Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

London Underground - Prosecutions


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4793 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

If it wasn't for the fact that judsges get it wrong there wouldm't be any need for lawters ... I'm not lawyer ... just an ordinary 75-year-old who did a law degree 1980 - 83 yo go with my degfree in electronics for the purposes of negotiatimg European Telecomms ... never intended to get involved with the other stuff .

 

My point is this ... I happen to disagree with the judges decision in Corbyn ... the decision there was a policy decision anyway made a very specific set if circumstances. If you stack it up against LUL's REPP there's an argument to be made. LUL prosecutors seem to live in this "Section 5(a)(a) / Corbyn" bubble ... don't seem to have a life outside of that ...

 

SDo one of the parts olf the argument is that there's no such thing in statute as "partial / almost" liability - real terms or imagined terms ... seems a nonsense to me ... and very bizarre ...

 

m

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get into lengthy discussion about this one. You clearly are on a crusade, but I'd ask you to forget about Corbyn for a moment

 

Your initial post suggests that your daughter used your Freedom Pass. The more relevant case would therefore appear to be Browning & Floyd (1946)

 

'in the case of a passenger using another person's ticket, the rail company might not have lost any money, but that passenger has not paid his fare and the offence is therefore committed'

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Maxwell TM

 

The case is not " ... 4 years old ..."; it has been " ... ongoing for 4 years ..." ... as a legal man the words - and where you put them are essential ...

 

 

Massive legal cost??? I offered on up to thgree occasions to meet LUL to settle this internally with an apology,re-imbursement of my out-of-pocket expenses of around £2000 up to about November last year and a donation to Help for Heroes (I'm an ex-serviceman by the way) but got the brush off.

 

So ... p-l-e-a-s-e ... DON'T talk to ME about cynicism ...eh?

 

In any case if and when I win my two upcoming actions against LUL - take it from me I WILL regardless if the nay-sayers on here - of around fifty-kay, I'll dock my expenses, plus a bit for inconvenience and the rest WILL go to Help for Heroes.

 

Hobby horse? If people try to stitch me up then they take consequences ...

I re-qutoe you my family motto (albeit plaguerised): nemo meam familiam impune lacessit - no one wounds/provokes my family with impunity ... so there ...

 

m

 

The age of the case and challenges thereto are mere semantics. The point is that the case is old enough for the young person in question to have moved on. It would be interesting to see her view.

 

That you obviously expect plaudits for cobbling together an ersatz 'legal' bombshell, which will apparently shake TfL to its core is perhaps understandable. The cynicism with which you hide behind the protection of your 75 years, should this case fail is less so. Would you pursue this course were you liable to costs? I doubt it. Have you paused to let a competent expert examine your proposals? Apparently not.

 

If you are so bent on the legal route, why not volunteer at a local community drop in centre? With your specialist knowledge of fare evasion and its penalties, you could counsel those who contemplate bilking on their responsibilities and the consequences of dishonesty.

Edited by Maxwell TM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Maxwell TM

SRPO

Old Codja

 

I'll make thus the final post because the JR papers go off to the Admin Court on Monday so I'm going to rather busy ...

 

Nobody seems to have got the point that I made to LU and I will now for the fianl time before I go blue in the face:

 

I'm not challenging the conviction.

Yes she did use the FP, and yes, she was found guilty in her absence - but, using a bitta legal nous we didn't pay the fine the £250 and costs of £490, and in the same process saw off the bailiff who wanted £1200.

 

The use was inadvertent.

I didn't give her the card to use, nor did she ask me if she could nor would she have nicked it. She picked the blue wallet up by mistake thinking it was hers. Stuck her hand in her bag pulled out the wallet and plonked it on the terminal ... aah thought the RCI my first 'pull' ... and so early too ...

 

That bits over with ... geddit??

Well, at least the LU lawyers knew what I was talking about when I sent the requisite pre-Application Protocol. Unlike the readers here they understood completely that my beef is with " ... the manner in which the decision had been arrived at ..." .

Wasn't ANYBODY reading what I'd said?

 

Anyway the LU lawyers understood what I was talking about and responded appropriately

 

Their possible defences could be, me not being prompt and/or not within three months of the "decision" and res judicata. The court will decide whether grant permission to proceed regarding the first two just by reading the 2cm folder wth applications for directions etc etc.

If he rejects on the "paper exercise" he will tell me why and I have the option to ask for an oral hearing as an appeal.

 

If permission is granted and there's a prelim LU can move for

res judicata. If the judge agrees with them then I'm stuffed. So what's the problem/criticism ... even the professional get cases thrown out happens in courts every day ... so why hurl the bricks me - and from a distance I might add.

 

Corbyn and Browning are irrelevant in the JR context.

Where Section 5(3)(a) is being used is to challenge the validity of its prosecution policy based on S5 - different scenario altogether; no explanations - y'all can look it up for yourselves.

 

Semantics? Good grief - that's why they have to draft things properly to start with and without punctuatiom - especiallly commas.

 

Perhaps Old Codja would like to try this one:

 

She buys cakes from the supermarket in town

 

Now put the word 'only' in front of (or behind for that matter!) each word in the sentence ... see what I mean?) - and see whether semantics matters or not.

 

Hiding behind my 75 years? ... really? Cynical? Oh dear...!

 

Would I have pursued this if cost threatened?

Of course not ... would you?

But under HR I'm allowed to fight a case as a self-litigant - I have a case, and it's not vexatious ( see Uniplex and Burkett). For some people HR and politicians are a bit like sewers - nasty and smelly. but they're there for a purpose ... so get over it ....

 

Initially y'all came across as pretty objective.

 

But wot's all this?

 

"Obviously looking for plaudits" ... OMG ... where did that come from - and why?

If I were, I'd've been making much more noise in different places a lot earlier. I told SRPO earlier that IF I do have to walk away with egg on my face ...then so what? Y'all will have a chuckle ... but mentally I'm a tuff old boy (well, physically too for that matter) ... survived a lot worse

 

""" ... cobbling an ersatz case" - nothing ersatz about it ... copper-bottomed.

 

Should hear from High Court in about 3 - 4 weeks I guess.

 

m

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok

typically people use cag to gain help and assistance............

 

if this thread is to be used for nothing more than a tennis match of opinions, and may i say

not in the best possible nature either in some instances.....

 

then it will be closed.

 

we do not and will not tolerate CAG forum users whom help people daily

being used as a target to see if a 'crusade' will stand-up in court.

 

anyone and everyone is entitled to HELP here....

 

but if that is not what is required here l suggest it is left to die.

 

dx

siteteam

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

mm - i speak for all the peeople on this thread & at CAG

 

you are MOST welcome to 'comeback' and you will get help.

do not think that you will not get it either.

 

should you need us we are here.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that I don't know much, and what I do know is more to do with making a decent Yorkshire than law, but I have read this carefully.

 

To be a litigant in person, do you not have to be one of the parties in the action? The OP was not accused, and did not suffer any of the consequences. It is up to the daughetr to take action, isn't it?

 

Should I stick to eggs andflour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in my nature to throw anything. But I do make a reasonable sausage toad.

 

The OP sounds like the sort of talk I hear over Sunday dinner, I normally get told to stay out of arguments that I don't understand, and I am afraid that I really don't understand this one.

 

It seems like a Barrister has given advice, and other people have given advice on here, and the OP just wants to keep on going, when it is his daughter that is in the middle of this, not him. I think if the Barrister thought that the case stood a chance, he would have grabbed the chance to make money out of London Underground. I guess I have missed the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...