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

1st Credit - Connaught - Goldfish, Stat Demand ** Won** + Costs


AllanLyn
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4818 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 went to the County Court today, Judge not impressed with 1st Credit - Connaught set aside the Stat Demand and virtually talked me into claiming costs, awarded me £50. I had requested 1st Credit - Connaught provide me with a copy of the original agreement which they were unable to do... in fact never even replied to me or the Court. If any one wants a copy of the letter i sent to them let me know.

Edited by alanfromderby
Error in costs figure corrected by poster.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the congrats folks... Yes this was a Morgan Stanley account sold on eventually to 1st Credit. The Judge told me i was the third person he had seen in the same situation and he was aware that Morgan Stanley accounts were changed to goldfish then sold on to Lloyds then Barclays who seem to have off loaded many of them to the DCA's, however, the paper trail is so bad that it is almost impossible for any of the DCA's to get a copy of the original agreement or even enough info to make a case. He noticed on my stat demand that it stated the original creditor was "Goldfish" and he said I would have got my set aside granted on that alone as the original creditor was Morgan Stanley. It was granted to me because Conaught failed to provide me with a copy of the documents they would have been relying on in Court I had requested them under CPR PD 16 para 7.3 and CPR 31.14 sent it recorded delivery and they did not reply to the request .... easy as that.

 

I have also sent away tonight a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading.

Edited by AllanLyn
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very interesting, especially so as you invoked the Civil Procedure Rules, which I was led to believe cannot normally be used as bankruptcy is governed by the Isolvency Rules....

 

Application of the Rules

 

2.1

 

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), these Rules apply to all proceedings in –

(a) county courts;

 

(b) the High Court; and

 

© the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.

 

 

(2) These Rules do not apply to proceedings of the kinds specified in the first column of the following table (proceedings for which rules may be made under the enactments specified in the second column) except to the extent that they are applied to those proceedings by another enactment –

ProceedingsEnactments1.Insolvency proceedingsInsolvency Act 19861, ss.411 and 4122.Non-contentious or common form probate proceedingsSupreme Court Act 19812, s.1273.Proceedings in the High Court when acting as a Prize CourtPrize Courts Act 18943, s.34.Proceedings before the Court of ProtectionMental Capacity Act 20054, s.515.Family proceedingsMatrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 19845, s.406.Adoption proceedingsAdoption Act 19766, s.66 or Adoption and Children Act 2002, s.141©7.7.Election petitions in the High CourtRepresentation of the People Act 19838, s.182

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 42man .... I had no idea that the CPR rules did not apply and and I may never know if 1st credit did not reply because I used those rules, this is the sentence from my letter to them and which the judge read and made no comment to me about it being wrong.

1. The agreement. You will appreciate that in an ordinary case and by reason of the provisions of CPR PD 16 para 7.3, where a claim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing (the copy should be a true copy signed by both parties it should be clear and legible with the terms and conditions attached that were in force at the time of signing).

 

Then further down I added this : You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter. Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy. Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.

 

There was of course more to the letter and the judge read it all the way way through, asked me if they responded, told him no, and he said " for that reason I have no problem granting the set aside. how much in costs would you like?"

 

Who knows? ... maybe i was just lucky but it was still a win and I guess others might want to give it a try.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done! It brings back that good feeling I had when I got a set aside on a Statutory Demand from, yes...1st Credit...I was awarded costs of approx £130 and yes they did pay within the 14 days :D the default is still showing on my credit file, but credit file hasn't been updated since the set aside in 2008, I do get yearly statements from 1st Credit though, so its obviously still on their books!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...