Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.
    • i was merely pointing out if the OP did put in an N244 it required a bundle. as for what they need to do now.... it might be an idea to post a link to your thread then the OP can read it and understand where your guidance is coming from and the ongoing process he will have to follow... dx
    • The notes entered into circulation yesterday and are proving popular with collectors, who will be hoping to snap up examples with low serial numbers.View the full article
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • Happy to have a bet with you Jugg    3 seats won you donate £100 0 seats won I donate £100 2 seats won you donate £50 I donate £25 1 seat won you donate £25 I donate £50   that way site wins 😀
  • 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

HFO/Turnbull Rutherford


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4543 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

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I am trying so hard to be strong, my dad died a few days ago and now I have to deal with these horrible people about a debt I am not sure I owe.... any help will be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear that samu. All here to get you through this.

 

Thank you all, I don't know if I can cope with all this.... but I have to be strong for my mum and my two children....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, have also been there, seen it and done it. It’s a dreadful thing.

 

The knowledge that we can help you beat off these disgusting idiots will hopefully let you concentrate your efforts on your family. In a sense it’s useful that you can feel they are trying to take from you something that is not theirs – a motivator if ever there was one.

 

Just keep feeding us the facts we ask for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, have also been there, seen it and done it. It’s a dreadful thing.

 

The knowledge that we can help you beat off these disgusting idiots will hopefully let you concentrate your efforts on your family. In a sense it’s useful that you can feel they are trying to take from you something that is not theirs – a motivator if ever there was one.

 

Just keep feeding us the facts we ask for.

 

How do I scan documents onto here again. I forgot how to do it... Thanks. I will try and use my friends later this evening when she gets home and I can then post the details. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scan and (a) convert to PDF, use the advanced posting facility and post in line, or (b) use photobucket.com and post the jpeg’s code into your thread.

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not got much time today, but this certainly requires a CPR 18 request in addition to CPR 31 to clarify some of the facts. As usual, the PoCs are conflicting – one says assigned by Barclaycard to the claimant (not possible), the other states via HFO Cayman. They are clearly confused (and telling fibs in PoCs, as usual).

 

But it’s the vagueness in the PoC that needs sorting – they don’t say when the LoP Act was complied with, ie. they just say an NoA has been sent ‘previously’. It was not, for a start, and if they want to claim interest from the date of assignment, then they have to have informed you at the date of assignment and have sent you annual statements – they will have difficulty proving that (cos we know they don’t do it). But they will probably make up a document to suit the court case, as I can prove they have done in the past.

 

Will look over further a bit later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not got much time today, but this certainly requires a CPR 18 request in addition to CPR 31 to clarify some of the facts. As usual, the PoCs are conflicting – one says assigned by Barclaycard to the claimant (not possible), the other states via HFO Cayman. They are clearly confused (and telling fibs in PoCs, as usual).

 

But it’s the vagueness in the PoC that needs sorting – they don’t say when the LoP Act was complied with, ie. they just say an NoA has been sent ‘previously’. It was not, for a start, and if they want to claim interest from the date of assignment, then they have to have informed you at the date of assignment and have sent you annual statements – they will have difficulty proving that (cos we know they don’t do it). But they will probably make up a document to suit the court case, as I can prove they have done in the past.

 

Will look over further a bit later.

 

Hi DonkeyB,

 

Thanks for your response, I hope this is a stupid question. What is a CPR 18 & CPR 31? Also, what is the difference between both? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A letter from one of your other threads I should get on with the letter now. I've found this letter on the thread you gave, should I use this and is it okay to sent this to the DCA or do I have to send this directly to MBNA:"Dear Sirs.RE: Account no.xxxxxxI write with regards to the above account with your organization.I respectfully request that you provide me by return a copy of the credit agreement which bears my signature. I require this as I have reason to believe that there may be discrepancies within the agreement which may leave it improperly executed.Obviously, if the agreement is improperly executed I would be entitled to ask the court to consider the agreement and make a declaration of the rights of parties to the agreement. I must stress this request is NOT made pursuant to section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 but is made pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules ( Pre action protocols and Part 31.16) and therefore unsigned copy will not suffice, only a copy of the original contract in its unaltered form will suffice in these circumstances. Please confirm if you still hold a copy of my signed agreement and that you will provide me with this document.I do not view this as an unreasonable request, given that by supplying the document which I have asked for will allow me to assess, if my case has merit and will help to resolve matters, possibly without the need to involve the court and will undoubtedly save costs on both sidesI look forward to your reply and would ask for a response by 4pm on 26 September 2009.Regards xxxxxxxxxxxMany thanks Foolish Girl, for all your help so far, I really appreciate it, this make me feel much better now.RegardsSamu

US President Barack Obama referred to Ugland House as the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax SCA* in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Samu this is all getting very confusing, you deny knowledge of CPR, yet you have previously made posts regarding the matter.

US President Barack Obama referred to Ugland House as the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax SCA* in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Samu this is all getting very confusing, you deny knowledge of CPR, yet you have previously made posts regarding the matter.

 

 

I am sorry for any confusion caused,please know this is not intentional, it has been a long time and to be honest I didn't understand it then hence I loss that case hence I am trying to learn better so I am prepare if and when any questions are asked I am able to defend myself properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look in the stickies on the Legal Forum - excellent thread there.

 

Thanks for this. I think I understand a bit. I have a few more questions if I may and hope I didn't asked this before.

 

If I defend can you advice what defence should I use please? Also, from your experience on this forum have there been any successful cases with HFO?

 

I have to make a decision soon and would really appreicate your expertise and advice. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, defend. They have no case at present. Why would you want to pay monies that there is so far no evidence you owe?

 

You puzzle me...

 

DonkeyB,

 

Why did you say I puzzle you? I am sorry, I have alot going on at the moment with my dad's death and trying to sort out funeral not being able to grief, taking care of my mum and 2 young children, I may be abit space out and I can only apologize. I promise I am normal and just want to get these horrible people off my back...

 

I have a few more questions if I may, you mentioned in post 40, the POC's are conflicting as it was not possibly for Barclaycard to be assigned to the claimant plus the other one states HFO Cayman. I've read some articles with this company dealing in illegal transfers of accounts. I just wonder how can I prove this?

 

Also, should I ask them to send me details of the alledged transferred to the Claimant pursuant to an intra-group agreement?

 

Thank you.

 

Should I also asked where do they based their contractual interest to or this should be included in the credit agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...