Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim. -
I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this. I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y. I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial. This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell. At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer. But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver? On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions. I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???. However the judge's comment has got me thinking. He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me. Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective). So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver? Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer). Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property. The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly. After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property. My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house). Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest. The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held. The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago. And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent. Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ?? Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ? -
so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx -
Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
mollyhannah v Halifax ***SETTLED IN FULL***
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 6411 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts