Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • With Farage back in the news, here's a reminder of his interview with Claire Byrne on Irish TV a few years ago.  
    • So, why do DVLA (via that leaflet) say 1) that S.88 MAY allow a driver to be treated as if they have a valid licence (after an application that discloses a medical condition) AND   2) before DVLA have reached their licensing decision ? (Since S.88 ceases to apply once they have reached a decision to grant or refuse a licence)
    • Thanks for that, Bazza. It sheds some more light on things but I’m still by no means sure of the OP’s father’s likelihood of successfully defending the charge. This in particular from the guidance stands out me: He does not meet all the s88 criteria. S88 is clear and unambiguous: It makes no provision for either the driver or a medical professional to make a judgement on his fitness to drive under s88. S92(4) and the June 2013 guidance you mention defines in what circumstances the SoS must issue a licence. It does no modify s88 in any way. However, delving further I have noticed that the DVLA provides a service where the driver can enter a relevant medical condition to obtain the correct documentation to apply for a licence: https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving/find-condition-online I haven’t followed this through because I don’ have the answers that the OP’s father would give to the questions they will ask and in any case it requires the input of personal information and I don’t want to cause complications with my driving licence. It is possible, however, that the end result (apart from providing the necessary forms) is a “Yes/No” answer to whether the driver can continue to drive (courtesy of s88). With that in mind, I should think at  the very least the OP’s father should have completed that process but there is no mention that he has. The Sleep Apnoea Trust gives some useful guidance on driving and SA: https://sleep-apnoea-trust.org/driving-and-sleep-apnoea/detailed-guidance-to-uk-drivers-with-sleep-apnoea/ I know nothing about SA at all and found It interesting to learn that there are various “grades” of the condition. But the significant thing which struck me is that it is only the least trivial version that does not require a driver to report his condition to the DVLA. But more significant than that is that the SA Trust makes no mention of continuing to drive once the condition has been reported. The danger here is that the court will simply deconstruct s88 and reach the same conclusion that I have. I accept, having looked at the DVLA guidance, that there may be (as far as they are concerned) scope for s88 to apply contrary to the conditions stated in the legislation. Firstly, we don’ know whether there is and secondly we don’t know whether the OP’s father would qualify to take advantage of it. Of course he could argue that he need no have reported his condition. The SA trust certainly emphasises that the condition should not be reported until a formal detailed diagnosis is obtained. But the fact is he did report it. As soon as he does that, as far as I can see,  s88 is no longer available to him. Certainly as it stands I maintain my opinion that he was not allowed to continue driving under s88. The only way I would change this is to see the end result of the DVLA exercise I mentioned above. If that said he could continue driving he would have a defence to the charge. Without it I am not confident.  
    • Americans are already keen on UK-made coins, and the Mint said it has seen a 118 per cent increase in sales to the US since 2022.View the full article
  • 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

Tactics for dealing with Next Directory/out of date in light of recent judgements


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4998 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

Sorry this is incorrect there is anhole section in the act under section 16 of people eho provide credit nd are exempt .

There are also those under section74 that are exemmpt from making an agreement.

Peter

you are quite right about the exemptions under s16, i dont deny this point peter

 

however, which provision of s16 are you reliant upon please? from my looking at it and from my reviewing lloyds and Guest, and Halsburys, i see nothing that would interfer with this type of case under s16

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

you are quite right about the exemptions under s16, i dont deny this point peter

 

however, which provision of s16 are you reliant upon please? from my looking at it and from my reviewing lloyds and Guest, and Halsburys, i see nothing that would interfer with this type of case under s16

 

Hi I was relying on the assumption that the ir was an sttutaratuy instrument ineffect that precdcribrd s minimum limit for thr Totoal charge of vredit or interest required for the agreement to be regulated similar to the requirement for a small agreement .

 

I was wrong.

As you say the catalogues are currently regulated under the cca 1974.

I appologise.

They do however use the distance marketing regulations(as precontractural informationrequirements) if enterred into after 2005 so the cancellation details and some of the Part v terms are differnt aslo the agreement may be electronic or entered into by telephone.

 

NOt sure on the sittuation before thiis????

 

Sorry for the error i did say i wa not an expert in tnis i know a bit more now

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

the distance selling regulations would not be my choice of attack

 

simply because you have a fatal irredeemable breach where no agreement was ever signed on entry into credit with this lender.

 

 

it is a straight forward submission in my opinion and one that the court will have no discretion with, but by all means over complicate things if that is what you wish to do, but i cant see why you wouldnt simply seek to raise a breach of the 1974 Act leading to unenforceability

 

 

Hi

 

 

The distance selling regulations have nothing to do with the distance marketing regulations whitch is what the agreement you took out will be regulated by.

Ther is no point in agrguing about the agreement becausse they will say you had all the information on line according to the atats on completion. No writern contract would have been made

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aare you syre next provide the crdit it ssays credit broker on their liscense

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are quite right about the exemptions under s16, i dont deny this point peter

 

however, which provision of s16 are you reliant upon please? from my looking at it and from my reviewing lloyds and Guest, and Halsburys, i see nothing that would interfer with this type of case under s16

 

 

Hi again

 

I decded to look further into the isue of regulation on this and gues what I was right in my initial assertion, well sort of.

 

Ordinarry catalogue transaction are covered by the distance selling regs , supply of goods act not Consumer Credit Act.

 

They are the transactions that are interest free and are exempt by section 16 of the act. Stat instrument 1999/1956.

"The third exemption applies to debtor-creditor agreements where three conditions are

satisfied. The first condition is that the agreement is of a type offered to a particular class, or to

particular classes, of individuals and not to the public generally. The second condition is that

there can be no increase in the rate or amount of any item which is included in the total charge for

credit (or which would be included but for the operation of the assumption in regulation 14 of the

Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980). The third condition is that the rate

of the total charge for credit does not exceed one per cent above the highest of a number of

specified banks’ base rates on the date 28 days before the agreement is made.”

Catalogues conform to the first condition in that you have to join the second two are self explanatory.

Catalogues do however offer credit (extended terms ) but these are usually supplied only on the issuance of a separate regulated agreement ,apply interest, and are covered by the CCA..

 

Catalogue companies do not supply there own credit they are usualy the dreditors in a c-d-s relationship so you need to make sure that you are addressing the supplier of the credit if you are going to make a section 78?/77 request.

Also this is not a running account agreement it cannot be, not because it is exempt but because it does not fit the definition.

 

Each purchase is a separate transaction and although the funding sauce is common, the repayment details amount and duration are different on each purchase unlike running account credit.

If it were running account ,then under section18 you would have a fixed sum restricted use agreement for every purchase, every sing item bought would have to have its own signature t and cs etc.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Paul,

 

Just had a letter from Next stating that as its a small claim s.31.1(2) means that I cannot claim breach of CPR 3.1 for non-disclosure. What do you think?

if the case has not been allocated then CPR 31.14 applies til allocation to track

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
I noticed that no-one had answered this question.... anyone?

 

:confused:

yes, but the remedy is much different to the fatal unenforceability that was pre april 07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
yes, but the remedy is much different to the fatal unenforceability that was pre april 07

 

Hi PT

 

Sorry but can you remind me (and others) what the remedy is for post April 07? I have tried to research this but cannot find it, all people seem to talk about is pre April 07 cases...

 

Cheers

 

UM

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Quick question gang if I may?

 

I've an OLD Next Directory account, had to stop paying this time last year. Nothing but the usual pile of statements, and 3 "true copies" of an agreement (sounds like a familiar story from what I've read!).

 

Received a letter from Moorcroft Debt Recovery asking me for proposals for repaying the full amount of the debt. To my knowledge, I've never received a Default Notice. Has anyone ever heard of such a situation before? My Next thread is here if it helps: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?243933-NEXT-Directory-response-to-CCA-request

 

Cheers

 

BL

Well 6 years on and most of the defaults have disappeared, thank you CAG for a

ll your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

post deleted thread wouldnt work

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL how did you see the thread as it was showing it wouldnt post hence me deleting...

 

Ill have to have a read of Mcguffick but guess there way of line???

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...