Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
so where are the one with this HMTL link? and when were they sent.? pdf's merged and properly named. dx -
Hi Just had a wee look at your PDF and nothing really to add. Now as for the Court Fees if these are in there Claim then that is for the Judge to decide whether they accept the recovery of Court Fees in the Claim. If recovery of Court Fees are not in the Claim and they try to recover these via your deposit then you dispute this with the Tenancy deposit scheme your deposit is protected in and point out these costs should have been in there Court Claim which they failed to do and is there error. -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
The postcode is an important point. You cannot be in two postcodes at the same time and the contract only covers the F area and not the E area where Met placed your car. See there is some advantages in with idiots.🙂 The other fact about the electric spaces is that as you are not allowed to park there, the sign is prohibitory so cannot offer a contract anyway. and another biggie in your favour is you were not the driver and the PCN does not comply with PoFA. I had another look yesterday at the PCN and there is another error since it does not say that the driver is responsible to pay the charge during the first 28 days. Schedule 4 Section 9 [2][b] (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; so that is another nail in their coffin and it s something I would include in your WS since that is one that every Judge would accept as a failure to comply. As far as their WS is concerned some of them leave it to the last minute to prevent Defendants being able to counteract their claims. However if they leave it too late [ie after the stipulated time] you can email yours to the Court on the last day and complain at the bottom of your WS that you have not received it and therefore you are asking the Court not to accept their WS. In your case it isn't that important since you have a virtual walkover in Court. I would be surprised if they don't concede beforehand. It is a lost cause for them. Not that I would advocate parking in their electric bay in future with a petrol driven car again.🙂 -
I think the post code 0 v O is nonsense personally and would just annoy the judge. Cases are decided informally at small claims and judges are not interested in the weakest of trivialities. Understood re FY v EY. So add to the Unfair PCN section that the PCN includes the wrong post code and places you at a residential area rather than the car park in question. You should wait till 7 June before filing your WS - as a Litigant-in-Person you wont't be penalised for being a day late - to see if MET's WS turns up. It will also give you a chance to see if they have paid the hearing fee. If it doesn't turn up you can attack them for defying court directions. If it does turn up you can ridicule their arguments. Win win. Also you can see if they have bottled it - which they have done with the last two cases we have here. I think the exact points of your WS have become a tad confusing - and I have heartily contributed to the confusion! - so can you please add the latest version. -
Consumer groups say the latest loyalty promotions could encourage shoppers to go over budget.View the full article
-
-
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
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 4314 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