Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wrong as usual Jugg    Did Michael Cohen Commit Perjury In The Trump Trial? WWW.ZEROHEDGE.COM ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero Michael Cohen. He still has one day of cross examination ahead of him on Thursday. With the government resting after Cohen’s cross examination, I believe that an honest judge would have no alternative but to grant a motion for a directed verdict and end the case before it goes to the jury. Judge Juan Merchan will now have to give the full measure of his commitment to the rule of law. Given the failure to support the elements of any crime or even to establish the falsity of recording payments as legal expenses, this trial seemed to stumble through the motions of a trial. Michael Cohen was only the final proof of a raw political exercise. For critics, some of Cohen’s answers appear clearly false or misleading. Like their star witness, the prosecutors have shown that they simply do not take the law very seriously when there is an advantage to be taken.
    • So to sum up. 1.  You & your friend did the right thing on 28 December and are in the right legally. 2.  You are in the early stages of the threatening letter cycle.  We've seen these letters quite literally over 10,000 times.  For the moment your friend has nothing to worry about. 3.  No-one will turn up at your friend's door. 4.  If months down the line this got to court, you would win.  It's blatant disability discrimination.  Some time back I looked through the results of Excel v Caggers court cases, well we won 85% of the time, and you would be 100& certain to win. But this is the bit that you won't like ... 5.  Excel don't care that they are legally in the wrong.  They want your money.  They will go on and on with their letters hoping you'll give in. 6.  They are also the most litigious of the private parking companies and it's perfectly possible, months hence, that they will take your friend to court.  You have to be prepared for this.  They would lose.  But they don't care about the losses since, sadly, presumably so many people are afraid of court and so give in and pay.  7.  We will of course support you all the way!
    • Hi, Just updating that I'll be submitting the SJPN shortly this evening electronically.
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
  • 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 4305 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 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Although I'm hopping mad at the nonsense they've come up with, it does actually all work in my favour ;)

 

1.) They admit not having a court order to take the car off my driveway

2.) They admit taking the car off my driveway

3.) They deny it is a breach of duty, (How can they deny the written law?? :D)

4.) They say it's not unfair relationship because it's not breach of duty, (The Consumer Credit Act 1974 says it IS breach of duty, therefore their argument is easily disproved)

Now you see what I mean!

I'm so glad I shared, I really appreciate your input :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you see what I mean!

I'm so glad I shared, I really appreciate your input :-)

 

Aaaah but its not any old duty its "statutary duty"

 

i am convinced that this defence was drafted by a writer from "mills & boon":p

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

paragraph 45: the grand finale.

 

every allegation is denied:confused:

 

but the real "crux" the illegal repo, s92 is admitted:eek:

 

"ROFL"

 

cab

Now you understand why I was so thrown earlier. It's so contradictory, vague and amateurish I thought it was some kind of joke!!

 

All it says is "denied, denied, denied" but no reasons why.

CPR 16.5 (2)(a) states there must be reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaah but its not any old duty its "statutary duty"

 

i am convinced that this defence was drafted by a writer from "mills & boon":p

 

cab

They properly shot themselves in the foot with that one!

They admit the contravention of section 92 by admitting they didn't have a court order.

Section 92 subsection(3) states that any contravention of sec92 is actionable as a breach of statutory duty.

Then they go on to say "it's not unfair relationship because we acted according to our statutory duty"

 

Oh no you didn't!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you understand why I was so thrown earlier. It's so contradictory, vague and amateurish I thought it was some kind of joke!!

 

All it says is "denied, denied, denied" but no reasons why.

CPR 16.5 (2)(a) states there must be reasons.

 

bang on the money wannabe.

 

maybe you should advice them to pop down to there local library and change there style of "fictional novelist"

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

still confused on this one "please clarify":)

 

cab

In 18 and 19 they are attempting to quote from the Act about their entitlement to serve a default and terminate.

 

In 20 there's a random comment about section 90 lol!

 

Then 21, 22, 23 and 24 is saying they defaulted and terminated.

 

Yeah, makes a load of sense I know!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 18 and 19 they are attempting to quote from the Act about their entitlement to serve a default and terminate.

 

In 20 there's a random comment about section 90 lol!

 

Then 21, 22, 23 and 24 is saying they defaulted and terminated.

 

Yeah, makes a load of sense I know!!

 

and they are trying to convince a judge:rolleyes:

 

just back tracking, is the default compliant.

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

and they are trying to convince a judge:rolleyes:

 

just back tracking, is the default compliant.

 

cab

This is what I was saying earlier about them refuting allegations I never even made! Why go on about section 90 when I didn't even allege they had breached 90???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compliant default my ar*e! The usual 14days cr*p, no numerical date. I wouldn't have minded but they never even bothered to send it to me!!

 

Done my head in enough for today, I'm going to bed!

 

Happy reading, (cos I know you'll re-read it! It's so incredulous you'll have to just to believe they really wrote that :D)

 

Goodnight Cab, thanks for your input x

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I was saying earlier about them refuting allegations I never even made! Why go on about section 90 when I didn't even allege they had breached 90???

 

if i had'nt read there defence i could of answered that one, but having raed it "there is no answer" (twisted logic)

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

and good evening to you "double trouble" Aaaaw "sorry"

 

moz-screenshot.png

 

cab

 

 

Awww flower fanks hehe

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

wannabe can I see too please ;)

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

your "welcome" (no pun intended)

 

 

 

its "brilliant"

 

and good morning

 

cab

 

 

Morning :) wheres your thread then ;)

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

its coming "very soon"

 

cab

 

 

Oh the suspense........:razz:

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...