Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If you're set on pursuing the receiver then a complaint to his governing body (if any) might be a sensible low risk first step. You need to confirm what qualifications he actually has. I don't believe an LPA Receiver necessarily needs to be a licensed insolvency practioner, although he may be. Or he may a chartered surveyor. I note you say "LPA" and "fixed charge" receiver, but aren't those two different appointments with different remits? What relevant powers are given in the mortgage terms and security? Or if that's unclear then how was the appointment described to you? Ducking back to the comment I made earlier, you consulted a solicitor who advised a claim against the receiver. How did he advise that you do so?   Some background reading (accepting it's from 2013 and you may be working off more recent preceded overturning this) .. LPA receivers owe very limited duty to borrowers; a reminder WWW.WRIGHTHASSALL.CO.UK As lenders rely more and more on their powers to appoint an LPA Receiver, a recent case has clarified the Receiver’s obligations, both to the lender and its borrower.  
    • Good Law Project are trying to force HMG to release details of how Sunak's hedge fund made large profits from Moderna. Government ordered to disclose Sunak’s hedge fund emails - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG Good Law Project has won a battle with the Treasury after it tried to suppress emails between Rishi Sunak and the hedge fund he founded.  
    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
  • 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

Welcome - illegal repo in contravention of section 92 and unfair relationship ** WON **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4286 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

I don't usually post much but,

 

I was there.... and even 3 days later I'm still dazed and in awe of how "Wannabe" conducted herself.... she was simply amazing FACT:jaw:

Motor bikes are very dangerous... :bump2:

 

Think once, Think twice, Think Bike :welcome:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I'm certainly in need of something a little stronger than a cuppa at the mo! :-)

 

Luckily for us we live in modern times, the draft judgment will be sent out via email within 2 weeks and the hearing to formally hand down judgment is set for 27th July. So it's not all up in the air thankfully :-D

 

It looks like judgement will be formally handed down tomorrow. Understandably WBDFS can't tell us anything about the draft she has received by email.

 

All the best for tomorrow WBDFS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your patience, I appreciate your understanding that there have been certain things I am unable to speak about publicly.

As it goes, there are still things I am unable to say but I will do what I can to try to explain what has happened.

 

There was a draft judgment but I am entirely unable to say anything about that at all, those there them are the rules I'm afraid :|

Judgment was due to be formally handed down today but it hasn't been. Instead I made an application for a stay of proceedings pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the Harrison case. My application was granted this morning and proceedings are now held until next year when the Supreme Court makes its findings on the Unfair Relationships provisions.

 

I know this is not what you all may have been expecting or hoping but please trust me on this one, it was the right thing to do.

Yes it would have been great to have seen an end to this drama but, in reality it was just not prudent to continue when the rules on Unfair Relationships are all up in the air with no real authority to bind them. There is a very recent Waksman judgment which explains it all very clearly, here's a LINK to it.

 

If I may be so bold to offer the benefit of my experience, I would recommend everybody to take the same action if they already have an ongoing case or are faced with one.

 

In my case the current situation is that there will be further directions given following the Supreme Court decision expected next year. As it stands we are in no different a position than we were before this remit, the original judgment is still set aside and there is no judgment yet on the remit. It all hinges now on what the Supreme Court decides amounts to an Unfair Relationship and whether the facts of my case fall within that ambit.

 

Sorry I can't give you all an ending to this yet....:-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read the whole thread bit by bit over days. I see that I posted in this thread over a year ago!

 

Can I just say congratulations for sticking your ground. Too many times the average person is run roughshod over by companies, and I'm pleased to see you on what seems to be the winning straight. (Depending on Supreme Court judgements).

 

I'm not sure I could have kept up the fight like you did over years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Welcome - illegal repo in contravention of section 92 and unfair relationship ** WON **
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...