Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I Know I will get flamed for this , but for once time only I am with MET . The so called  “graffiti” is there to help people , Parent and child bays , Disabled bays , and electric charge point bays are all there for a reason  , just suppose you had an electric car and it was in need of charging ,had children in the car and need extra space to get them out ,had a disabled passenger who needs extra space . how would you feel  if the bay was obstructed . I have no doubt the experts here will guide you to having the parking charge cancelled . But morally ………..
    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
  • Our picks

ukaviator

City showdown likely as Treasury seizes control of RBS bonus pool

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3656 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

Alistair Darling was heading for a clash with the City’s biggest institutional shareholders last night after the Treasury seized control of the bonus pool at Royal Bank of Scotland. Institutional investors raised concerns about RBS’s ability to compete with rivals after the Treasury demanded the right of veto over both the size and terms of bonus payments for thousands of its bankers.

 

RBS, 70 per cent owned by the taxpayer, would normally set bonus levels at the end of the year. It employs about 20,000 staff in its global banking and markets division, which has had a record year trading in bonds, interest rates and currencies. Last year, it earmarked an estimated £1 billion in payouts for staff. However, in an unprecedented political intervention, the Treasury has demanded the right to dictate both the “quantum and shape” of bonuses at RBS for 2009. Amid worries about a public backlash on pay, it has already forced RBS to agree to pay bonuses in shares rather than cash and to stagger payouts over three years.

 

More:

 

City showdown likely as Treasury seizes control of RBS bonus pool - Times Online


Some useful links.

FAQ's

Making Posts

Letter Template Library

Bank Contact Details

AQ Guide to Completion

Court Fees

Data Protection non Compliance

Witness Statements for Court Bundle

Banking Code Website

Limitations Act

Fast Track Costs

A-Z Index

Mis-Claim Tutorial

Step By Step Instructions

 

Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs-The Titanic by professionals.

 

Please click my scales if you find my advice helpful !

 

If your claim is successful, please donate 5% so that it can continue to help others.

 

Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

 

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

YOU CAN NOW COMPLAIN TO THE OFT ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mwah ah ah. Too little too late, but mwah ah ah. :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the Treas are the least of their worries, now Europe are going to be putting controls on the London financials

 

Chap on Radio 4 this morning might as well have been shouting "run for the hills, the Europeans are coming!"

 

:D


omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And people thought Europe was no good! :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...