent for you to change the amount, explaining your reasons, and see if they are OK for you to do it.

 

If that fails, then:-

 

2. You will have to put an amended claim (N244 form) into the Judge as your amount you are claiming will obviously be different, but at least you will have the evidence to prove what you are claiming. This will cost you £35 which is not re-claimable.

 

Your best bet will be to phone the court and ask them what you should do, explaining to them all that has happened, and the difficulties you've had in getting your info from the bank because of their incompetence!!!!!

 

But then again, even though they have told you they are sorting out your microfiche for you, you can carry on regardless unless they supply you with the microfiche in the mean time!!!!!!!!!

 

Keep at 'em

Phil:)

This is only my personal, honest opinion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on the forum (Tina and Gaz) is it worth sending to court?

 

With reference to the above claim, I have received the defence from the defendant and feel this is not complete in that the calculations required to prove the costs of the purported breach of contract are not included within the defence.

 

In your indulgence, I would respectfully ask, sir, that you order disclosure of the calculations which justify the charges in question, that the Defendant may intend to use to defend the claim.

 

I understand that it is within your discretion to do so.

 

I believe such an order would bring a rapid end to this litigation.

Lets get it back

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last point in Abbeys devence states

 

" No admissions are made as to the amount claimed by the claimant and the claimant is put to strict proof of the same"

 

What does this mean?

Lets get it back

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Karn

As we speak the postman has dropped a letter from the court through my door. Here are some points I am unsure of in the letter, it has been allocated fast track.

 

"The trial of this claim will take place during the period commencing 09 April 2007 and ending on 27 April 2007 at a venue to be notified"

 

"Both parties to give standard disclosure of documents by 4pm Thursday 21st December 2006"

 

"Both parties shall by 4pm on 18th January, serve on each other the witness statments of themselves and of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whome they intend to rely"

 

"Complete pre trial check lists shall be sent to the court by 4pm on Tuesday 20th February"

 

"The claim shall be listed for trial during the trial window from Monday 9th April 2007 to Friday 27th April 2007 inclusive with a time estimate of one day"

 

"Because this order has been made by the court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varies or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court, to arrive within 7 days of service of this order"

 

"No party has permission to rely on expert evidence. For the avoidance of doubt, the courts preliminary view is that evidence of the costs incurred by the defendant and sought to be recouped by way of charges is factual and not expert evidence, while evidence comapring the defendants charging regime with others within the banking industry is irrelevant"

 

I was worried before now I am absolutely bricking myself.

Lets get it back

Link to post
Share on other sites

or Sarah's thread below?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/22094-sarah-abbey-5.html

 

Don't be afraid to ask any questions you may have on their threads also, or send them a Private Message(PM). I wish I could be of more help, but I'm a little behind you, waiting for a court date, so I have'nt even looked at the Court Bundle templates yet!!!!

 

Phil:)

This is only my personal, honest opinion!

Link to post
Share on other sites

good stuff, was up till 2am printing docs. Just need to photo copy statements and correspondence from them. Thanks again. Did you think it is worth sending your letter to the judge?

Lets get it back

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yer know what really relly hacks me off, is that shabbey. reading the judges last para, should have thrown in the towel there and then, instead they are going to make tee do three bundles, settle out of court and then quibble about expenses. but well done Tee, can you smell the money yet? ;)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...