Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 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

Contractual interest?


Glenn UK
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6349 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

Good aftie ladies !! Thanks for helping Pict. I'm just lurking, but will pop back.

 

FOMTL, Chezt !!! Bill & Bong !!! What a pair, eh ? That kiddies prog "Tiny Planets" springs to mind, too. That was Bing & Bong I think.

 

Then there's "Billabong" - G'day Sheilas !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

right chezzy, (bills a bit quiet this morning I notice:shock: ) anyway back to business..

 

the only things I can think of at the moment are that

 

1. you could mention that you have written to the defendant asking for details of costs incurred (and manual intervention?) but they have not provided them, and

 

2. you could also mention the statement of the OFT as back up for the penalty charge assertion.

 

can't think of anything else

Link to post
Share on other sites

talk of the devil..

 

must've slipped in here quietly while I was waiting for tea bag to brew. Cappuchino chez? bit posh aint it?

 

P.S. won't be me coming back with a formula bill, that's for SURE. Its like Japanese to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pict, this is the formula for compound interest. Change the function in the first entry in the column to this, then just copy the cell down all the way to the last entry. You can do a one-off "drag" I think. You might have to change the cell references in the formula, too.

 

If the top row you're using for the first entry is row 14, then this is OK., otherwise, change the 14 to the correct row number.

 

$E$3 refers to the cell that holds the annual interest rate you are using. (E3 in this case)

 

C14 is the cell showing "days since offence", and D14 is the actual penalty charge itself.

 

 

=D14*((1+($E$3/365))^C14)-D14

 

Does this help ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very impressive Bill!! And there's me thinking you were posting expletives for a minute!!:D Now that does deserve a click someone - they still won't let me even though I've been giving rep elsewhere, or in other words, yeah I admit, spreading myself around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. I think I've managed to keep up so far. Unfortunately I've got to go to work and I dont finish until 22:30:(. I'll try the spread sheet tonight when I come back.

Thanks again to everyone for their support......:)

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.

BOS Credit Card...........................Hearing Date 07/02/07

Full Settlement..............................13/02/07

BOS Bank Account .........................total charges £8,655.92

1st offer..............................................£1620.00 01/12/06 Rejected

2nd offer.............................................£3255.00 03/01/07 Rejected

Summary Action victory.................£1499.02 22/03/07

Full and Final offer............................£7,200 19/04/07

Pict...............

Link to post
Share on other sites

talk of the devil..

 

must've slipped in here quietly while I was waiting for tea bag to brew. Cappuchino chez? bit posh aint it?

 

P.S. won't be me coming back with a formula bill, that's for SURE. Its like Japanese to me.

 

I heard you putting the kettle on. I'm glad there's summat I can handle that you can't, Bong !! My ego needs a few straws to clutch !!

 

Poor old Mindzai - Nothing's his own any more !! I believe he's taken to wearing a kilt these days for the sake of convenience. Clan McDongle tartan, I expect (sorry, Pict, I hope you're not a McDongle !!)

 

Chezt (I just noticed BTW - excellent work in the Spreadsheet thread) - I have a query with your 8% alternative. And I think Bong might help out here. I have always applied my 8% Statutory from the date of each charge (in the same way that we do with contractual), and NOT from one particular date. Although it is only granted by the court, I was under the impression that it is granted retrospectively, and not just from the claim date (or whatever date you use). The spready I have been using calculates it this way (and I think Pict's does this, too). But I'm prepared to be "Bonged" over this, as I'm basing it on assumptions.

 

Does your spready work out your Statutory from a single date, Chez, or does it apply it to each charge and from each date ?

 

Rich tea, anyone ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. I think I've managed to keep up so far. Unfortunately I've got to go to work and I dont finish until 22:30:(. I'll try the spread sheet tonight when I come back.

Thanks again to everyone for their support......:)

 

Catchulater, Pict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chezt (I just noticed BTW - excellent work in the Spreadsheet thread) - I have a query with your 8% alternative. And I think Bong might help out here. I have always applied my 8% Statutory from the date of each charge (in the same way that we do with contractual), and NOT from one particular date. Although it is only granted by the court, I was under the impression that it is granted retrospectively, and not just from the claim date (or whatever date you use). The spready I have been using calculates it this way (and I think Pict's does this, too). But I'm prepared to be "Bonged" over this, as I'm basing it on assumptions.

 

Does your spready work out your Statutory from a single date, Chez, or does it apply it to each charge and from each date ?

 

Rich tea, anyone ?

 

sounds more polite than your last offer bill. bananas spring to mind..:p :o

 

anyway..not sure I understand what you mean about the statutory interest bill. what made you think that chez's interest isn't worked out from the date of the first charge?:-?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very impressive Bill!! And there's me thinking you were posting expletives for a minute!!:D Now that does deserve a click someone - they still won't let me even though I've been giving rep elsewhere, or in other words, yeah I admit, spreading myself around.

 

Yeah, it looks a bit like that dunnit ? Not really clickworthy, as it's nicked. It's a standard formula - I just "gophered" it.

 

They're a bit "new age" with this putting ourselves about lark, aren't they ? I really think that they should dispense free prophylactics with such advice as that. (I used the long word, so's the mods can't understand it !! :D ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't make me have to hunt down the dictionary bill! let me have a guess prophy - fortune telling? lactics - milk? a free glass of milk while getting your tarot cards read?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds more polite than your last offer bill. bananas spring to mind..:p :o

 

anyway..not sure I understand what you mean about the statutory interest bill. what made you think that chez's interest isn't worked out from the date of the first charge?:-?

