Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

LD brother conned - any legal recourse?


floppit
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5194 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

This is a bit of a longshot but just in case there's something I don't know about out there I figured it worth asking.

 

I have a brother with LD who's been ripped off to the tune of a few hundred quid. He's a very kind, extremely dutiful person and that got used. Basically, he wanted a new telly so approached a TV repairman who has kind of been a family friend to get him one. This guy always had me on edge, he wasn't a close friend but my brother has (until recently) never had any friends so the bar was set kind of low and to my brother he was seen as a friend - my parents are a little odd to say the least and sort of half included him (especially after he said his wife died). Anyway the last few bits and bobs he's got for my brother I've thought were a bit overpriced, but hey ho, each to their own - one thing once certain and that's my brother has always been thrilled and wouldn't hear a word against him.

 

So - brother asked him to find a TV for a maximum of £400, for my brother this is 2 weeks wages and a major thing, his TV is just about the most important thing in day to day life. The guy agrees but for cash and returns 2 weeks later with this:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/aud...ice-comparison

A 5 yr old telly with no handbook and not 'truly' HD ready - the price of £289 new (years ago) was the only price I could find as these tellies seem to have disappeared completely over the last half decade.

 

He tells my brother it's £500+ and that's what he paid for it at trade price (evidently highly unlikely). My brother only has his £400 in cash so the guy pressures him till brother parts with a cheque for the rest. My brother did say he thought it was wrong and wasn't what he wanted but the guy said he would be unable to sell it and that my brother had given his word to pay - I think this was done knowingly, because he knew my brother and because he knew he'd never break his word, or even risk doing so knowingly. In the end he left with the full money but brother has now cancelled the cheque so he's just lost £400 for a tv he doesn't want.

 

My brother was so upset last night but only stayed to talk for a short while because he had to be up for work at 5am. I'm going to ask him to give me this gits number and at the very least I'm going to have a go at letting him know that I and my brother know the real price of the telly and know what he did was totally wrong. I'm also considering going on tradesmen's review sites and being clear that we are going to check the bloody thing isn't stolen. It's a real longshot - I doubt there's any law on our side because so much was verbally arranged and my brother did give in under pressure.

 

I'm fairly sure he's taken hundreds off my brother over the years but nothing as clear and blatant as this. The swine of it is that my brother has only ever asked him to get these things to give him trade as a friend, he knows we would look for him and he knows his BIL is an electronics engineer who can fix almost anything!

 

Is there any law regarding reasonable pricing? (don't laugh I'm not holding my breath)

Any law about lying regarding how much was paid for an object?

 

My brother is definitely small fry in terms of wealth - part of me wonders how many other 'friends' this toss pot has in the wings and how much of his income is made that way.

 

Another issue that makes it a little more complicated is that my brother isn't registered disabled, no formal diagnosis. He spent his childhood in special schools but in the 70's things were very different and on school leaving age pretty much every input stopped. He is independent and while it's very clear and obvious he's vulnerable I don't think he sees himself that way (a good thing!), over the years he's just been mystified why he has no friends and can't do things he knows full well others can. He believes he's dyslexic hence reading and writing are hard but again nothing formal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hate to hear of people being taken advantage of like this. I know that the item was not purchased directly from a shop by your brother but it might just be worth posting this under General Consumer Issues. Surely when you purchase a tv you are entitled to a receipt and a guarantee. *Friend* should be asked to provide these items.

 

Can just imagine he has told some old dear that her tv cannot be repaired she has paid for a new one and he has spent £10 on a spare part and flogged tv to your brother.

 

Hope someone with knowledge in this area replies to your post.

 

Cheers MelissaTeddyBear

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the face of it no - he should really have someone looking out for him when making larger financial decisions. If there is an offer and acceptance, and the money is paid over, that's the bargain completed. There would be no right of redress, even if the TV blew up within 10 minutes as ths is a private sale.

 

You could try embarassing the seller, or by asking for proof of why the 'trade' price was so high, but he's not obliged to do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you are stuck between a rock and a hard place here.

 

To me, the problem is lack of diagnosis and therefore recognised condition.

