Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I disagree with the charge and also the statements sent. Firstly I have not received any correspondence from DVLA especially a statutory notice dated 2/5/2024 or a notice 16/5/2024 voiding my licence if I had I would have responded within this timeframe. The only letter received was the single justice procedure notice dated the 29.5.2024 this was received on 4.6.2024. I also disagree with the statement that tax was dishonoured through invalid indemnity claim. I disagree that the licence be voided I purchased the vehicle in Jan 2024 from RDA car sales Pontefract with agreement to collect the car on the 28.1.2024. The garage taxed the vehicle on the 25.1.24 for eleven payments on direct debit  using my debit card on my behalf. £62.18 was the initial payment on 8.2.24  and £31 per month thereafter the second payment was 1.3.24.This would run from Jan 24 to Dec 24 and a total of £372.75, therefore the car was clearly taxed before  I took the car away After checking one of my vehicle apps  I could see the vehicle was showing as untaxed it later transpired that DVLA had cancelled my tax , without reason and I did not receive any correspondence from DVLA to state why it was cancelled or when. The original payment of £62.18 had gone through and verified by my bank Lloyds so this payment was not declined. I then set up the direct debit again straight away at my local post office branch on 15.2.2024 the first payment was £31 on 1.3.2024 and subsequent payments up to Feb 2025 with a total of £372.75 which was the same total as the original DD that was set up in Jan, Therefore I claimed the £62.18 back from my bank as an indemnity claim as this payment was from the original cancelled tax from DVLA and had been cancelled . I have checked my bank account at Lloyds and every payment since Jan 24  up to date has been taken with none rejected as follows: 8.2.24 - £62.15 1.3.24 - £31.09 2.4.24 - £31.06 1.5.24 - £31.06 3.6.23-£31.06 I have paper copies of the original DD set up conformation plus a breakdown of payments per month , and a paper copy of the second DD setup with breakdown of payments plus a receipt from the post office.I can also provide bank statements showing each payment to DVLA I also ask that my licence be reinstated due to the above  
    • You know hes had it when they call out those willing to say anything even claiming tories have reduced taxes on live tv AS Salmonella says: The Conservative Party must embrace Nigel Farage to “unite the right”, Suella Braverman has urged, following a disastrous few days for Rishi Sunak. The former home secretary told The Times there was “not much difference” between the new Reform UK leader’s policies and those of the Tories, as senior Conservatives start debating the future of the party. hers.   AND Goves replacement gets caught booking in an airbnb to claim he lives locally .. as of yesterday you can rent it yourself in late July - as he'll either be gone or claiming taxpayer funded expenses for a house Alongside pictures of himself entering a house, Mr McGuinness said Surrey Heath residents “rightly expect their MP to be a part of their community”. - So whens farage getting around to renting (and subletting) a clacton beach hut?   Gove’s replacement caught out on constituency house claim as home found on Airbnb WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Social media users quickly pointed out house Ed McGuinness had posted photos in was available to rent     As Douglas Ross says he'll stand down in scotland - if he wins a Westminster seat - such devotion.
    • I've completed a draft copy to defend and will post up here for review.  Looking over the dates and payments this all stemmed from DVLA cancelling in Feb , whereby I set up a new DD in Feb hence the overlap, why they cancelled when I paid originally in Jan I have no idea. Anyway now stuck with pending court action and a suspended licence . I am also firing off a letter to DVLa recorded disputing the licence revoke
    • Thank you both for your expert knowledge and understanding. You're fighting the good fight by standing up for people like me and others with limited knowledge of this stuff. I thank you. I know all my DVLA details are good. I recently (last year) renewed my license, and my car's V5 is current with the correct details; the same is valid for my partner. I'll continue to ignore the love letters 😂 and won't let it bother either me or my partner.  I'll revisit this post if/when I get a letter of claim.  F**k ém.
    • Please check back later on today for a fuller response and some edits
  • 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

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4657 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

It's a laptop from work... so I have no choice over what's on there.... unless I can download something else to get round the problem. Can I download the browser? (I'm not very techie, so please let me off if that's a really stupid question... lol)

 

:-)

 

The only daft question is the one not asked....

 

Most browsers need you to install which if your work admin have locked down the right to install software you wont be able to do.

 

You could try a standalone browser, QTWEB springs to mind, you can run it from a usb key and it keeps its "footprint" to a minimum.

 

Comes in two flava's... one with a setup program and the basic lite product that you just run from wherever you copy the file... that one is here

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The only daft question is the one not asked....

 

Most browsers need you to install which if your work admin have locked down the right to install software you wont be able to do.

 

You could try a standalone browser, QTWEB springs to mind, you can run it from a usb key and it keeps its "footprint" to a minimum.

 

Comes in two flava's... one with a setup program and the basic lite product that you just run from wherever you copy the file... that one is here

 

S.

