Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
    • Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.
    • Not sure what to make of that or what it means for me, I was just about to head to my kip and it's a bit too late for legalise. When is the "expenditure occured"?  When they start spending money to write to me?  Or is this a bad thing (as "harsh" would imply)? When all is said and done, I do not have two beans to rub together, we rent our home and EVERYTHING of value has been purchased by and is in my wife's name and we are not financially linked in any way.  So at least if I can't escape my fate I can at least know that they will get sweet FA from me anyway   edit:  ah.. Sophia Harrison: Time bar decision tough on claimants WWW.SCOTTISHLEGAL.COM Time bar is a very complex area of law in Scotland relating to the period in which a claim for breach of duty can be pursued. The Scottish government...   This explains it like I am 5.  So, a good thing then because creditors clearly know they have suffered a loss the minute I stop paying them, this is why it is "harsh" (for them, not me)? Am I understanding this correctly?  
    • urm......exactly what you filed .....read it carefully... it puts them to strict proof to prove the debt is enforceable, so thus 'holds' their claim till they coughup or not and discontinue. you need to get readingthose threads i posted so you understand. then you'll know whats maybe next how to react or not and whats after that. 5-10 threads a day INHO. dont ever do anything without checking here 1st.
  • 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

Why no news coverage in the media re manchester test case judgements last week?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4974 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 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

words to the effect that this should stop all "loop holes" in avoiding debts. It is probably available on the BBC listen again service!

 

Not yet. Just checked.

 

Looks like the bloke who is saying that is the one who wrote the article on MSE. :rolleyes:

 

BBC News - Banks 'win' credit card ruling

 

o.gif Banks 'win' credit card ruling o.gif

 

BBC Radio 4's Money Box

 

Saturday, 2 January 2010 at 1204 GMT On Radio 4 and Online

 

Banks have won a partial victory against some credit card customers who have been trying to avoid paying their debts.

 

Claims management companies have argued that a debt cannot be enforced without a copy of the original credit card agreement.

But the High Court in Manchester has ruled that banks need only provide a "reconstituted" copy of the original loan agreement.

 

Money Box is joined by Guy Anker, news editor of the website MoneySavingExpert.com, who explains what this ruling means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never was one for conspiracy theories, but since finding CAG and seeing the link between the financial ins and the courts etc "I believe"!!

 

I have just read George Orwells 1984 again, 20+ years since last time, and didnt realise how close he was to the state we are in at the moment. The stuff he wrote about 60yrs ago is all slotting into place and its worrying :(

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never was one for conspiracy theories, but since finding CAG and seeing the link between the financial ins and the courts etc "I believe"!!

 

I have just read George Orwells 1984 again, 20+ years since last time, and didnt realise how close he was to the state we are in at the moment. The stuff he wrote about 60yrs ago is all slotting into place and its worrying :(

 

Yes it is... :(

 

We're also drip-fed a diet of celebrity/wannabe claptrap through TV/the media that aims to avert our minds from it all (in my opnion), but that's another thread... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the revolution starts here? I have decided I want to fight "The man", just got to find him!

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think I'm screwed with the judges comments in Issue 5 - in effect the prescribed terms can be 'contained' in separate pages so long as they are referred to on the signature page. :Cry:

 

Please tell me this is for the purpose of section 78 only and not for enforement!!!

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

the BBC are the media wing of noolabour

 

it's so blatant now that it's beyond satire

 

Yes. But the "expert" that BBC MoneyBox report featured was the news editor from MSE.

 

Forgive me, but I did expect better from them. :rolleyes:

 

(Problem a naive expectation in hindsight)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been succesful at a county court last year I find all the previous posts quite interesting. Whilst researching my case I read all the relevant posts etc. I even consulted a solicitor and debt helplines. The thing I learnt is that the final decision is yours and nobody can predict the case outcome. For every stated case in support there will be another one against. The secret is to choose your point and stick to it not go off at different tangents. Do not get wrapped up in consipiricay theories unless you want to sell a book or make a documentary. The success is in making your point, in court if neccesary this is why the legal skill of mooting is practised on legal courses. So to conclude read and digest everything you can because remember you will know your case inside out whilst your opponents legal team will be dealing with many other cases and other distractions. So research , prepare and stick to one point. Hope this helps. My success was a £22,000 refund of an ERC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me this is for the purpose of section 78 only and not for enforement!!!

 

HAK

 

Not sure what you're asking here.

 

As far as I can determine the judge in answer to Issue 5 where it was in relation to s61(1)(a), the question was:

 

"Does the document signed by the debtor contain the 'prescribed terms' for the purposes of s61 and/or s127(3) if:

  1. they are referred to on the signed page
  2. where that sheet is attached to the signed page
  3. where that sheet was separate but attached to the signed page

"

 

The judgement was contained in paras 173-181, which in essence says that:

 

  1. Where the signature and PTs appear on separate pieces of paper, this is a question of substance not form.
  2. It is hard to see the (application) form and attached terms as anything other than one document.
  3. On the assumed facts they (the PTs) were as much contained in the signed document as if they were on the reverse.

 

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but in the case of old debts surely if they are contained on seperate documents there has to be a link. I have received Tand Cs but there is no link to the application form or any other document purporting to be a cca UNDER THE 1974 ACT.

 

The judge seems to suggest that if the form or application makes any reference to terms & conditions (whether attached or separate) that would be enough for him to consider them as part of the one (agreement) document.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 8 months later...

hi

please see my thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?228617-kaz3571-V-Cabot/page3

 

i have lost this case today cabot admitted the original was destroyed all they had was an mosly unreadable copy the jadge said due to wakesmans ruling it was all they needed. i argued that wakesman only dealt with a sec 78 req for copy of agreement but he was having none of it. he said if wakesman ruled that a copy was all that was needed for sec 78 req thren that was all that was needed in court. Good luck to all the people on here that are pinning their hopes on the original agreement not being held as i believe many of them will now lose.

kaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...