Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant 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; 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.
  • 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

Need advice regarding my court case v Abbey


bankchaser35
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5207 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

Hi All,

 

I applied to the courts for my Bank Charges to be reimbursed, and along with many others had my case "stayed". I then applied to have the "Stay" lifted owing to hardship but this did not happen, instead my Order for Stay was amended to read:

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The Order for Stay ordered that:

 

1. The claim is stayed until the final decision in the case between the Office of Fair Trading and Abbey National plc and others (Claim No: 2007 Folio No. 1186), including any appeal ("the test case").

 

2. Within 14 days of the final decision in the test case, the Defendent must file and serve the following:

 

a) a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of that decision.

b) Suggested directions for this claim.

 

3. On receipt of the documents from the Defendant, the court will make further directions.

 

4. Either party may apply at any time for the stay to be lifted.

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

It's now been over 14 days since the final decision was made and I've not heard anything from Abbey, can anyone advice how I take up this matter hopefully with a favourable outcome? Can I win by default etc?

 

Many thanks... :o)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not got paperwork to hand, but the POC was extracted from the sample letters on this site in 2007. I also added a query on money that had been mysteriously deducted from my account by Abbey too (which only amounted to about £50) with the rest of the POC requesting £2700 in charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not got paperwork to hand, but the POC was extracted from the sample letters on this site in 2007. I also added a query on money that had been mysteriously deducted from my account by Abbey too (which only amounted to about £50) with the rest of the POC requesting £2700 in charges.

Have you contacted your local court and asked them about this and advice what to do now?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes telephoned the Court last Friday and they said that if I wanted to apply for Judgement by Default then should do it quick as lawyers were starting to contact courts and ask them to strike out all the stayed cases without looking at each case individually.

 

He couldn't advise whether requesting a default judgement would be successful or not though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the risk of course is that i either win (yay!) by default or NOT...

 

In which case I think I'd then have to put in a new claim if a new legal loophole comes to light (which means going back 6 years from now, and not 6 years from 2007, and it was between 2001-2004 that abbey were ripping me into smithereens with compounding charges upon charges)

Link to post
Share on other sites

the risk of course is that i either win (yay!) by default or NOT...

 

In which case I think I'd then have to put in a new claim if a new legal loophole comes to light (which means going back 6 years from now, and not 6 years from 2007, and it was between 2001-2004 that abbey were ripping me into smithereens with compounding charges upon charges)

 

I thought provided you can show you only recently discovered the charges were unlawful, you had 6 years from that date to claim back for all charges. ie, if you originally filed in 2007 it stands to reason you only discovered this stuff in 2007 and so you have until 2013 to claim back everything?

 

Am i wrong here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I think it only goes back x6 years from the date the claim is filed.

 

Still not heard from Abbey about this case.... can't believe there's no law to protect against charges when on means tested benefits, but I guess the Supreme Court judges have never been on the bread line to appreciate that giving most of not a lot in Bank charges, leaves you in extreme long term debt and poverty!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Firstly....let me correct you on the 6Yr Statute Of Limitations Act.

 

6 Years is the time you can claim in following the reasonable establishment of when you first became aware of a situation.

 

In the case of BAnk Charges it's from the latest as 2006 or at the earliest 2009.

 

Either way you have till 2012 to file a claim based on knowing about the Bank Charges or till 2015 following the public broadcast and analysis of the SCoJ Judgement and the fact that the Court advised that the way to challenge the Unfair Bank Charges scenario was through the UTCCR 1998 Reg 5.

 

So get your claim in safely before 2012 and it can go safely all the way back to 1995 (possibly further but unsure).

 

Hope that clears that up!

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...