 

There is no law against setting a price, regardless of what it is.

 

In effect, this was a sale under duress, but under duress due to your brothers LD, which isnt formally recognised.

 

Did he do this as a private individual doing a favour, or as a business/trader? It may make a massive difference.

 

For example, did your brother get a receipt?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the face of it no - he should really have someone looking out for him when making larger financial decisions. If there is an offer and acceptance, and the money is paid over, that's the bargain completed. There would be no right of redress, even if the TV blew up within 10 minutes as ths is a private sale.

 

You could try embarassing the seller, or by asking for proof of why the 'trade' price was so high, but he's not obliged to do this.

 

he does have people who watch out for him just not by force - what can I say except he has seen the guy as a friend for a long time and he wanted to give him the 'trade'. He knows we'd sort him out a telly but he earns his own money and it's ultimately up to him. I know it's a longshot and I'm definitely going to try to embarrass it out of him - I'm as mad as a bag of cats!

 

Mr.Shed, he used to be a dealer of tellies and I believe he's still self employed for repairs. My brother won't still be up but I'll ask him tomorrow about a receipt.

 

Prior to this my brother had invited him to his 40th BD next week - the creep rang him and said he wouldn't be seen dead there now (not that he was still invited - muppet!). On the upside it meant my brother has been happy for me to have a go at getting his money, and he knows I won't play nice with toss pot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind, he acted like a trader, not an individual.

 

I would be inclined to at least try my hand with trading standards.

 

I doubt its a goer, but nothing to lose by trying it.

 

I suspect this may be a learning experience, nothing more I'm afraid.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the law, but surely something criminal has gone on here? I'd certainly want to pass the info to the police and see what they think. If the guy has done this once he's probably done it several times, causing untold misery as he goes...

If that gives no joy, I'd bet he's not mentioned the extra income to the Tax Office...

Best wishes.

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afraid what you think it looks like wouldn't cut it.

 

Even if Trading Standard took an interest, what would you expect them to do? They do not act for individuals (never have, never will) and are invariably a sop to make folk think there is some recourse available that saves them taking the person to court.

 

There isn't, and it doesn't!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with eveything you've said buzby...all of which was covered by:

 

I would be inclined to at least try my hand with trading standards.

 

I doubt its a goer, but nothing to lose by trying it.

 

I suspect this may be a learning experience, nothing more I'm afraid.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there,

I have no legal knowledge about such matters but wonder if there was an agreement between the buyer and the seller for the buyer to purchase a *new* tv and what the seller provided was an *old* tv then has the seller breeched the agreement?

 

Would there be any joy with this type of thing at small claims court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really Melissa - it requires proof. Buying from a man you know, rather than from a recognised retailer would put the onus on the buyer to prove that he was misled. With no corroboration any success would depend on the plausibility of both parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When one party is disadvantaged, they can end up being flustered and not help their case. A dispassionate third-party, providing corroboration would be really useful. However, the dispute could still cost the buyer money - they may not be charged to raise the action, but should they lose, the winner can ask for capped costs, and this would have to be paid regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, right from the start as mentioned in the OP it's a big time long shot, I have the sense to know that but he (tv **** bag) may not if it's the nearest thing to plausible.

 

There are various issues he may be encouraged to feel nervous about:

*Avoiding tax - he is self employed as a repair man.

* Coercion - my brother stated clearly he didn't want the telly but the guy still left with the money.

* Having his name raised re any potential safeguarding issue when a couple of years from now he's likely to be chasing ISA registration. (not that I think one complaint would effect that - but who says there's just the one?).

 

Of course he may not be in the least concerned about any of the above - in which case it will just have to be a learning experience. On the other hand £300 (he could resell telly for max £100) may not be worth the risk.

 

I want my brothers money back for him, and if I can muster a healthy shot across his bows, at least make it an uncomfortable con I sure as hell will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you find out about a receipt?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick observation.

 

If the television was brand new, isn't the retailer obliged under the Communications Act to fill out a return to the TV Licensing people so that they can hassle the purchaser (Sorry, I meant check that there is a licence in force! Lol).

 

If he didn't do this, then the set must be second hand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...