 

So if I save that QtWeb one onto a data stick.... what do I need to do with it if I want to post a thread? I need an idiot's guide..... sorry... lol :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I save that QtWeb one onto a data stick.... what do I need to do with it if I want to post a thread? I need an idiot's guide..... sorry... lol :-)

 

haha no problem.

 

Just double click on it and then enter in the address/URL for consumeractiongroup, then its just a case of using it as normal, just click on the new thread when your in the right forum.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you log on tick the 'remember me' box first.

 

Ok... will try that next time... :-)

 

I think I've just managed to post a thread in The Bear Garden.... but it logged me out straight after, so I've come back on in the normal way.... which means I'M BACK!! lol... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... will try that next time... :-)

 

I think I've just managed to post a thread in The Bear Garden.... but it logged me out straight after, so I've come back on in the normal way.... which means I'M BACK!! lol... :-)

 

Glad to hear it P1, wouldn't like to lose your expertise! So many seem to have gone elsewhere for various reasons :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s so off putting the site now I have really lost interest as it`s too much hard work finding things and posting things can`t imagine what neewbies think or creditors looking in they must be rejoicing I used to look in all the time I find it a huge chore now

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been mentioned elsewhere but just to reiterate, the site was upgraded because it needed to be, it was past it's sell by date and technical support was coming to an end and like everything else in the wonderful mysterious world of cyberspace things move on. Compare it to upgrading from Windows XP to Vista some people loved it whilst others loathed it. Obviously there will always be Luddites when it comes to change but this had to be done & it couldn't be achieved magically by the click of a switch so glitches have occurred particularly so as the site was running live rather than being shut down during the process.

 

We'll get there in the end if people have a little patience then we'll have a faster, modern more secure site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate what you are saying lets hope by the time you do get it sorted that folk have not gone to a much simpler site this far too technical the older version was bad enough folk don`t take into account that a lot of people are not computer literate so want it nice and simple to keep their interest going

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll get there in the end if people have a little patience then we'll have a faster, modern more secure site.

This is true. I think you'd have had more people onside with the changes with some sort of pre-warning that changes were going to happen and that there'd be glitches afterwards etc.

 

One useful feaure that seems to have gone/can't see how to do it is to find all threads started by a username. Has this feature been removed or is it now achieved through a different means?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a suggestion to Admin that there be an area within the site where notifications can be posted if there are any site issues such as server downtime, speed or compatibility issues etc. Whether or not it will happen is in the lap of the gods. ;)

 

As for missing features, things are still being added, changed and tweaked at the minute & sometimes when one thing is done it creates problems elsewhere so Webby has got his hands full.

 

AFAIK subscribed threads will be available, but for the time being you can access recent ones by clicking 'settings' at the top right of the page or clicking your user name and checking your posts on the left.

 

Some people are having more issues with the site than others, this seems to be a compatibility problem with IE7 and below but Webby is working hard to resolve this too. The workaround at the minute seems to be to upgrade to IE8 + any M$ security upgrades or use another browser such as Opera or Firefox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dotty,

 

Maybe it's just that some have been fortunate enough to find employment.

 

Hope your keeping well.

 

Must be just me, but I don't seem to have too much trouble with the new format. Most of the useful links such as user CP and subscribed threads are in the Advanced button at the top of the page. ( have to admit to gleaning that infor from johnnymitch. )

 

Vint

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen fellas and gals we ARE WINNERS!!!!

 

I had a threatogram from nobby number one Lowells AKA RED ...it WAS from RED

 

LEGAL action ought to have been taken according to THEIR 'intellectuals' A LONG TIME AGO ..

 

I cannot be bothered to call this bunch of IDIOTS back my 'melchick' (clockwork orange) brothers and sisters....

 

I shall tell LOWELLS ,,,CABOT..etc etc etc (Yul Brynner.) etc etc etc. to rehabilitate themselves...

 

Whilst I 'lounge....... with the greatest of respect to Bill Shiddings NOT in their patio drinking....BUT in their FRONT ROOMS my melchick brothers and sisters...a phrase form STANLEY KUBRICK

 

HEEE HEEE ...I am loving it...HONESTLY I AM

 

WE CAGGERS ARE THE BEST

 

AND WE WILL ALWAYS WIN...

 

LONG LIVE OUR INTELLECTUALS

 

THAT IS THE BEAUTY!!!

 

m2ae

 

P.S ..........The judges ARE afraid of US..believe me

Edited by means2anend
spelling' botherd' to bothered
Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting question Priority 1 and one that reminds me of a story about the late Iain McLeod (he was going to be Chancellor in Heath's 1970 govt, but died of a heart attack a few days after being appointed). While at Oxford McLeod apparently was the doyen of his College's bridge team. One evening they were supposed to be playing a bridge match against another College, but when McLeod arrived he was clearly "tired and emotional". One of his fellow team members observed with brilliant insight "McLeod, you're drunk". To which McLeod responded "better McLeod drunk than McLeod not at all!".

