Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention if peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now- post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!  Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.  Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.  A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
    • I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas. I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease. Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though
  • 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

Default damages [PCWorld wrong laptop sold & HFC Finance]- Supreme Court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3674 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 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

all you will get from K Clarke is ,Thank you for your email. We cannot comment on any judicial decisions

If the Justice Minister feels unable to help citizens regarding matters of justice we're all doomed.

 

Come on England. God save the Queen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one England.

 

So, which charities should I be approaching for help with this matter of Consumer Law?

 

I had agreed with PC World (HFC's representatives) that ALL contracts would be cancelled (the credit contract hadn't even been processed), if the laptop didn't have a modem.

 

PC World (HFC's representatives) then told me, when I returned the laptop as useless, that I had to pay for it anyway.

 

PC World (HFC's representatives) told porky pies. Under oath.

 

I found the one guy on the planet (in USA now) to prove this.

 

The Aberdeen Sheriff agreed. PC World (HFC's representatives) were telling porky pies. Sadly, the Aberdeen Sheriff screwed up with his maths regarding reparation. Law and maths don't gel.

 

Justice should prevail always. If I get help in the Supreme Court, the consumer will win. (Unless there are darker forces at work)

 

"Which" only take on folk who were paying subscriptions.

 

Their advice was not to sign a contract, ever, just in case the vendors are telling porky pies!

 

I'm still waiting to hear from Watchdog. Govan Law Centre remains silent.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just added a few more thoughts. Strange how the courts love to split up one contract into 2. It doesn't help.

 

Both courts admit that it's possible to rescind a contract in the circumstances of my case. The higher court hasn't considered the evidence! What a howler!

Answer to appeal June 2010_Update.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Justice Minister feels unable to help citizens regarding matters of justice we're all doomed.

 

Come on England. God save the Queen.

my quote is what it says that was what i received from the new justice minister ?

sorry if it sounded curt but its what it says, in effect he is too busy for us mere mortals to bother to even contemplate looking at problems we have,

your case it trully intresting durkin and i be subbing to it,if i have any thoughts that might help in contributing towards it i will add too

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

as for the defaults they are being made by a company trading under ENGLISH LAW ? as it states in the consumer contracts so perhaps an action in an english court may be more appropiate,this way the contract gives you the right to rescind under the sections you have quoted..

i would also be wondering what happened to the computor did PC WORLD resell it ? probably never find out

patrickq1

CCA 1974, I understand, is UK Law. In any case the Supreme Court is in England. I've no idea what happened to the laptop. I doubt HFC ever paid the money to PC World after the contract was processed without regard to it's terms. No evidence that they did yet the judges in Edinburgh insist I pay the ransom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

posted by oft today ///

no durkin my problem is not related ,mine goes towards the law of contract and limmitations act on a charge over property,ive just read the act and it confirms that indeed the limittations act does apply..

so when i go to sell my property i can expect them to try and put a spoke in the wheel the charge dates back to 1991 and they have had since 1992 to begin an action i suspect at the time libel charges were instigated against them and they backed off and have left this charge hanging over me like a noose,but i worry less now

patrickq1

 

quick note for you D

OFT has imposed requirements on a major retail finance company that issued proceedings against Scottish debtors in the English courts. It said this practice is unfair because consumers will be unfamiliar with law and procedure and would have to travel to defend the claim. This might make them less likely to defend the action. OFT said it considers this practice a breach of its Debt Collection Guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

posted by oft today ///

no durkin my problem is not related ,mine goes towards the law of contract and limmitations act on a charge over property,ive just read the act and it confirms that indeed the limittations act does apply..

so when i go to sell my property i can expect them to try and put a spoke in the wheel the charge dates back to 1991 and they have had since 1992 to begin an action i suspect at the time libel charges were instigated against them and they backed off and have left this charge hanging over me like a noose,but i worry less now

patrickq1

 

quick note for you D

OFT has imposed requirements on a major retail finance company that issued proceedings against Scottish debtors in the English courts. It said this practice is unfair because consumers will be unfamiliar with law and procedure and would have to travel to defend the claim. This might make them less likely to defend the action. OFT said it considers this practice a breach of its Debt Collection Guidance.

 

Dear pq1

 

I have also been looking at this and came across the attached from a Scottish Law firm called Nolans who represent CapQuest up here, thay are also seem a little sensitive to S19 of the CCA 2006, you have to scoll down a bit (under WARNINGS) but interesting reading.

 

Downloaded from https://www.nolmac.com

Brochure_nc.pdf

Edited by Monty2007
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've attached the appeal that I'll be looking to be addressed at the supreme court regarding Sheriff Tierney's judgement. This was swept under the Edinburgh carpet. Of course, there will be further points now to raise regarding basic, basic, consumer law.

