Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dont expect instant resolution of 14 years of poopulist party, personal and vipal excess .. but I do believe that starmer will quickly start significant delivery of change - and deliver in the long run   They need to deliver to prevent a massive rebound away from them.
    • True, but all the threads we have for Wise concern hospital car park parking (except one) so it would suggest a hospital car park.
    • Don't worry, a week and a half is fine, especially as you've already drafted a WS. However, we need to see everything as dx says in the post above.
    • This preliminary hearing has been allocated 20 minutes so it should be fairly simple. However, judges are always on the look-out to get cases settled and sometimes these things can mushroom unexpectedly, so I would take along all the paperwork in order and prepare too much rather than too little. For example, we have a recent case where someone went to a preliminary hearing but the judge was appalled by the parking company's case and put huge pressure on their solicitor to discontinue - which he did. I have personal experience of trotting along to a preliminary hearing, only for the judge to go ballistic at the other side's solicitor who promptly dropped the whole case against me. I suggest your Mum takes these notes along and refers to them when necessary.   1.  I sent Parking Eye a Subject Access Request on 03/07/2023.  After one calendar month they had not replied. 2.  Their failure caused me a great deal of distress.  I was desperately trying to prepare for a court case and I felt they were hiding information from me. 3.  However, I did not rush to court, I sent a Letter of Claim on 03/08/2023 giving them an extension.  Again they did not reply.  So I started this court case. 4.  Parking Eye insist I have proof of postage for everything I sent - and I do.  5.  Parking Eye eventually satisfied my Subject Access request at the end of August 2023.  I believe they put a false date on their letter to pretend to have satisfied the one-calendar month deadline.  I believe they will have no proof of postage. 6.  In April Parking Eye sent me a letter to try to settle the matter, which offered me nothing.  7.  Later I sent them a letter offering to settle and asking them to offer a serious amount, not nothing, but they did not reply. 8.  I would be willing to settle out of court, but not on the basis that they offer me nothing.  
    • That was the date the email was received from them
  • 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
      • 162 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

Order of Consent/ Charging Order - help please...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5542 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 guys,

 

have been negotiating with a certain set of solicitors recently, over an imminent court date coming up; I sent them an offer of payment which they refused to even acknowledge. So, I bypassed them and wrote direct to the creditor.

 

Have received a letter from them today, saying their client has accepted the offer, but it seems they couldn't resist trying to add something into the Order of Consent, and I'm not comfortable with it.

 

Most of it is fine, setting out what I'll pay and when, keep to the agreement etc. But Point 3. states:-

 

Notwithstanding Paragraph 2 (which was the agreed payment amount and schedule), the Claimant do be at liberty to apply to the Court for a Charging Order to secure the debt but the Claimant do not be entitled to apply for an Order for Sale provided that payments are maintained in accordance with paragraph 2

 

Now, am I misunderstanding something here, or are they essentially trying to get complete freedom to issue a Charging Order, without having to get a CCJ and the judge order a CO?

 

if thats the case, wouldn't I be an idiot and shouldn't I just take my chances at a hearing? then, even if they won, a Charging Order could only be sought if I failed to keep up CCJ payments.

 

A Consent Order should be something that is mutually agreeable, but this seems to give them everything they could have hoped for at a hearing!!

 

My inclination is to reject it, but say that I am willing to alter it to if I miss 3 consecutive payments then the Claimant could regard it as my breaking the agreement, and then seek a Charging Order.

 

As my knowledge of this stuff is not great, I would appreciate any views, feedback, advice - if I am wrong, let me know, if this is standard, let me know too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

have been negotiating with a certain set of solicitors recently, over an imminent court date coming up; I sent them an offer of payment which they refused to even acknowledge. So, I bypassed them and wrote direct to the creditor.

 

Have received a letter from them today, saying their client has accepted the offer, but it seems they couldn't resist trying to add something into the Order of Consent, and I'm not comfortable with it.

 

Most of it is fine, setting out what I'll pay and when, keep to the agreement etc. But Point 3. states:-

 

Notwithstanding Paragraph 2 (which was the agreed payment amount and schedule), the Claimant do be at liberty to apply to the Court for a Charging Order to secure the debt but the Claimant do not be entitled to apply for an Order for Sale provided that payments are maintained in accordance with paragraph 2

 

Now, am I misunderstanding something here, or are they essentially trying to get complete freedom to issue a Charging Order, without having to get a CCJ and the judge order a CO?

 

if thats the case, wouldn't I be an idiot and shouldn't I just take my chances at a hearing? then, even if they won, a Charging Order could only be sought if I failed to keep up CCJ payments.

 

A Consent Order should be something that is mutually agreeable, but this seems to give them everything they could have hoped for at a hearing!!

 

My inclination is to reject it, but say that I am willing to alter it to if I miss 3 consecutive payments then the Claimant could regard it as my breaking the agreement, and then seek a Charging Order.

 

As my knowledge of this stuff is not great, I would appreciate any views, feedback, advice - if I am wrong, let me know, if this is standard, let me know too!

 

I would be reluctant to agree to a clause that lets them apply for a CO - I would respond by declining that provision. Your suggestion of a three month default clause is better BUT how long is the Order likely to run for - who knows what will happen in six months time...

 

That said what is the claim about - are you sure that the alleged debt is legally owing and is actually enforceable

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the replies guys.

 

the arrangement was offered because this has been a long and drawn out case, and although I am prepared to defend it if necessary (I have already drafted up a witness statement for the upcoming Summary Judgement Hearing) this seemed an amicable way to settle it.

 

I'm happy to make the payment schedule (I pointed out a court could not make me pay more as I don't have it) but not to allow a charging order, I think this would be them having their cake and eating it too. I might as well lose the court case!

 

I think I'll write back rejecting that clause, but accepting the rest; if they disagree, I'll progress to the court stage. I'm sure the judge would look favourably on my attempts to settle...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marino13

 

IMHO..they cant get a charging order without a CCJ in place..so it looks like they are hoping to take a short cut with you! question it and stand your ground:D

 

Take advise from the helpful and wise on here..some more opinions will be along soon im sure;)

 

good luck with whatever happens

 

MJ

__________________

CAG Depends Purely Upon Donations. Please help us to continue helping you, and give what you can - Thank you:grin:

Click to donate

 

Please click my scales, if you feel the need;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...