Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • DX,   I've just noticed something, if you look at the uploaded documents relating to the CCA #6   You see the 2nd and 3rd page are contracts the first one is a blank contract the 2nd one is a digitally signed contract for Very. I can only assume the originally creditor sent the contracts digitally to the DCA and it looks like one of them has either been printed out as a blank page or they have removed the information from 2nd contract and made it look like 2 seperate contracts?   It looks like they only have information relating to Very and not Littlewoods? surley a none signed contract with no name detailing no amount of credit is not legally binding in court?   It looks like if it gets to court they'll go for the Very account but not have a case to argue the Littlewoods one?   Shop direct own both companies so assuming regardless of one signed contract for one company name would still need a seperate contract for another? and one signed contract doesn't work for both?   If this does go to court at what point do I ask for the hearing to be done local to me?
    • For Chrissake simeon!!!   Of course you cannot find para 18(d) that I referred to in #120!!!  That is because - if you had bothered to read #120 post correctly - you would have seen that para 18(d) is in FTMDave's post #105.   One of the improvements that FTMDave had made in #105 to my earlier draft was to replace my paras 13 and 14 with a single combined para 13.  This reduced the total number of paragraphs by one.  That was a good thing to do.   YOU in #121 then reverted to my earlier draft, thus wrongly reinstating para 14 from my draft which FTMDave had removed .  This meant that the para 18(d) that I referred to in #120 had become 19(d) in your version in #121!!!    So when I referred in #120 to FTMDave's draft in #105 and to para 18(d), I was referring to para 18(d) in #105, and not to any draft that I produced days earlier or that anyone else had produced.   And then, now that the para 18(d) confusion that YOU have created is sorted out, you must surely understand my references to para 19 after para 18(d), and to adding a new paragraph 20   Do you understand now?  (You must stop reverting to ealier draft versions and stick with the latest - otherwise it becomes incredibly confusing for all of us and you won't get this counterclaim completed in time!!!)   ========================================================================   All I can really advise you to do now is to read FTMDave's suggestions in #131, and follow them!   (You might find it helpful if you read again all our posts from #120 onwards to help you understand FTMDave's advice.)   You need to sort out your attachments (or exhibits if you prefer).  You've got them in front of you - we haven't - and you understand them better than we do.  Just make sure they are numbered and ordered correctly and are cross-referenced correctly to the Particulars of counterclaim.   Add in interest as per FTMDave's instructions.   And that is it.  From here it's not rocket science, it's just common sense.  If you don't understand by now we can't help.  You just need to polish it off.    
    • Hi there. To answer your questions. The Assessment of the car I got was by the DVSA. The 3 Dangerous faults. Seatbelt webbing significantly weakened offside front. Seatbelt webbing significantly weakened nearside front. Passengers seat insecure Nearside.   The Seven Dangerous Faults. Headlamp aim obviously incorrect. Supplementary restraint system indicates a fault Drivers door hinge insecure Fuel cap sealing device missing (cap seal missing) Fuel Cap Sealing device ineffective (filler neck sealing face damaged) Battery insecure and likely to cause a short circuit Power steering malfunctioning (limited power assistance, power steering pump noisy)   2 advisories  no spare wheel fitted Tyre worn close to legal limit.   The link to Companies House https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08471137   The MOT was obtained on the 8th of October after I had paid a deposit and two days before I took possession of the vehicle. The Garage the MOT was obtained from is in Bristol as is the dealer. I live around 130 miles from the dealer.   I have engaged with the thread as far as possible with other commitments and did not notice the set of questions I did not reply to in my first post which was responded to at 1 in the morning. Any help is gratefully received.      
    • ok. well you could try appealing using the forms you used before i will guess these: you dealt with the others so why not this one? they at the time should have equally been aware there was another PCN outstanding and dealt with that too or atleast told you.   not really sure but worth a try.   im sure a brief likewise note to the bailiff will halt things for now, once he know forms have gone in/history.   dx  
    • Hi BankFodder,  From what I see, the MOT place is based in Milton Keys, the dealership said that they received this vehicle in a trade-in deal.  The agent said he has used this vehicle to travel to Birmingham and back to London with no issues, but then when I spoke with another agent via phone, he stated that its a new vehicle and they haven't really test driven it properly etc... I believe that everything they have said so far is a lie and what they stated on the sales/page on auto-trader is also a lie.  I'm unsure who did the MOT, but I have reason to believe it was the previous owner. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4078 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

My uncle has made a 'Small claims' against me, He wants to get his dog back that he gave me nearly 3 years ago,

I have proof that I've had the dog, vet bills grooming etc..... Does anyone think this will actually go to court?

 

And

 

He lives in Scotland and I live in England, but he's applied through MCOL... is it true the claimant as well as the defendant has to live in England or Wales... if so will the claim be invalid?... and does that mean he could try again through a Scottish court?? SO many questions.. hope someone might have some answers!

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

My uncle has made a 'Small claims' against me, He wants to get his dog back that he gave me nearly 3 years ago,

I have proof that I've had the dog, vet bills grooming etc..... Does anyone think this will actually go to court?

 

Well, since the claim has been issued it is likely to get to court unless it's either thrown out by the court or stopped by him.

 

 

He lives in Scotland and I live in England, but he's applied through MCOL... is it true the claimant as well as the defendant has to live in England or Wales... if so will the claim be invalid?... and does that mean he could try again through a Scottish court?? SO many questions.. hope someone might have some answers!

 

The correct process has been followed.

 

Why does he want the dog back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not him, its his ex wife who wants the dog, because he still has the registration document for the dog- the claim has to be done in his name. The dog recently had pups. i offered them one before and after they were born, They said they definatly didn't want one. So when the pups were 8 weeks old and ready to go to their new homes, my ex aunty says she wants one of the pups , i say its too late then she starts bombarding me with text messages threatening to take the dog and pups off me and how it was there dog after all... but Ive had her for nearly 3 years now! Anyway I agree to SELL them a pup. a week after they say they want the dog and the other3 pups! Then Iget notice that they are going to take me to small claims to get the dog back and £1500 from the sale of the pups... even though i only made £600 and the pregnancy process cost me over £800 ... In my opinion she is doing it out of spit, they dont care about the dog but they have money to burn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...