Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
    • Danny - point taken about the blue paragraphs.  Including them doesn't harm your case in any way.  It makes no odds.  It's just that over the years we've had judges often remarking on how concise & clear Caggers' WSs have been compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica-length rubbish that the PPCs send, so I always have a slight preference to cut out anything necessary. Don't send off the WS straight away .. you have plenty of time ... and let's just say that LFI is the Contract King so give him a couple of days to look through it with a fine-tooth comb.
  • 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

About CFA's? - No Win No Fee


Clavis
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5477 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

I wish to bring an action in the High Court against a certain party via the use of a solicitor who will act on a CFA, ideally reinforced by an 'after the event insurance'.

Where do I find such a solicitor?

 

It appears that the initial mistake by the Nationwide B. S. in selling me the purported contradictory invalid policies has been compounded by collusion with the Norwich Union Insurance Co.

 

Furthermore, the blatant attempt to damage my credit and the defamation of my character with Paypal and the various Credit Agencies has done me irreparable harm as any chance of gainful employment as a qualified Personal License Holder will have been reduced to zero, so I have wasted the majority of the last two years looking for work in this discipline.

 

The withdrawal of my only two cards; both with Nationwide; has created severe difficulties.

I have not received any amendment regarding my life policy, whether the policy is in force or not, certainly the continuing financial demands show no reduction from the original premium, only additives from the debt collection agencies.

This continuing saga; though I have attempted to resolve the matter through mediation by a national newspaper; has put my marriage under oppressive strain.

Edited by Clavis
Title change: About CFA's (No win, no fee)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I correct in saying that they 'sold' you an insurance policy that was useless ? and due to this it has severely affected your credit files and the ability to gain employment in a specific role ?

 

You'll find some useful information in here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/111211-defaults-background-removal-methods.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the Event (BTE) or After the Event (ATE) legal expenses insurance.

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease231007a.htm

Research shows low awareness of before the event legal expenses insurance

23 October 2007

 

Research published today by Ministry of Justice reveals that less than one in four consumers have heard of either Before the Event (BTE) or After the Event (ATE) legal expenses insurance.

Legal Expenses Insurance (LEI) provides the policyholder with the cost for legal fees in the event that they become involved in litigation. It is a relatively inexpensive mechanism for resolving a range of problems and legal disputes.

The research report produced by FWD reveals that there is a considerable lack of information about the product both in the public domain in general and at the point of sale. Awareness among lower socio-economic groups (C2DE) is particularly low even though this group appears to be more likely to need to use a BTE product.

The report also reveals that despite low awareness overall market penetration of the product has increased to 59% of the population (this compares with 50% penetration revealed by Mintel in their report published in December 2006). The research estimates that 28m adults currently own the product, most as an add on to another insurance policy.

Welcoming the findings, Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said:

The report gives us an insight into the current state of the BTE insurance market. Whilst more and more people now have the product, they don't appear to know how to use it. This is particularly true of the more vulnerable members of society. BTE insurance is important because it provides people with a means of getting advice and assistance when trying to resolve disputes. I would encourage insurance industry bodies and consumer groups to try and deal with this problem

Other findings show:

  • Legal Expenses Insurance cover is often fragmented or even duplicated. Due to lack of awareness many consumers are not aware that they have BTE insurance
  • The market is likely to expand over the coming years increasing the number of consumers in this position
  • The report recommends a number of steps that insurance industry bodies and consumer's groups- such as the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Association of British Insurers (ABI)- should take forward. These include:

  • Agreeing ways of promoting LEI and providing more information about the product both in general terms and at the point of purchase (including communicating its benefits more widely).
  • Developing ways to encourage policy holders to read their policy documents

  • Changing the name of Legal Expenses Insurance to something consumers are more likely to understand. One suggested alternative is 'legal protection'

  • The report also recommends that employers provide LEI to employees
  • Additionally, Housing Associations could provide LEI for tenants

Officials at the Ministry of Justice have been discussing these recommendations with the FSA, ABI, Housing Corporation and employers groups to examine how these recommendations could be taken forward.

 

Notes to Editors

 

1. 'The Market for BTE Legal Expenses Insurance: A research report for the Ministry of Justice', by Oona McDonald, Ian Winters and Mike Harmer

2. Until now the only other independent survey of the Legal Expenses Insurance market was published by Mintel in December 2006.

3. BTE insurance products have been available in the UK since 1974. The research report shows that 93% of all households have home buildings insurance in place; 78% have home contents Insurance;

4. The structure of the BTE market in the UK is complex. It is sold in a variety of ways usually as an add on to motor or household insurance. It is also sometimes sold attached to travel insurance.

5. The vast majority of BTE products are sold through intermediaries consisting of national brokers, broker chains and regional brokers.

6. For more information contact Zoë Campbell, Ministry of Justice Press Office, 020 7210 8695

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal expenses insurance report

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/legal-exp-ins-report.htm

Legal expenses insurance report

Date: 23 October 2007

 

This report explores the current state of the legal expenses insurance market and future trends with a view to promoting 'before the event' (BTE) legal expenses insurance so that more people have access to legal advice and assistance.

 

 

 

The research for the report was done by Dr Oonagh McDonald, Ian Winters and Mike Harmer, of Fwd thinking communications.

 

 

Related information

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks 42man,

Have yet to find your PM button.

Tried to change heading on CFA's to add (No win, no fee) as I realise that the abreviation CFA is not generally known.

 

Twenty plus years since I did any serious work on the law. Naturally 'all change'. The two second posts are included as it appears that litigation insurance is widespread, generally hidden away in the small print of the most mundane insurance covers, i.e. household, life policies, etc.

You might want to post copies of these elsewhere, I would suggest that all your 'customers' need to double check existing paperwork.

Apologises if this is all old hat, thanks again, Clavis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...