Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oh and the judge is very familiar with the Parking Eye supreme court case.   It will be my turn soon, not feeling good. 
    • Thank you so much for your response. Do I need to reply to their letter as I presume the SAR may take weeks to come from them? How can I find out what I earned back in 2004?   I was self employed but from memory I didn't pay myself a wage because I didnt have the funds - hence why I needed Tax Credits
    • Thanks Andy Your right, it is nonsense!    At the directions hearing would I be able to ask to have it struck out?  She missed the last deadline and made no effort to contact the court. Surely he can't give her another chance, its madness.  
    • The significant majority of C’s claim (£8,245.76) relates to a restitutionary claim for compound interest on the £570 default charges. C relies on Sempra Metals to justify such an entitlement. However, the relevant parts of Sempra Metals on which C relies were overturned in the recent Supreme Court decision of Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKSC 39, as explained below: “In Sempra Metals (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) Ltd v IRC the House of Lords held that a taxpayer which had paid tax earlier than it was legally required to do could establish that the Revenue had been unjustly enriched, with the enrichment consisting of the Revenue’s opportunity to use the money until the tax was properly due (so-called “use” or “opportunity” value of money). This enrichment was valued with reference to compound interest which the defendant would have had to pay to borrow an equivalent amount of money to that which had been received from the taxpayer and which, for the Revenue, was a rate which was lower than the commercial rate. Such a claim for the use value of money, which was subsequently    Page 4 2 considered to involve a freestanding cause of action distinct from a claim to recover the value of money received, would be available in respect of any unjust enrichment claim where money had been paid which was not due to the defendant. This aspect of the decision in Sempra Metals was, however, overruled by the Supreme Court in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v HMRC on the ground that a claim for the use value of money was inconsistent with the analysis on unjust enrichment claims adopted by the Supreme Court in Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customers Commissioners, namely that the defendant’s enrichment involves a transfer of value which must be directly obtained at the expense of the claimant, who must have incurred a loss as a result of providing the benefit. As the Supreme Court recognised in Prudential Assurance, where the claimant mistakenly pays £1,000 to the defendant which is repaid by the defendant a month later, the fact that the defendant has had an opportunity to use that money for a month has not involved an additional and distinct transfer of value from the claimant to the defendant. It follows that a distinct claim for the use value of money is no longer available. The Supreme Court in Prudential Assurance also clarified the nature of the award of interest for a claim in unjust enrichment. In Sempra Metals the House of Lords has held, in obiter dicta, that compound interest should be generally available as of right for unjust enrichment claims at common law, which was inconsistent with the earlier decision of the House of Lords in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC that compound interest could only be awarded in respect of equitable claims. In Prudential Assurance the Supreme Court held that, where the defendant is liable to make restitution to the claimant, the award of interest is intended to compensate the claimant for the loss of the use of money and does not involve the reversal of the defendant’s unjust enrichment, because any benefit obtained from the defendant’s use of the money has not been obtained at the expense of the claimant since there will have been no transfer of the value of that benefit from the claimant to the defendant. Further, where the defendant is liable to make restitution to the claimant, a debt arises and it is the failure to discharge that debt immediately which justifies the award of interest under s.35A of the Senior Courts Act 181, which is consequently simple rather than compound interest”1 [emphasis added].
    • My question is can anyone help me find out an e-mail address for Barclays Bank UK?
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4298 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

A solar panel brought from Maplins about 18 months ago has failed , on the packaging there is a flash banding indicating the unit is guaranteed for 5 years, Maplins position is they will only warrant an article for 1 year , then you have to contact the manufacturer , bit difficult , made in China ,and web site given on package is defunct .

I suppose we will have to swallow it :|:-x. Or do we ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A solar panel brought from Maplins about 18 months ago has failed , on the packaging there is a flash banding indicating the unit is guaranteed for 5 years, Maplins position is they will only warrant an article for 1 year , then you have to contact the manufacturer , bit difficult , made in China ,and web site given on package is defunct .

I suppose we will have to swallow it :|:-x. Or do we ?

 

No you dont have to swallow it.

 

 

Maplins may say their guarantee period is one year but below the one year it will say "This does no affect your statutory rights".

 

Contract is between you and Maplins so they are responsible.

 

How did you pay for the item, if it was by Credit Card the CC company are equally liable with Maplins.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 18 months will mean you have accepted the item and will not be able to 'insist' on a refund only a repair or replacement at this stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is a latent defect then deemed acceptance after a reasonable time does not apply.

 

Have you got a link to that info, I would like to read up on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a few issues there that distinguish it from other cases, notably the intention that it will be sold on and this made clear at the time of formation of the contract. I don't think there is enough there to comment on that case more. It is only a consultation paper after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...