 

I noticed in the Edinburgh judgement that the judges seemed desperate to tell us about a "Contract of Sale" (mentioned 41 times).

The contract was an agreement to pay instalments at 0% interest IF the laptop had a modem.

 

The judges seem determined to split it into two contracts to the extent that they've altered a fact to that effect! They've also either deleted or altered facts that state that the contract was validly rescinded. (Thankfully, fact 13 still remains as does 38 and 41)

 

Incredible. No regard to the evidence. Just the words of the bank's advocates that helped make my case more relevant to other cases.

 

Sheriff Tierney didn't mention a contract of sale once in his findings in fact. This is because there wasn't one. (Only a debtor/creditor/supplier agreement)

 

Law Works have agreed to try and help find a pro bono solicitor. They've also asked the bar pro bono unit to find Counsel. Progress.

 

No word from the Ministry though.

MinuteofAmendment_081009_E.doc

Edited by Durkin
Grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Law Works have agreed to try and help find a pro bono solicitor. They've also asked the bar pro bono unit to find Counsel. Progress.

glad to hear this D at least its a good start plus you have already done a lot of the leg work already making for a speedily resolve...

see if any of these cases are relevant D

patrickq1

Lexology - Banking bulletin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another link.

 

Scots Law News, Edinburgh Law School

 

Bar Pro bono unit have said they're unable to assist in Supreme Court matters that began in Scotland regardless of the impact on the rest of the UK.

 

I'm still hoping though. I've 3 more weeks. My MP has finally sent an e-mail to Ken Clarke! (I had been wrongly advised that he had done so weeks ago).

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats bad news D ,sickens you right to the pit of your stomach that these law lords are so detached from the real world,one day they will have to pay for their mis guided veiws, it really is time that judges in such a position stood in front of the electorate and pleaded for their jobs on the basis of their fair mindedness and sense of true justice...

to many of them now sit and think they are supreme ayahtolla's needs a mammoth change in the constitution to make this happen huh....

lets hope you find some top barristor with a sense of justice..

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Very happy to report that the Law Works charity have today managed to secure me Scottish representation in the Supreme Court. Just in the nick of time! I imagine the next step may take a couple of years but at least it will be taken.

 

Meanwhile I continue to hassle my MP and MSP about trying to put things right so that folk don't need to trot off to the Supreme Court (could well turn out to be a 16 year journey!) every time a bank holds folk to ransom.

 

Still no word from the justice ministry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THEY CANNOT COMMENT ON INDIVIDUAL CASES.

 

I'm asking them to modify the law so that justice is served. Consumers have

been humped, from what I've seen, for at least 12 years and will be for the next 6.

 

They're free to look at my case to see how "the system" works so far. It ain't good. I'm living proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

 

I am sure you are in good hands, but can I draw your attention to CCA74 section 57 which seems to cover your situation and was not mentioned in the latest judgment.

 

Withdrawal from prospective agreement.

 

57. (1) The withdrawal of a party from a prospective regulated agreement shall operate to apply this Part to the agreement, any linked transaction and any other thing done in anticipation of the making of the agreement as it would apply if the agreement were made and then cancelled under section 69.

 

(2) The giving to a party of a written or oral notice which, however expressed, indicates the intention of the other party to withdraw from a prospective regulated agreement operates as a withdrawal from it.

 

(3) Each of the following shall be deemed to be the agent of the creditor or owner for the purpose of receiving a notice under subsection (2)

(a)

a credit-broker or supplier who is the negotiator in antecedent negotiations, and

 

(b)

any person who, in the course of a business carried on by him, acts on behalf of the debtor or hirer in any negotiations for the agreement.

 

 

(4) Where the agreement, if made, would not be a cancellable agreement, subsection (1) shall nevertheless apply as if the contrary were the case.

 

By my reading when you went back to the store the agreement had not been executed by the creditor and still at that time remained a prospective agreement.

 

HTH

 

Dad

Link to post
Share on other sites

posted by oft today ///

no durkin my problem is not related ,mine goes towards the law of contract and limmitations act on a charge over property,ive just read the act and it confirms that indeed the limittations act does apply..

so when i go to sell my property i can expect them to try and put a spoke in the wheel the charge dates back to 1991 and they have had since 1992 to begin an action i suspect at the time libel charges were instigated against them and they backed off and have left this charge hanging over me like a noose,but i worry less now

patrickq1

 

You need to read the case of Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall [2008] EWCA Civ 55.

 

It was held in that (Court of appeal) case that the charge holder *would* be entitled to their money even if the charge holder hasn't enforced the charging order by way of an order for sale within 12 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...