Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By WarriorRage · Posted
So I am now in receipt of a second Letter of Claim this time from DCBL although their letter head now says " DCBLegal" 😱 Now I'm guessing one response to a letter of claim is sufficient and I could ignore this but having been inspired by other snotty letters I wanted to have another bash at one. How does this sound? Dear Lackeys of Company with Unconscionable Morals, Thank you ever so much for gracing me with yet another Letter Before Claim on behalf of Excel Parking Services. How many of these delightful missives do you plan on sending before you muster the courage to follow through on your threats to take me to court? Just so we're clear, here is the response (in italics by that I mean the slanted text below) I previously sent to Excel’s Letter Before Claim, in case your attention to detail is as lacking as I suspect: I am currently 2-0 up in terms of Small Claims Court proceedings and I look forward to the opportunity to claim a hat trick, this case being more straightforward than my previous two. I will be asking the court for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to your conduct over this absurd claim. Despite my best efforts, you continue to assert that I have breached your terms. However, I cannot breach terms that I was not present to accept. Have you even read my initial response? I suggest you review it thoroughly and save yourself some money. Additionally, please refer to section 13 of the IPC Code of Practice, 2023 edition. I eagerly await your deafening silence. Remarkably, I haven't heard a peep from Excel since my response; instead, they've passed the baton to you to perform this tiresome routine once more. Consider this my official notice that I am sending a cease and desist letter to Excel Parking Services. Their relentless hounding has crossed the line into clear harassment. Any further demands for payment from you, as Excel's lackeys, will be regarded as nothing more than shameless acts of intimidation and harassment. I now look forward to the deafening sound of your silence. Yours sincerely, -
Thanks I'll take a look on my break -
Personally I'd go to it and object for the sake of it. They have to attend anyway so I can't see you being liable for any costs or anything (if they try to ask for attendance costs, just say that firstly it is their application, secondly it is from their own making, thirdly that they would have to come anyway so you shouldn't need to bear their costs. When you turn up you should object on the basis that the witness has been in office since the time of the order, and could have done their witnes statement in advance of their AL. Their poor planning is not your fault, 7 days is too rushed for you as a LIP and there is no good reason that a company can't organise itself to sort WX in time. Also they say finalise so they already have something, its not like thye have nothing. Their amendments cannot be so important if they are being added so late. see what @AndyOrch says but that's my thoughts
-
By occysrazor · Posted
Yes, in the main your understanding of my case is right. Linked below to the post with the final WS sent to the court and to Evri. -
By honeybee13 · Posted
Hello, welcome to CAG. As you say, appealing this ticket doesn't help as these people hardly ever accept appeals. They don't care how difficult someone's life is, they just want the money. The forum guys should be along later with thoughts for you on how to deal with this. Best, HB
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.- 1 reply
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
capquest statutory demand help!! postggj
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 3830 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts