Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • 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.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Court Case pending and help required reviewing position...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4783 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

I think you'll find its the fact that the default notice is invalid which makes the subsequent termination invalid. The courts have ruled that you cannot terminate on the back of a faulty DN, to terminate they must have a valid proper DN, hence why the discontinuance and re-issue here.

 

Wasted costs could be a sum after 2 years in the system tho... plus interest @ 8% ???

 

S.

 

Shadow

 

Can you please give us info on any cases where courts ruled in this way?

 

Also - Can you explain what you mean in the last sentence re "wasted costs etc."? I really don't understand it and so am not sure if this is good or bad for the Defendent.

 

Thanks

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

This is my first ever post on this site. I am in Court tomorrow against Shoosmiths. I appreciate it is no consolation for you but I really appreciate the effort you and others put into this site it has been invaluable. I hope you find someone that can help you.

 

BB

 

Good luck today! Please keep us posted as to outcome - and start your own thread with a link on here if you need specific help on your own case.

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re post 45

If you contest without good reason I suggest it will be used against you.

Would it be fair to bring a cse based on incorrect facts - no it would not.

There must be a way to force them to either discontinue or continue without ammendment

it may only be a tactical ploy on their part

It may also be an oppurtunity for you to apply for a strike out

 

Maybe Andyorch or PT can advise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT Has advised at length regards this and getting costs is priority. I cant say to much but a little research around will show you what lies under this line of thought if you PM me I will explain more to you.

 

May I remind site members that advice by PM is frowned upon for good reason.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have an update.

 

I have received an offer from them to discontinue the claim. Wow you think that’s great! No its not, basically they have told me the following; please I am not making this up its happening it’s a real case.

 

They have told me that they wish to discontinue my current case that has been in court now for TWO YEARS and re-issue a new DN they have told me that should I not pay the arrears on the new DN then they will take me to court again (obviously the arrears will now be significantly more.)

 

This should be a warning to a great number of people that the tactics of these companies is changing that they are now using the Link V Harrison case to support the re-issue and reclaim of debts. As I understand each case is different however in mine I see that a judge when presented with a new case with a new VALID DN will almost certainly allow new proceedings. The fact that CPR 38.7 says it cannot be based on the same facts I think is urinating in the wind to think that a judge will back the defendant over a bank. I'm not saying that I'm not going to fight this I am. However as I now see it any debt that is up to 6 years old could have a DN re-issued and the process begin again. The idea that termination is final even on the back of an invalid DN is obviously again part of this as they did infect terminate the agreement in two letters! Yet as the DN was invalid it seems so is the termination. Anyway lots of ramblings here so I will stop.

:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x:-x

 

Good evening Drowning

 

I must admit to not having read your entire case history.

 

If the claimant in you case should discontinue and serve another DN upon you, then the arrears would amount to 2 years worth of monthly payments, did the claimant ever inform you in the last 2 years that you are now behind with your payments and that no payment has been received in the last 24 months? No he did not, is the answer, as far as you knew, he had terminated the contract and demanded that you pay the full balance, he commenced with proceedings against you to enforce the contract, again this action confirmed to you that the contract was terminated.

 

In the Harisson v Link case the Judge ruled that bad notices can often be made good, often meaning = sometimes but not always.

 

If the claimant serves a new DN upon you, how could you possibly be in arrears since he withdrew your right to repay the debt by way of monthly installments, did the claimant ever give notice to you indicating that you may continue to repay the debt during the last two years? (the likelihood of that is zero), so if he serves a new DN, what is his cause of action for commencing with proceedings on the foundation of a new DN?

 

Make an application to set aside his notice of discontinuance on the grounds that a new claim will be based on the same set of facts as the present proceedings, a new/different cause of action cannot exist.

 

Kind Regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Shadow (Site Team)

 

Again as per previous posts I accept your points regardss PM's however I have not given or received advice via PM its just that sometimes its not possible to state on this open forum what you are doing or going to do and whilst I want to help others through my experiance its not always possible to do it openly I want to help others that may be at the same or similar point to me. As per the above any advice from PT has been off forum and is available as I said in lots of different threads its not exclusive to me its not new its out there you just have to find it. I cant see anything wrong in PM's between members I dont think I have done anything wrong I would have thought that the whole point of a Private message is just that it's private so you can talk about things that a you might be unsure of and not want to look stupid and b that you want to keep private but just want to bounce it off someone else. Frowning upon PM's make me think why have the facility? Or restrict it to senior members only I for one will never use it again or mention it or contact anyone via it PM's will be turned off for me.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. Please do not PM me I do not use the PM service. Please use a link on my thread for any help or to talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello I have been looking into court fees and costs. I found this document so have posted a link it may help someone.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/586/made/data.pdf

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. Please do not PM me I do not use the PM service. Please use a link on my thread for any help or to talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two main reasons PM advice is frowned upon is a) If someone is instructed wrongly or wrongly instructs someone nobody can see it to advise and this could be serious in the case of a court claim in progress, b) If advice is given to one it should be given to all, this is a free site that is for the benefit of all members not just a select few.

