Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi I have to agree with @unclebulgaria67 post#3 For the funding side of moving to a new area and it being private supported accommodation I would also suggest speaking to private supported accommodation provider about funding but also contact the Local Council for that area and have a chat with them about funding because if you are in receipt of Housing Benefit certain Supported Accommodation that meets a certain criteria is treated as ‘exempt accommodation’ for Housing Benefit purposes but you need to confirm this with that relevant Council in your new area especially since it is Private Supported Accommodation as each Council can have slightly different rules on this. If you have a certain medical condition look up the charities and also have a wee chat with them as they may be able to point you to different Grants to assist with moving costs and your question about funding for private supported accommodation as well.
    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
  • 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

Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4738 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 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

yes

 

Presentation is half the battle Mr 'Stevens':cool:

 

Desperate Daniella is out to find case proposition on WHEN service is deemed in the context of the postal service and I shall find somewthing in the CPR Practice Directions that I came across in my research a couple of weeks ago...BUT WELL DUN 4 now!!!!

 

I am about to light and roll up a tobacco ciggy and shall definitely enjoy this one on you!!!

 

There has been so many posts on this I shall have to go back and find out what the issues were.LOL

 

Rgds

 

m2ae:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

  • Haha 1

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

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

 

I think you might find that she got confused with another instruction and this was indeed a reconstruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

 

So it was the SAME barrister.

 

She's gotta lotta work to play catch up then!

 

It appears then she's got her ankles crossed..and is beginning to stumble...8-)

Edited by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, you just popped up!

 

Well done.

 

There is an authority about the postal service, and when things are deemed served. I'll find it for you later.

 

Brilliant. I'm now going off to deliver my standard disclosure documents (or most of them). It's taken all weekend and I am in a foul mood. Your news is the first thing to make me smile today. :)

 

DDxx

 

Yes..in addition to DD look to CPR part 6 and Practice direction part 6..in relation to the various forms of communication and when they are 'deemed to be served'..

 

Once again well done!!... and 'Up 'em Mr Mannering...''

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shakey. I've only just picked up your thread today, taken me half the day to take it all in. You are really an inspiration! I couldn't hope to do half of what you've done. Really well done mate.

Brooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooce's success's so far:

 

Capital One - 15% f & f saving £4,250

Barclaycard - 25% f & f saving £12,000

Blackhorse - reduced loan settlement saving £1,605

Cahoot - 15% f & f saving £2,740

MBNA - 20% f & f saving £26,800

Lloyds TSB 28% f & f saving £7,377

 

Total written off to date: £54,772!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

 

 

OMG the barrister said it was an 'original' at the earlier hearing based on what? I do hope she wasn't giving evidence in her own right & was quoting from another's statement of truth otherwise deep do do may ensue :eek:

 

PS have PM'd you

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction.

 

Did you allow a smile to cross your face when she said that:grin:

 

If she has the slightest doubt in her mind about the authenticity of the document or that she has been instructed without due adhesion to the truth then she must withdraw otherwise it's possible that her career will be less than stellar from here on in!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG the barrister said it was an 'original' at the earlier hearing based on what? I do hope she wasn't giving evidence in her own right & was quoting from another's statement of truth otherwise deep do do may ensue :eek:

 

PS have PM'd you

 

Yes

 

I should have thought that her first duty was to the court..:roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Shakey - compliments to you yet again.

 

I bet the Barrister thought it a simple walkthrough! She never bargained for such professionalism. ;)

 

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW their barrister did seem to backtrack when it was clear permission was going to be given for me to instruct an expert - she started saying it may have been a reconstruction. I said she had stated at the previous hearing that it was the original and the judge agreed. no back tracking from here on. So we'll wait and see.

 

OMG the barrister said it was an 'original' at the earlier hearing based on what? I do hope she wasn't giving evidence in her own right & was quoting from another's statement of truth otherwise deep do do may ensue :eek:

 

PS have PM'd you

 

Excellent news, S62. Oh dear, oh dear.. If you hadnt asked for the Expert, you would never have known that "it may have been a reconstruction".:eek:

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

:) Excellent news S62, keep up the good work...

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

Re. service of docs, this may be the info you are looking for - c/o BRW:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1940726.html

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

Great stuff -"may have been a reconstruction"!

 

Where is the legality here? For example, if you go and view under CPR what the claimant states is "the original" and it turns out to be a reconstruction is that illegal? Is there an onus on the claimant to make it clear that what is being presented is a reconstruction? Or are claimants allowed to present reconstructions, not say anything and hope the defendant believes the document to be the original?

 

In this case - Shakey's - the Barrister stated in court the document in question was "the original", if the document is subsequently proved to be a reconstruction is that illegal? You cannot lie to a judge can you?

 

Well done again Shakey, I will be very interested to see what the expert has to say. Understatement!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello CB!

 

Excellent news, S62. Oh dear, oh dear.. If you hadnt asked for the Expert, you would never have known that "it may have been a reconstruction".:shock:
More to the point, had Amex got their way today and been granted the use of their own Expert :rolleyes: Witness, would we ever have known if it was a reconstruction!

 

They sure have some front. Firstly they introduce this very late (hot off the Press as it were) just ahead of the last Hearing to try and panic S62 into banging out, then they say it's the original in Court, plus their Witness says it's the original in a Witness Statement, then today they fight tooth and claw to make the Court use their Expert Witness instead of S62's, and then, when they don't get their way, they start to snivel that it might have been a reconstruction after all.

 

I do hope the Judge clocked all of that, and is keen to make sure this now proceeds to the point that the dubious nature of the document makes it into the Appeal Judgment.

 

This could be a Lady Diana Memorial Fund moment for Amex, when it dawns on them that their expensive lawyers are superbly capable of making even more expensive mistakes...and charging them for the privilege.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done shakey "BRILLIANT"

 

also if it is any use regarding postal service

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cab1ne!

 

Under CPR 6.26 First class post (or other service which provides for delivery on the next business day) is deemed to be “served” The second day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day.
This is really only applicable to Court related documents IMHO. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is amply covered by The Interpretation Act 1978, and the subsequent Queens Bench Practice Direction 1985 that clarified the time scales for Service via 1st (+2 Working Days) and 2nd Class (+4 Working Days) Post.

 

CPR does not even mention 2nd Class Post for example.

 

But CPR is useful to argue that even CPR defines time scales for Service via Post, so Amex and others have to allow for transit time if they elected to use Post rather than personal service, i.e. to ensure the Consumer is given the correct number of clear days (7 or 14, depending on when the Default Notice was issued).

 

In the case of all Amex DNs we have seen, they have failed to do so.

 

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. :D

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...