Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OC 's don't do court   dx  
    • you will also need a copy of the CCJ and the particulars of claim on the claimform as... you'll need the particulars of claim as we don't know the judgement sum nor if post judgemental interest was allowed. did you defend it? did you ignore it? did you not get it?  did you know nothing about it?   its very rare on welcome debt either taken to court by welcome (doubtful in 2013) or a DCA (more likely)  i will suggest the debt was already at £18k before the CCJ so nothing bar court charges were added   please advise  i love bashing welcome and DCA but we can't help until we know our actual target and who did what and when.                
    • Janet Yellen confirmed as first female US Treasury secretary in Senate vote View the full article
    • I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airport  ByeLaws 2020. which will help you no end.     https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/board-approved-london-southend-airport-byelaws-100220-d14ca659.pdf   If you go to Section 5  the headline reads 5. Prohibited acts on parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:   In other words the roads on the airport are either governed by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws- neither of which are classed as relevant land. Therefore PoFA DOES NOT APPLY throughout the airport.   Take a copy for the Court and point out that the VCS WS is somewhat lacking in accuracy. It is inconceivable that VCS have not read the Byelaws since they are operating there.    So looking at their WS it reminds me that a good few years ago it was said about the WSs of  parking companies that they and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.   This practice should stop since were the authors to have to appear in Court and challenged, their perjury would not only be clear to see but it would put a stop to the practice. If they don't turn up in Court they get away with their lies and are able to repeat them ad nauseam. And this WS is full of lies and misdirections -not that you can say in Court they are lies but you can point out where there is contradictions shall we say and let the Judge decide.    The WS says in point 31 that they robustly deny that their sign is prohibitive.    You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach.   The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway.   It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.   All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”   And of course VCS cannot sue for trespass as they are not the landowners.  
  • 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
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4009 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 456
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So it appears that **** don't negotiate, but would prefer to go straight for charging orders:mad:

 

Don't worry, they should only be able to obtain a CO if you don't make the payments scheduled by the court (or agreed by ****). If **** won't play ball with agreeing a payment plan, you can apply to the court at any time for an order for payments but you would have to show that you haven't got the cash & can only afford the monthly amount you are prepared to offer. You would prob. have to fight a CO application too. :(

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you appeal if y ou haven't got the transcript yet?

 

I think you have to provide the judgment transcript as part of the appeal bundle.

 

S.

Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming the transcript can arrive late (snow, no post, no electricity), does anyone have case law for POC being amended (just clause numbers) at the hearing?

 

Do you mean 'grounds for appeal' rather than POC?

 

Almost sure you won't be permitted to amend at the hearing but will check if you can make application to amend before that.

 

Who is holding it up - the court or the transciber? If the court, give them a call & a push & ask what the position is on the deadline.

Suggest you then confirm thier comments in writing, stating that you wish to appeal but that the transcipt has been delayed, give the reasons & crave their indulgence on the deadline.

Edited by foolishgirl
addition

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My fault cy - you wer very clear, I misinterpreted your intentions.:p

 

The rules relating to amendments to POCs (statements of case) come under CPR17. Don't think there is any law as such (DJs seemingly being a law unto themselves at the moment :mad:) that forbids amendment at the hearing but in the interests of fairness & justice, it would have to be a 'de minimis' issue eg. spelling, otherwise you have been denied the opportunity to consider the amendment & make an informed defence to it.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is a stupid question..... My interpretation of this rule is that POC can be changed with the permission of the court, it has to be before court, there should be a statement of case. And

17.4 states (2) The court may allow an amendment whose effect will be to add or substitute a new claim, but only if the new claim arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a claim in respect of which the party applying for permission has already claimed a remedy in the proceedings.

Then surely, permission should not have been granted as regards the defendant, the substitution of clauses will have altered the case and the grounds for defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but in the interests of fairness & justice, it would have to be a 'de minimis' issue eg. spelling, otherwise you have been denied the opportunity to consider the amendment & make an informed defence to it.

 

T

Then surely, permission should not have been granted as regards the defendant, the substitution of clauses will have altered the case and the grounds for defence.

 

Exactly the point I was trying to make above.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Course you won't really know until you have the transcript but have you looked into this possibility?

 

Rights to a fair trial as laid out under Article 6 of the Convention rights contained within the Human Rights Act 1998.

Edited by foolishgirl
afterthought

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi cy, i spent this afternoon reading your whole thread. I was very dissapointed to see you were unlucky in the judge lottery. You with the help of others made a very impressive case.

 

goodluck with your appeal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your support Nagasis, if nothing else I hope this warns people of the dangers of [problem] and how things can go wrong!

FG that's an interesting angle that I will look into!

RE transcript, didn't send request RD and court have a mail backlog. They have made an entry against case file of my comments/request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RE transcript, didn't send request RD and court have a mail backlog. They have made an entry against case file of my comments/request.

 

:confused: Not sure where you are up to now Cy.

Did you send the N460 & do you know what stage it's at?

Have you contacted a transcriber & do you know how long that will take?

 

Just to clarify, in your appeal bundle (if it does go ahead), you have to include all the statements and documents etc, but not at this stage copies of case law and acts etc.

