Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Tesco/RBS CCA Form Help Please/court papers sent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4910 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

On the left hand side of the N1 it states Particulars of Claim. just copy that but leave out any personal details (although there shoudn't be any in there)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

The particulars of claim states:

 

The Claimants claim relates to outstanding bank accounts maintained by the Defendant with the Claimant as follows:

Sortcode - my sortcode and acc no

Net Amount - my o/s balance including PPI cover

 

The claimant is the holder of a licence under the C C A 1974. The claimant has made demand/issued default notice in respect of the outstanding accounts. The defendant has failed to repay and/or the default notice has not been complied with. The total amount outstanding set out above includes accrued interest at the relevant agreement rate (contractual) from the date of demand/termination date to the date of issue.

And the claimant claims

1. My o/s balance

2. Costs

3. Interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 until judgment.

 

On top of this is the court fee of £190

 

HELP PLEASE!

 

I have sent FOS complaint to FOS today about TEsco handling of this - cant see that can hurt!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am confused. I thought this was for a loan, not a bank account:???:

 

If so the POC's are wrong.

Have a good read of the second link I posted above to give you some idea of what to do.

 

You have a total of 33 days from the date on the N1 (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge +14 days to put your defence or admission in)

If the claim form is from northampton, you can acknowledge online

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is for a loan - does the POC suggest its a account then? I will read your links.

 

What should I do next then - acknowledge on the basis that I will dispute??

 

I have already signed up to the Northampton Website so I will do it that way for speed.

 

Still not sure what to do, I am happy to dispute on the basis that I am complaining about PPI cover and should I then take the whole PPI figure from the o/s amount they claim?? However from other PPI info I have read I could be entitled to more then just the original PPI charge (+8%). So how can I correctly work out what I could get back or doesnt it matter at this stage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Claimants claim relates to outstanding bank accounts maintained by the Defendant with the Claimant as follows:

 

I think that's what gave me the clue

 

I'm going to read the thread again to get an idea of what you could do but I will probably flag this up for a more legal mind than mime to look at

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anymore advise on this - time is running out for me and I need to do something. Can I just accept the debt in total and try and get an acceptable monthly payment plan in place by the courts (which is what I want) and continue to dispute my PPI charges and hope if I win that they will take that off the o/s debt - however if I accept the full amount am I saying that I accept the PPI charges as well and have no recourse to continue to claim for PPI?? What shall I do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit late now, I have had to respond running out of time and work issues means I wouldnt of had time to wait longer for replies here. - I have disputed the amount charged for PPI on basis of complaint and reduced what they are claiming accordingly. I have not counterclaimed but my PPi complaint is still being dealt with by Tesco so hopefully it will continue to be looked into.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

More advice please - following my defence I have now received an allocation questionnaire to complete - all seems very straightforward - any hints/tips on what to do from this point? I will confirm I want to resolve this matter without a court hearing (as I have always requested) if this IS FINALLY accepted by Tesco do I still get a CCJ against my name or not as I have settled without going to Court. Any help on this is appreciated - need to reply before 1st November. THX

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Have sent Allocation Questionnaire back and requested a month stay to try and resolve this with Incasso. I have written to them again asking them to accept my offer and also AGAIN point out this acount is in dispute due to PPI misselling. On that note I have chased Tesco for update on this complaint, but suspect nothing is being done as RBS are waiting on further info from the courts re PPI - if that is the case then surely any court action against me is not going to happen as I dispute the PPI charge plus interest??? Please anyone give me some advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

SUCCESS!!! Of sorts! Received Judgement order on Saturday - Accepted my offered monthly payment and also based on the lower figure - basically less the PPI plus interest figure - Therefore what do I do know - accept and have a CCJ? Or contest further??? Why did they have to go all the way to CCJ to accept my offer??? I still have a FOS complaint at early stages about all of this, I think I will push for CCJ to be removed on basis that they didnt need to this? Any help greatly received as I havn't received any in ages!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...