I would suggest - and I thought much the same as you P1 - that "better m2ae drunk, than m2ae not at all!" - though that he chose to correct his spelling at the time, is perhaps a source of concern?

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting question Priority 1 and one that reminds me of a story about the late Iain McLeod (he was going to be Chancellor in Heath's 1970 govt, but died of a heart attack a few days after being appointed). While at Oxford McLeod apparently was the doyen of his College's bridge team. One evening they were supposed to be playing a bridge match against another College, but when McLeod arrived he was clearly "tired and emotional". One of his fellow team members observed with brilliant insight "McLeod, you're drunk". To which McLeod responded "better McLeod drunk than McLeod not at all!".

I would suggest - and I thought much the same as you P1 - that "better m2ae drunk, than m2ae not at all!" - though that he chose to correct his spelling at the time, is perhaps a source of concern?

 

Lol! :-) Hopefully he'll be back to elaborate.... the ref. to Clockwork Orange was a bit worrying. Horrible film :-/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

to see how our judges have "fudged" evidence to pervert the Statute - specifically where regulated agreements, as these are defined by the Section 8 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 - when such regulated agreements are refinanced by Multiple Agreements as these are defined by Section 18 of the 1974 CCA as was dratfted by Mr Francis Bennion.

 

Mr Francis Bennion - who drafted the 1974 CCA, has written to say that The Court of Appeal was "wholly Mistaken" and "Incorrect" in its misapplication in Story, (where 3 regulated agreements are refinanced) and that the Court "reveals" "an uncertain judicial grasp" of his drafting - but the Court refuses to hear him, whilst paradoxically, it upholds the dissenting views to Bennion, of Guest and Loyd and Prof Roy Goode, the latter with whom I communicated in the 90's.

 

Prof Goode told me in the 90's (letter to hand) that where the CCA 1974 "bit" the terms of a relevant agreement the Court must uphold the CCA.

 

He (Prof Goode) has not been asked by me to opine on the existing indebtedness that features in Story - "the undoubted existing debt of about £12000" (Auld LJ) that existed in Story - which was refinanced ("replaced" (Auld LJ) by a new agreement which provided £35000 over the similar 3 fracilities - where the existing sum of £12000 which was refinanced neatly falls within the £15000 limit that qualified under Section 8 at the material time. IE the existing debt was regulated - satisfying the Issue on the Appeal which sought regulated agreements - The Court refuses to reconsider, under my many applications to reopen on the basis that regulated agreements were refinanced in Story - where regulated agreements were promised as being determinative of that Appeal.

 

One might legitimately expect that our senior judges might be bound to uphold the Rule of Law as far as such evidential matters are concerned, but in Natwest V Story & Pallister (CA May 7 1999)[termed Story in the authorities - the latest being Southern Pacific V Heath] the judges have concealed material evidence of regulation in Story that was determinative of that apeal, and the concealment of that material evidence in Story serves only to favour Natwest and the Coomon Law when the precedent mis- set in Story is applied to following cases under the assumedly proper rule of precedent - that we contend was, and is, perverse -

 

ie the ruling in Story was set in order to protect Natwest, initially, and to protect other creditors that followed the policy of opacity in consumer credit agreements, from the regulatory interference that was contemplated following the precedent set in Story - ie the judges are seen to have stepped over the line where they conceal the undoubted regulation in Story - where, I repeat, the Bank of England and OFT awaited the ruling before they were empowered to initiate investgations into transparency in Consumer Credit Agreements where the OFT opined (subject to the ruling of the Courts) that he CCA applied in Story.

 

In Story - nothing was written as demanded by the CCA 1974 - it was all done by handshake where the bank also promised us £500,000 of future IF we followed their business plan and advice - which was all secured against our valuable home.........

which we did............................................

 

SO WHAT ???

 

At least £300 Billions (2004 figres) reli9es on the concealment of the regulation in Story

 

John Story

 

Former Principal Lecturer (International Computers Ltd),

First Defendant

Natwest V Story & Pallister

www.ruinedbynatwest.com

Edited by ruinedbynatwest
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just that some have been fortunate enough to find employment.

Vint

..that and the hols too...

 

M2AE...I knew som'n wasn't right about that post!!!:p lol

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hi

please see my thread here
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-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

hi

please see my thread here
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-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

 

did you quote directly from the judgment waksmans comments on enforceme t actions?

 

 

s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i did i pointed out it was dealing with sec 78 requests the fact it was a debtor bringing the action against creditor the fact wakesman said copy and terms must be legible (which we all agreed mine wernt apart from the main bits and sig) and the fact that the creditor would need to hunt for the original to prove in court this was offere to me in my thread. however the judge was having none of it he had all ready made his mind up that his interpretation of the ruling was the correct one and gave the judgement

kaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...