 

Far better if things need to be done off forum to state clearly that at the end of proceedings an update will be given on thread to show what happened and what actions were taken place if its a necessity to keep things off forum.

 

Please dont let this distract you from what must be your main purpose at present which is to ensure you prepare for the battle ahead.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an extra point to what The Mould has posted above... if you have not received an annual statement of account from the owner of the debt then they are not entitled to add interest for that period, this is written into the CCA2006.

 

This is from the explanation notes of the CCA2006 amendments:-

Section 11 inserts a new section 86D after the new section 86C (inserted into the 1974 Act by section 10). Section 86D sets out the consequences for a creditor or owner if he fails to give a notice as required by sections 86B or 86C. If the creditor or owner fails to provide a notice of sums in arrears when required to do so, then during the period of his failure to provide the notice (i.e. from the date that it was required to be given until the end of the day on which it is eventually provided), he is not entitled to enforce the agreement. In addition, the debtor or hirer is not liable to pay any interest that relates to the period of the creditor or owner’s failure, nor is the debtor or hirer liable to pay any default sum (see the notes in respect of section 18 below) which becomes payable during that period.

 

This is section 86C from the 2006 CCA

sums in arrears under running-account credit agreements

 

 

 

“86CNotice of sums in arrears under running-account credit agreements

 

(1)This section applies where at any time the following conditions are satisfied—

 

(a)that the debtor under an applicable agreement is required to have made at least two payments under the agreement before that time;

 

(b)that the last two payments which he is required to have made before that time have not been made;

 

©that the creditor has not already been required to give a notice under this section in relation to either of those payments; and

 

(d)if a judgment has been given in relation to the agreement before that time, that there is no sum still to be paid under the judgment by the debtor.

 

(2)The creditor shall, no later than the end of the period within which he is next required to give a statement under section 78(4) in relation to the agreement, give the debtor a notice under this section.

 

(3)The notice shall include a copy of the current arrears information sheet under section 86A.

 

(4)The notice may be incorporated in a statement or other notice which the creditor gives the debtor in relation to the agreement by virtue of another provision of this Act.

 

(5)The debtor shall have no liability to pay any sum in connection with the preparation or the giving to him of the notice.

 

(6)Regulations may make provision about the form and content of notices under this section.

 

(7)In this section ‘applicable agreement’ means an agreement which—

 

(a)is a regulated agreement for running-account credit; and

 

(b)is neither a non-commercial agreement nor a small agreement.”

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cca2006 s86D

 

“86DFailure to give notice of sums in arrears

 

(1)This section applies where the creditor or owner under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor or hirer notices under section 86B but fails to give him such a notice—

 

(a)within the period mentioned in subsection (2)(a) of that section; or

 

(b)within the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which such a notice was last given to him.

 

(2)This section also applies where the creditor under an agreement is under a duty to give the debtor a notice under section 86C but fails to do so before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.

 

(3)The creditor or owner shall not be entitled to enforce the agreement during the period of non-compliance.

 

(4)The debtor or hirer shall have no liability to pay—

 

(a)any sum of interest to the extent calculated by reference to the period of non-compliance or to any part of it; or

 

(b)any default sum which (apart from this paragraph)—

 

(i)would have become payable during the period of non-compliance; or

 

(ii)would have become payable after the end of that period in connection with a breach of the agreement which occurs during that period (whether or not the breach continues after the end of that period).

 

(5)In this section ‘the period of non-compliance’ means, in relation to a failure to give a notice under section 86B or 86C to the debtor or hirer, the period which—

 

(a)begins immediately after the end of the period mentioned in (as the case may be) subsection (1)(a) or (b) or (2); and

 

(b)ends at the end of the day mentioned in subsection (6).

 

(6)That day is—

 

(a)in the case of a failure to give a notice under section 86B as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of this section, the day on which the notice is given to the debtor or hirer;

 

(b)in the case of a failure to give a notice under that section as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of this section, the earlier of the following—

 

(i)the day on which the notice is given to the debtor or hirer;

 

(ii)the day on which the condition mentioned in subsection (4)(a) of that section is satisfied;

 

©in the case of a failure to give a notice under section 86C, the day on which the notice is given to the debtor.”

 

HTH

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks S I am still trying to understand all that the Mould said and also trying to use some of the data from yours and Docmans posts. Lots to get my head around..Thanks for all your help.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. Please do not PM me I do not use the PM service. Please use a link on my thread for any help or to talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks S I am still trying to understand all that the Mould said and also trying to use some of the data from yours and Docmans posts. Lots to get my head around..Thanks for all your help.

 

Have a read and come back with questions its the best way imvho :-)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadow

 

Can you please give us info on any cases where courts ruled in this way?

 

Also - Can you explain what you mean in the last sentence re "wasted costs etc."? I really don't understand it and so am not sure if this is good or bad for the Defendent.

 

Thanks

 

BD

 

Shadow

 

Can you please answer the questions I asked regarding your post 46?

