Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5270 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

Under those circumstances you would find yourself sectioned under the Mental Health Act

LIBM

:D:D

 

As you all have such vivd imaginations, maybe you should all get together & write a whodunit!

 

This thread is not about criminal law i.e.murder, it is civil law i.e. unenforceability issues. Can we please get back to those? :p

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

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Absolutely; I have come come to realise that moral or rightful claims do not mean a thing without a good legal argument...and often when I see "Is this CCA enforceable" in the thread title I feel the right answer should be it depends on how good your legal argument is.

 

The law has to be proven in court and out of it we are all pretty good interpreters however inside its not so easy, especially with the wrong judge

 

That’s why you need a good Barrister in your corner.

LIBM

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D:D

 

As you all have such vivd imaginations, maybe you should all get together & write a whodunit!

 

This thread is not about criminal law i.e.murder, it is civil law i.e. unenforceability issues. Can we please get back to those? :p

 

LOL!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the agreement is ruled to be unenforceable, then that's irresponsible lending on the bank's part. So, why should the debtor be penalised for the bank not doing its job properly?

 

The judge's assertion that such adverse defaults can be logged in order to 'promote responsible lending decisions' makes no sense when he bases the facts on an UNenforceable credit agreement. Seems to me he's not so much interpreted the law, as is his job, than to be seen as doing his interpretation of a public service in giving the struggling banks a favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SPPL Vs Walker

 

Haven't heard...

 

SPML Vs HEATH tomorrow in the Court of Appeal.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction

 

Earlier material sorry...:(

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news on SPPL V Walker - I understand the case has recently been heard in the court of appeal.

 

Nope, not seen bugger all yet, was waiting for Eversheds to stay up late and post the details :D.......pasted link below for original order in case anyone looking in is still playing catch-up

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/Walker%20vs%20SPPL-1.pdf

Bugger, bl**dy things not working ?

Try again in a mo......lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Me thinks Chris forgot to read the full decision :p

 

Hopefully some of the other numpties in the DCA game will believe everything he puts into the public domaine

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Can someone tell us non legal eagles what this decision actually means,along with its implications.

I have read so many interpretations by different people.

Am not really sure. The only thing I am sure about is that the

banks and DCAs will twist things to suit themselves, but can somebody

tell me what the actual legal position is now with regard to CCAs and court proceedings.

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying Demonbarb. Please accept my apologies for implying otherwise and well done for playing no small part in keeping this aspect of the industry cleaner than it would be otherwise.

Accepted and thanks for the comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Can someone tell us non legal eagles what this decision actually means,along with its implications.

I have read so many interpretations by different people.

Am not really sure. The only thing I am sure about is that the

banks and DCAs will twist things to suit themselves, but can somebody

tell me what the actual legal position is now with regard to CCAs and court proceedings.

 

regards

 

The reality is it means nothing and didnt particularly serve any purpose.

 

The decision was effectively moot as the creditor RBS held an enforceable agreement which they held back (lis) in order to effect test case.

 

If you read the final decision you'll note many references to this point which is IMHO why it should not be considered indicative of a decision worthy of mention in future case law.

 

Still trying to understand why this was considered a suitable test?

 

Its done nothing to enforce the banks position and nor has it undermined a consumers position.

 

Unenforceable remains unenforceable remains unenforceable........ the machine will still try to convince you otherwise but this decision just enforced it (consumer rights that is).

 

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Can someone tell us non legal eagles what this decision actually means,along with its implications.

I have read so many interpretations by different people.

Am not really sure. The only thing I am sure about is that the

banks and DCAs will twist things to suit themselves, but can somebody

tell me what the actual legal position is now with regard to CCAs and court proceedings.

 

regards

 

in a a nutshell- if the creditor has an enforceable agreement- you will not be able to stop them registering adverse info at CRA's- even, it seems when they have not yet found the enforceable agreement (in default of s78)

 

thats it as far as i can see

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont get this at all, what exactly IS enforcement then?

 

To my mind, the judgment did NOT clarify what enforcement IS

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words, same old same, only a court can decide if an agreement is properly executed? and as for the DCAs, defaults, CRA, threats etc, no change there either?

:)

 

In a nutshell.......yup, carry on as before :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what was the point then?

 

Gawd knows..... maybe the bank were trying to enforce their position re: Injunctive relief but it appears to have backfired on them .....Flaux would not be drawn on precedent and insisted each case should be heard on its on merits.

 

The reality is if a creditor wants to test you in court with an unenforceable agreement they will as they always have.....same with the reporting to CRA's and DCA antics.

Edited by gezwee
Spelling.......again!!!!!!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5270 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...