 

I forget you ladies remember everything !! :rolleyes:

 

Well, perhaps in a similar way to my earlier comparison between the two interest rates, you will see that compound is calculated for each separate charge and applied separately to each charge, then the total is simply added up at the bottom.

 

To my logic, when (well - if, really) the 8% statutory is applied by the court, then it is presumably applied according to the calculation already provided to the court in your spreadsheet. That being so, then does your spreadsheet not calculate the stat. in the same way as the cont. - that is, by applying 8% to each separate charge, and calculating it from the date of each separate charge ? Not from a single date.

 

The POC wording suggests otherwise, but that doesn't make sense to me.

 

More importantly - does this make sense to you ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't make me have to hunt down the dictionary bill! let me have a guess prophy - fortune telling? lactics - milk? a free glass of milk while getting your tarot cards read?

 

Are you pulling my wossname ?

 

Clue ?

 

You knew, really - you're just being a lady.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forget you ladies remember everything !! :rolleyes:

 

Well, perhaps in a similar way to my earlier comparison between the two interest rates, you will see that compound is calculated for each separate charge and applied separately to each charge, then the total is simply added up at the bottom.

 

To my logic, when (well - if, really) the 8% statutory is applied by the court, then it is presumably applied according to the calculation already provided to the court in your spreadsheet. That being so, then does your spreadsheet not calculate the stat. in the same way as the cont. - that is, by applying 8% to each separate charge, and calculating it from the date of each separate charge ? Not from a single date.

 

The POC wording suggests otherwise, but that doesn't make sense to me.

 

More importantly - does this make sense to you ?

 

me? I've the memory of a peanut. In fact I'm due to go and have some tests done on my memory next week...if I don't forget the appointment!

 

the interest is added from the date of each charge but the wording in the POC justs refers to the earliest date, does it not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ENOUGH SAID! I've looked it up.:oops::D

 

now try explaining how that got into the contractual interest thread Bill!

 

It could be tenuously defended by earlier comments about us innocent people being told by CAG to go forth & multiply. A perfectly politically correct suggestion in this day and age, I maintain !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

me? I've the memory of a peanut. In fact I'm due to go and have some tests done on my memory next week...if I don't forget the appointment!

 

the interest is added from the date of each charge but the wording in the POC justs refers to the earliest date, does it not?

 

Yes it does. My point. Why is this para. worded differently to the contractual para ? The stat. para suggests that the 8% is worked out by taking the total charges claimed, then adding 8% simple interest to that total, over the entire period of the claim. If you work it out that way, it is incorrect, and your POC and spready don't concur.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh light bulb moment..its just because its worded differently. in that case yes change the wording for the statutory to the wording used for the contractual so it doesn't appear to be on a different basis. with mine I just put from earliest charge date to claim date, plus daily etc..but its clearer to put from the date of each charge..blah blah

 

well spotted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cappuchino chez? bit posh aint it?

 

Not really when u know the easy way .... coffe in a mug with cold milk (not full fat) then whizz up to a froth with handheld blender thingy ... pour on hot water ... enjoy!!!

 

Can't hang around atm .... lil'un is up n scoffing lunch then going to visit her nannie who's on a day off! :)

 

catch u laters x

links to my current claims ...

My claim - Yorkshire Bank Visa

chezt V RBS Mastercard

Chezt v RBS Joint Account

chezt v Abbey Credit Card

 

Settled ...

chezt V Duet Card/Creation Finance

chezt v's Studio Cards

chezt v's Littlewoods Catalogue

 

Next ...

Abbey Joint a/c & Single a/c

Barclaycard (Mine & Hubby's)

Anyone else I can think of ...! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looked like I was being pedantic, there, but I wasn't sure if I had actually misunderstood the reason for having the different wording. I'm glad that is all it was, and that I hadn't missed out on something. Of course, that's why you didn't get what I was banging on about.

 

It's really only dotting an "i" I suppose, as it's just the alternative, but if we're going to be cutting & pasting for future claims then worth considering, perhaps.

 

I see you're currently doing some sterling stuff on the spready thread, Chez. Wow - I didn't realise what a spready queen you are !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

.....................

d) the Claimant claims contractual interest at an annual rate of xx.xx% compounded daily, from the date of each transaction to DATE of £xxx.xx, as set out in the attached list of charges. The claimant further claims interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment, at a daily rate of 0.xx% per day.

 

 

Dont forget the contractual interest you charge a percentage per day not a value. the value changes as the interest compounds.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just come back to here & folks here will check stuff for you. Glenn will be pleased his thread's being properly used again !!!

 

Well, urm, used properly eh?

 

Wouldnt that be a kind of oxymoron where youre concerned 'Bill-K and properly' in the same sentence?

 

Only joking i remember you when you had no green squares, now look at you? Wont be long and youll be all pink!!

 

A pink gorillla, now theres a thought, and he knew about the blue oyster bar too!!!

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

O. M. G. He's back. Hi again, Glenn. Teacher's back in class. No more paper planes. Long time no see, Glenn, I hope you enjoyed the break from me !! :D

 

I ended up using a fixed figure for the daily amount, instead of a %age, as I couldn't work out how to express a compound daily %age. It is OK to do that though, isn't it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...