Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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 4257 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

I don't know, but wonder if the material in this link is relevant: http://trialandappeal.blogspot.com/2005/11/good-judgesbad-judges.html

Thank you

I'm sure there was a lot more to this perverted judgment than met the eye, but whatever the reasons I'm still left with only one option.

 

I can't tell you what an effect this whole debacle has had on my health lately, the stress of writing an appeal that will be going to the High Court is beyond words. I can't even count the amount of times I've wanted to throw the towel in just so I can have something that faintly resembles a normal life again!

 

I know I'll never forgive myself if I don't see this through now so I'm battling on :razz:

 

It's funny how little gems of wisdom come from the most unlikely places:

BBA PPI Judicial Review Case- "......deals with contraventions of rules by making them actionable as breaches of statutory duty. "Actionable" means giving rise to a cause of action in a court of law."

 

Who'd have ever thought the word 'actionable' was actually a legal term?? :madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire you for your tenacity. There are times in my life where I let myself be trodden on because it was too much effort to do something about it.

 

However, having read through this thread, and followed some other ones, my personal opinion is that there is something seriously wrong with the culture in our legal system. Particularly where litigants in person are concerned. It seems to me that judges will pass down verdicts which make no sense whatsoever, but in looking back over the history of the case, it's almost as if the "other side" know that they don't have to bother creating a proper case as they're just going to win anyhow. In your case, my reading of the matter is that the judge's pronouncements that S92 doesn't apply to hire purchase agreements (if I remember this all correctly) is just insanely wrong. How and why did this judge make this decision?

 

That confusion is why I was googling things when I came up with the link in my previous post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire you for your tenacity. There are times in my life where I let myself be trodden on because it was too much effort to do something about it.

 

However, having read through this thread, and followed some other ones, my personal opinion is that there is something seriously wrong with the culture in our legal system. Particularly where litigants in person are concerned. It seems to me that judges will pass down verdicts which make no sense whatsoever, but in looking back over the history of the case, it's almost as if the "other side" know that they don't have to bother creating a proper case as they're just going to win anyhow. In your case, my reading of the matter is that the judge's pronouncements that S92 doesn't apply to hire purchase agreements (if I remember this all correctly) is just insanely wrong. How and why did this judge make this decision?

 

That confusion is why I was googling things when I came up with the link in my previous post.

Tenacity has been waning lately but I'm doing the best I can to muster up enough to get this done!

 

The judge appeared to deliberately 'skim over' S92 when summing up as did t'other side when closing.

It was like this:

T'other side in closing submission, something along the lines of- 'I will draw the court's attention to Sections 90, 92 and 140 and say that the goods were not protected at the time of repossession, the consequences of which are somewhat draconian. When considering a judgment for Unfair Relationship, the court has wide ranging powers and would ask that the court bear that in mind when reaching a decision.'

 

The judge in giving his judgment- "Judgment for the Claimant in the claim of Trespass" and then "The goods were not protected and this was not a Chattel Mortgage therefore no Court Order was needed and so no breach of statutory duty occurred"

 

At no point did anybody pay any attention to what I consider to be the main point of my claim! It's so infuriating :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Followed up by T'other side's solicitor adding this to their website AFTER the trial:

"What happens if the borrower defaults? Because the loan agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, the lender can't seize the car without going to Court for an order, if the borrower has paid back more than 1/3 of the loan. Even if less than this has been paid back, the lender can only seize and sell the car if it's parked in a public place such as on the road. If it's on private land (eg in a garage or on a drive) a Court order is needed otherwise the lender risks a claim for common law trespass or breach of statutory duty (although it should be noted that if the trespass is minimal and no damage is done the Court will only award nominal damages)."

 

The bold section is the 'addition' :???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damages for breach of statutory duty are measured by loss so I claimed the value of my 'lost' car and my 'lost' expenses at having to replace it as a result of their breach.

With 140 the court has powers to return all sums paid and release from all further liability and that is what I claimed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE REASON IME ASKING IS OUR FRIENDS WELCOME DID THS TO A GIRL AT WORK.

AS SHE IS IN THE UNION , IT GOT PASSED TO ME TO LOOK INTO

 

IT MIRRORS YOUR CASE AND I RELISH A BITE AT THIS APPLE:wink::wink::wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

THE REASON IME ASKING IS OUR FRIENDS WELCOME DID THS TO A GIRL AT WORK.

AS SHE IS IN THE UNION , IT GOT PASSED TO ME TO LOOK INTO

 

IT MIRRORS YOUR CASE AND I RELISH A BITE AT THIS APPLE:wink::wink::wink:

 

It's just so infuriating, they'll never stop doing this. They think they're above the law and the Judges give them more and more reason to carry on :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

it has been in the papers if a car is untaxed and been sawn off the road they can now take it away and crush it, this is disgusting because times are really hard and people cant afford to tax their cars straight away but save for this and still want the cars its on their own property so whats the problem is not hurting anyone is it its not on the road with out tax,

Link to post
Share on other sites

it has been in the papers if a car is untaxed and been sawn off the road they can now take it away and crush it, this is disgusting because times are really hard and people cant afford to tax their cars straight away but save for this and still want the cars its on their own property so whats the problem is not hurting anyone is it its not on the road with out tax,

 

 

you need to read the regs again

 

if a vehicle is SORN off road then

 

they cant remove it

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the vehicle has a valid SORN declaration, then it can legally parked on private property with no tax or insurance. However, for tenants, it would be well worth checking your tenancy agreement as many require vehicles parked at the property to be (at least) insured - this particularly applies to apartment blocks with communal car-parks; clearly to try and protect the assets of all the tenants that use the facilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark!!

You've been sorely missed :sad:

So glad to see you back :madgrin:

 

Yes I can hardly believe it myself, those early days seem such a long time ago now, especially cos I'm off to the High Court today to hand deliver my permission to appeal notice :!: Who'd have thought it would have come to this from such small beginnings!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to take the car back from you, that is on private land they need a court order? Would this mean they would add the cost of getting that court order to your debt?

Only if they win.

I would imagine that anybody who didn't give their consent to having their car repossessed from their private property would have a good reason for doing so, maybe one that would be best dealt with at a court hearing??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, but if i lost what would it cost me? £50 or £500 or worse? I am thinking that a judge is not going to give me a free car.

It would entirely depend on the circumstances, has the creditor done something they shouldn't have or do you have some kind of gripe with them?? A judge would be highly unlikely give you a free car at an ordinary Return of Goods hearing, unfortunately there's so much more to it than I could give you a straightforward answer to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wannabe

Glad you are carrying on,

Keep Strong and I am sure you will win in the end.

You deserve it

 

All the best

 

Leakie

 

 

Have the site team changed things again,

no date and post numbers or is it me,sorry for digressing

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...