 

Thanks

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadow

 

Can you please give us info on any cases where courts ruled in this way?

 

Also - Can you explain what you mean in the last sentence re "wasted costs etc."? I really don't understand it and so am not sure if this is good or bad for the Defendent.

 

Thanks

 

BD

 

I'm afraid I cant give you the cases, one of PT2537's recent rulings I believe and during post judgment conversations on thread both himself and PeterBard agreed this point backed up by comments during the trial by the judge. I dont think a full transcript was given of the case tho.

 

As to the costs bit what I meant is after two years of court battle the costs should be quite high and thus the defendant could put in a claim for these costs to offset the forthcoming battle when they re-issue.... however the costs listed by the opposing solicitors seem very low and thus it'll not make much difference offsetting according to the OP.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I cant give you the cases, one of PT2537's recent rulings I believe and during post judgment conversations on thread both himself and PeterBard agreed this point backed up by comments during the trial by the judge. I dont think a full transcript was given of the case tho.

 

IF PT, PB or anyone else can point me to this (or any other relevant cases) then I would really appreciate it. BD

As to the costs bit what I meant is after two years of court battle the costs should be quite high and thus the defendant could put in a claim for these costs to offset the forthcoming battle when they re-issue.... however the costs listed by the opposing solicitors seem very low and thus it'll not make much difference offsetting according to the OP.

 

OK thanks - understood.

S.

 

Shadow

 

Thanks - see responses in bold above. I have asked Peter on anothe rthread for any cases showing that it is OK (or not OK) to re-issue a DN after termination, but nothing concrete has been provided so far. Hopefully this may prompt his or someone else mempry?

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Shadow (Site Team)

 

Again as per previous posts I accept your points regardss PM's however I have not given or received advice via PM its just that sometimes its not possible to state on this open forum what you are doing or going to do and whilst I want to help others through my experiance its not always possible to do it openly I want to help others that may be at the same or similar point to me. As per the above any advice from PT has been off forum and is available as I said in lots of different threads its not exclusive to me its not new its out there you just have to find it. I cant see anything wrong in PM's between members I dont think I have done anything wrong I would have thought that the whole point of a Private message is just that it's private so you can talk about things that a you might be unsure of and not want to look stupid and b that you want to keep private but just want to bounce it off someone else. Frowning upon PM's make me think why have the facility? Or restrict it to senior members only I for one will never use it again or mention it or contact anyone via it PM's will be turned off for me.

 

DBNS

 

Hopefully Shadow's subsequent post will have clarified things and put your mind at rest?

 

I totally agree with not advising by PM and think practically everything can be safely discussed on forum if posters were just careful to omit ANYTHING which could identify them - including dates of hearings, names of solicitors (E.g. Shoosmiths, Bryan Carter etc.) and exact amounts in arrears or claimed for etc. etc.

 

I have an account (over £10k) about to reach SB - but I have NEVER mentioned anything about it on my sig - but will be pleased to add it to my "saved" list once the SB date is safely passed. I have also never put exact amounts or dates of any settlements - but I think the name of the OC and DCA is important so others can see that deals CAN be done with these "people".

 

Hope this helps?

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?173284-Nationwide-eversheds-taking-court-action

 

Now I even more confused. I'm happy this person has done well but how can the judge do this does it prove the like of Peterbard wrong? (No offence Peter)

 

See post number 100

 

No on the contry

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadow

 

Thanks - see responses in bold above. I have asked Peter on anothe rthread for any cases showing that it is OK (or not OK) to re-issue a DN after termination, but nothing concrete has been provided so far. Hopefully this may prompt his or someone else mempry?

 

BD

 

HI

Hope you saw the re presnted DN documetation and court order i dug up before they shut the thread if not i wil re post somewhere else or find another. There are lots.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

If anyone has time just want to bounce this idea off someone else.

 

The other side have had all of there Draft Order Accepted by the judge in CC. Item one is to have an amended POC into the court by last week. They did not do it they have not sent a copy to me either.

 

The judge has already given them a month extra to file the first AQ he then sent them an unless order! They did get it in.

 

I'm thinking that as this has been ongoing since 2009 I may have a case to fax the judge today and state the above ie two years (best part) that they have again not complied with the court. They should not be allowed to amend POC and they are abusing the process. Apply to have the claim struck out. I might be talking rubbish as the judge may not strike something out on a missed deadline and by striking it out they would be allowed to re-issue DN and bring new case. I guess Im just thinking of a way to use this to my advantage ie if the judge said the deadline had passed to file amended POC then they would have to run with the original that refers to invalid DN. Which would make brining new claim more difficult.

 

Any help would be great time is important on this if I'm going to gain any advantage from this.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. Please do not PM me I do not use the PM service. Please use a link on my thread for any help or to talk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shadow

 

Thanks - see responses in bold above. I have asked Peter on anothe rthread for any cases showing that it is OK (or not OK) to re-issue a DN after termination, but nothing concrete has been provided so far. Hopefully this may prompt his or someone else mempry?

 

BD

The case Shadow refers to is Harrison vs Link Financial Limited

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...