Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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
      • 160 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

prushton vs Abbey


prushton
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6197 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

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course............... but I wish Prushy would post the results up here...... Arrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... the suspense :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in posting the result of todays court hearing, I am on nights this week and have just got in. Well here goes.

 

I arrived at Plymouth County Court half an hour early, checked the notice board and found the room number allocated for the hearing. I went through and saw the bloke behind the desk and told him I was here and the claim number.

 

He told me that the defence would like a word with me before we go in front of the judge. ( I was suprised they had even bothered to turn up - but hey ! it was good of them to bother.)

 

Anyway this suit turns up and we go sit at a table. He tells me he really hasnt a clue whats going on as he was only instructed at 6.50pm the night before. In his hand he has a document, which he shows me. It turns out to be a signed witness statement from a Debbie Waghorn - Head of data protection at the Abbey in London. He tells me that I have had all the information regarding my statements that the Abbey hold and that there is nothing left on Abbeys systems.He says that the Abbey would not lie about it as the consequences should they be caught out, now that the claim had reached the courts were serious.

 

It also turns out that the Abbey use a third party - a company called Ricoh as third party custodians of its microfiche records and that they had made inquiries with this company regarding my statements, but they too said they didnt hold any account information for my account.

 

I asked about destruction certs for destroyed data and he says that the judge has been shown the document and that he is happy that there is no more information to be had. He also says that they do not have to show destruction certificates as the document is enough to show there is no more data to be had.

 

Anyway, as a result of this cosy chat before going in to see the judge, my options are closing down fast. I can see that as the judge has seen the document and he is convinced that I have had all the information the Abbey hold on its systems , it would be pointless to argue that they did have my statements.

 

We go in to see the judge, who asks if I had seen the statement from this Debbie Waghorn, I said I had , and pointed out that the Abbey had left it until the very last minute to disclose the document and that had they disclosed it as part of the documents that they intended to rely on in court as per the judges directions ( which they didnt comply with ) , then the matter would not have reached the courts.

 

He agreed with me and asked the suit why it was not disclosed sooner. ( He tells the judge that he had only been instucted at 6.50 pm the night before and that he knew nothing of the document until just before the hearing , where he was given it prior to entering the court building.) The judge let the defence know he wasnt too happy about the late disclosure, and then asks me if I would like to adjourn for a further week or deal with the claim now.

 

I told the judge about the cosy chat with the defence outside and that as the statement by Debbie Waghorn had made it clear there was no more information to be had, it had effectively left me with very few options.

 

I told him that I wished to conclude the matter today and that if the court was satisfied there was no more information to be had then so was I. The judge then says that he has looked at my documents, and says that the only concern that he had regarding my claim for statements, was that my request to the Abbey for charges and interest information for the entire period that we held an account with the defendants( 1988 - 2002) may have been seen to have been excessive, within the context of the data Protection act.

 

It may be wise for anyone thinking of claiming beyond 6yrs and requesting statements to limit the number of years to say 10 - 12yrs ?

 

In conclusion, the judge said it would be best to withdraw the claim for statements as they didnt exist anymore, but he would award my costs against the defendants and that they be ordered to pay me £55 which represents £30.00 court fee and £25.00 mail costs.

 

I am looking at today like this, at least now I know that there are no more statements to retrieve.That my claim for the money side of things is for the most that I could hope to achieve when that reaches court in two weeks time, and I have recovered my costs. The icing on the cake is that I have caused the Abbey a significant amount of time and money in defending the claim :) .

 

Hope this helps you Lula x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recieved a letter this morning from Inga Kirkman at the Abbey in London saying that in the interest of Blah ! Blah ! Blah ! the Abbey have decided to settle my claim - - - Hold on its not that good. They are going to pay me £970 which was for a claim for £3,800 . Ms Kirkman has decided that she will just cross out the estimated charges of 5 yrs totaling £2,700 - I know estimated charges are difficult to reclaim as the burden of proof is on the claimant, and therefore there is little hope I would get that amount in court , but I hoped they may a least made me a bigger offer to settle.

 

That Inga Kirkman is fast though !!!! - call me cynical but the letter she sent me today was drafted in advance of my statement claim and still managed to state that my statement claim was withdrawn yesterday and arrive this morning.

 

Now I am just as fast as she is because I knew she was going to do that - dont ask me how - so when I got back from court yesterday, I updated my schedule of charges totaling £3,800 including the estimated charges and sent her a letter inviting her to settle for the full amount , as the court claim was only 2 weeks away.

 

I sent it special delivery - to get there by 9am this morning. I imagine that at the same time I was opening her letter , she was opening mine, what a hoot !!!!! :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prush, I am going to pm you with some of my thoughts on all this, but you add on your 8% via the spreadsheet and that gicves you a total.

 

Now to get the daily rate you multiply the total by 0.00022 and then however many days it takes to settle, say 2 30 day months = 60 so you multiply the daily rate by 60 to give you a running total, hope all this makes sense

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not put in for contractual interest?

 

That way you'll get back what you wanted without the downer you've just had? :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, it seems all is not lost yet , as Inga seems to be under the impression that my schedule of charges is for my original request for payment at £3,600 which contained an element of estimated charges for the 4 yrs and 9mths of statements missing, and was the reason for the statement hearing on Tues. I have rejected her offer yesterday of £970.25 in settlement and hopefully she will settle on the £3,600 figure close to the court date. The worst that can happen is that it gets to court, I will have a revised schedule of charges for £1,109 already to go and tell the court that I have withdrawn the estimated element from the claim as we know its impossible to prove and therefore the claim is for the charges we can prove plus costs ie £1,109 :) any thoughts ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have decided to remove the estimated element from my claim, I have been in email discussions with Ms Kirkman and she says she will apply for adverse costs if I insist on keeping the estimated and it gets to court. The onus is on the claimant to prove the charges were made and as you know my court hearing for the missing statements didnt go well.So basicly I wouldnt stand a chance recovering the estimated charges as I couldnt prove they were applied.

 

But as the charges for 13mths only total £621.42 , by the time interest is added and my costs, plus charging Abbey £9.50 x 32 hours court preparation the claim is a healthy £1,505. As I can prove these charges and costs I expect that, at the very least I should walk away with the £1,505. I would expect Ms Kirkman to accept that this is the amount it is going to take to settle the claim. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi prush have been following your thread, the thing i can't get my head around is this. You are supposed to be able to get six years worth of statements from your bank, but your only managing to use 14 months, isn't this a bit convenient for the bank. I thought they have to keep 6 years by law? If they have not done so surely they are in the wrong not you? If thats not correct they will start loosing peoples info, left right and centre!!!!!!!:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for your kind words and suppport in my claim for statements, its really appreciated. The problem with my claim, and this is probably different to most peoples request for statements is that my account was opened in 1988 and closed in 2002. The last six years of statements would therefore cover 1996 - 2002. The Abbey are only obliged to keep records for 6 yrs and so thats six years from 2007, therefore the statements from 1996 - 2001 would have been destroyed according the Abbey.

 

This leaves the Abbey with approx 13-18 mths of statements left on file, which is what I recieved. Now I know that some people ( Armsoft) has received 12 yrs of statements from the Abbey, and this maybe because the account is still active , but since the Abbey produced the Ricoh statement, saying there were no more records to be had and this satisfied the judge, then I was left with no choice but to accept my costs amd withdraw my claim for statements. :sad: Thanks Karne maybe you could turn something up about Ricoh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the last page of the document that satisfied the judge that there was no more statements to be had:

 

 

7. I have made enquiries of the Defendant's third party custodian of customers microfiche records, Rlcoh. I am instructed that neither the Defendant, nor Ricoh has (any longer) microfiche records relating to the Claimants account which pre-dates June 2000. I am unable to say exactly when it ceased to have such information, to the best of my knowledge it would have been In accordance with the Defendant's policy which I describe above.

8. The Defendant Is therefore unable to comply with the Claimant's request for further personal data as the Defendant Is not In possession of It,

9. I believe that the facts stated In this Witness Statement are true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print name: Debbie Waghorn

Address: Abbey .Notional House; S Triton Square, Regent's Park, London

Abbey House , 201 Grafton Gate East, Milton Keynes, MKL9 1AN

Dates 19 March 2007

3

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reclaiming my sisters charges from Hsbc, we have a directions hearing coming up on the 18th April at Bradford County Court, can anyone tell me what a direction hearing involves and what documents should be taken to the hearing ? if anyone has attended one of these things I would like your input please. Thanks for your help. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...