Thanks

C

 

You have to include EVERYTHING you want to refer to so this would include all case law (in full, not just relevant clauses) but you should have most of it from copies from your hearing. (To save on printing, you can set up your print to 2 sheets to a page). It will be a big bundle!

 

Use BRW's post 360? - he has laid it all out so clearly there.

Edited by foolishgirl
addition

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following BRW's guidance. When I looked at Shakespeare62's bundle

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/191784-shakespeare62-nastybank-10.html post 197 he referred to case law but I can't see that he has included the whole cases

Edited by cymruambyth
Fonts..........again!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Shakespeare sent in his skelly 14 days after the appeal bundle & the authorites (case law etc) were included with that. (Think of a skelly like a WS in a CC hearing where you submit your exhibits with the WS)

 

If you are intending sending the whole lot together (& sometimes it's advisable as the bits then shouldn't get seperated or mislaid by the courts) you need to send the bundle complete with case laws. But if you think you need the extra time to prepare the skeleton, you can just send in the basics.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any comments gratefully received:)

 

1. This is an appeal under CPR 52.11(3)(a) against an order by District Judge xxx dated xxxxx [Appeal Bundle ]. The Appellant claims that the District Judge misdirected himself as to the law and was wrong. As a result the order was made ultra vires. In addition there were failures to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules and the Civil Bench Book which (i) substantially undermined the Defendant's case and (ii) resulted in the parties being on an unequal footing. Further there was a failure to comply with the provisions and case law of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which resulted in the Appellant being denied a full and fair hearing.

 

MISDIRECTION - BREACH OF CPR 17

 

2. I submit that by allowing the Claimant to amend the clauses listed in the Particulars of Claim, District Judge [X] has failed to comply with CPR 17 paragraph 4.

 

BREACH OF ARTICLE 6 - EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

3. I further submit that by allowing the Claimant to amend the clauses listed in the Particulars of Claim, District Judge [X] has failed to meet the overriding objective in CPR 1.1(2)(a) "ensuring the parties are on an equal footing", or to deal with the case justly. This has also contravened the Defendant's rights under Article 6 ECHR and associated guidance from section 8.2 Civil Bench Book quote "Article 6 gives a party to a hearing the right to put his case forward under conditions that do not put him at a disadvantage in relation to his opponent"

 

MISDIRECTION - MANCHESTER MERCANTILE COURT RULING

 

4. The District Judge misdirected himself by referring to an email that he had received that morning concerning a case that had taken place in the Manchester Mercantile Court regarding the xxxx .He would not have had sufficient time to fully research this ruling with a full docket of hearings. The District Judge and barrister for the Respondent discussed which parts of the judgement were applicable to this case and refused permission for an adjournment to consider the introduction of new case law.

 

 

MISDIRECTION - DOCUMENT LEGIBILITY

 

5. District Judge [X] misdirected himself by stating that in his judgment that the front page of the agreement was not easy to read, but still permitted its use as evidence. The copy of the agreement is illegible and is called an Application Form, and in doing so, fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983.

 

MISDIRECTION – NO ORIGINAL AGREEMENT IN COURT

 

6. The District Judge misdirected himself by allowing the use of a copy of an application form to be taken as the substantive document. The Claimant did not have the original credit agreement referred to in the particulars of claim at the hearing on xxxxx for the court to examine. Furthermore, important issues regarding the original document which are pleaded in the present case, namely the right to inspect the original document under CPR 31.15, the consequences of failing to allow inspection - CPR 31.21, and the duty of the creditor to produce the original in Court - CPR 16 Practice Direction 7.3

 

7. The Defendant had evidence that the Claimant did not have this document and no attempt was made to adduce hearsay evidence in accordance with the correct procedures, as stated in The Legal Admissibility of information stored on Electronic Document Management Systems and the Civil Evidence Act 1995.

 

MISDIRECTION – DISMISSAL OF OFT RULING ON CHARGES

 

8. District Judge xxxx misdirected himself by dismissing the Office of Fair Trading guidance issued in April 2006 regards unlawful credit card charges. Following an OFT investigation into credit card default charges that the OFT concluded that many credit card charges were unreasonable.

The Defendant avers that the District Judge misdirected himself by dismissing this ruling as it had occurred after the issue of the Default Notice.

 

MISDIRECTION – WOODCHESTER V SWAYNE & CO [1998] EWCA CIV 1209

 

9. District Judge xxx misdirected himself regarding the relevance of Woochester v Swayne & Co [1998] EWCA Civ 1209, in that it is not about the actual error of the Default Notice but the need for accuracy of the Default Notice in order to comply with the Act. Lord Justice Kennedy stated in the conclusion of that case “The lender has the ability and the resources to give that information with precision. If he does not do so accurately then he cannot take what Mr Gruffyd conveniently referred to as "the next step".

 

MISDIRECTION – USE OF DOCUMENT NOT INCLUDED IN TRIAL BUNDLE

 

10. The District Judge misdirected himself by allowing the Claimant to read from a document which was not listed in the trial bundle and which could have been deemed prejudicial to the Defendant

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...