Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes it was originally SSE I believe they have been taken over by OVO I may be wrong. The original debt was from around 2018 I think. 
    • I moved into my current property and SSE were the provider I switched to British Gas a few months in, I believe this might have been a final bill.
    • Its not clear from your posts how this debt was incurred ? You moved into the house and they were the existing supplier ? So the debt is for the previous owner ?
    • defence is due on Friday haven't had a response from Morality yet with regards to the CPR request. Have found this from a previous thread would it be ok to use?   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   3.Furthermore, the claimant has given no details as to the breakdown of their claim so the defendant is unable to defend specifically.   4. The claimant openly admits that they do not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy. Therefore their claim is unsubstantiated. Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a  written agreement:   (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s)  should be available at  the hearing. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:- a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed ; c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • 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

CCJ agreement in place, how does the Court agree a payment plan with any other CCJ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5549 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

Hi,

 

Just looking for a bit of advice please.

 

I have recently entered into an agreement with my local court after sending my incomings/outgoings schedule to them and agreeing £30 per month to pay on an oustanding £13K loan with the set aside hearing in May.

 

My question is this....

 

I have another CCJ (well two actually) which I am currently dealing with, now if the Court has stated £30 per month for the above CCJ how do they work out the repayments for the other two I am currently dealing with?

 

Will I need to write to the Court to ask them to reduce the £30 monthly payment or will they just slap a £1 per month payment on the other 2 CCJ's?

 

Thanks

 

LL

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you point out to the court dealing with the other 2 CCJ's that you have a CCJ with an order to pay £30 a month, the court will assess what you can pay and may decide to vary the earlier order by reducing the £30 payment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...