Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This must be part of the new tactic from Evri.  They know they are going to lose. They take it to the wire and then don't bother to turn up in order to save themselves costs and of course they don't give a damn about the cost to the British taxpayer and the extra court delays they cause. This is a nasty dishonest company – but rather in line with all of the parcel delivery industry which knows that their insurance requirements are unlawful. They know that their prohibited items are for the most part unfair terms. They know for the most part that a "safe place" is exactly what it means – are not left on somebody's doorstep in full view. They know that obtaining a signature means that they have to show the signature not simply claim that they received a signature. They are making huge profits especially from their unlawful and unenforceable insurance requirement. Although this is less valuable than the PPI scandal, in terms of the number of people who are affected nationwide, PPI pales into insignificance. I hope the paralegals working for Evri are proud of themselves and they tell their families what they have done during the day when they go home.
    • Your PCN does not comply with the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9[2][a] (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The only time on the PCN is 17.14. That is only  a time for there to be a period there would have to be a start and and end time mentioned. of course they do show the ANPR arrival and departures  times but that is not the parking period and their times are on the photographs not on the PCN. They also failed to comply with S.9[2][f] as they omitted to say that they could only pursue the keeper if they complied with the Act. That means that they can only pursue the driver as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. As they do not know who was driving and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person they will struggle to win. Especially as so many people are able to legally drive your car and you haven't appealed giving them no indication therefore of who was driving. Small nitpicking point-the date of Infringement was 22/04/2024. They appear to be saying that they can charge an extra amount [up to £70 ] if they have to use a debt collector. You do not have a contract with a debt collector so they cannot add that cost. You paid for four hours so it can only be the 15 minutes they are complaining about. You are entitled to a ten minute minimum grace period at the end of the parking period which would be easier to explain if the car park had been bigger. However if you allow for two minutes to park and two minutes to leave that gives you one minute to account for. Things like being held on the way out by cars in front waiting to get on to Northgate or even your own car being held up trying to get on to Northgate at a busy time. then other considerations like having to stop to allow pedestrians to walk in front of you or being held up by another car doing a u turn in front of your car. you would have to check with the driver and see if they could account for an extra one minute things like a disabled passenger or having to strap in a child . I am not advocating lying since that could lead to serious problems [like jail time] but there can be an awful lot of minor things that can cause a hold up of a minute even the engine not starting straight away or another car being badly parked as examples. Sadly you cannot include the 5 minute Consideration period as both IPC and BPA fail to comply with the convention that you can include that time with the Grace period.  
    • Defence struck out not case struck out...you have judgment  Well done topic title updated Regard's Please consider making a donation if not already to support us to help others.   Andy.   .
    • Hi all, I wanted to update you and thank you all for your help. I am delighted announce that after the case was struck out due to no response from Evri, judgement was issued after I submitted the forms and I was just about to take it to warrant.  today I received an email from the claims department requesting my bank details to make payment for my full award. The process has been long since the initial proceedings  in January i must say your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated.  
    • Quote of the century "Farage pops up when the country’s at a low ebb; like a kind of political herpes" - Frankie Boyle Updates
  • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 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 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

So whos the other guy who commented that if they credtors are stupid enough to leave out the terms its basically tuff luck. Cant remeber his name

Link to post
Share on other sites

So whos the other guy who commented that if they credtors are stupid enough to leave out the terms its basically tuff luck. Cant remeber his name

 

Hang on, I think I am wrong above

 

Francis Bennion wrote the CCA 1974, Prof goode wrote the book Peter has.

 

It was Francis Bennion that said this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is the first I have heard of this Goode fellow & jolly good he seems too! Pity his pronouncements are so expensive. Does anyone know where I could study a copy apart from law school? I can't imagine my local library will have a copy & if I request one I can see my council tax going up immediately!!

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quck question.

 

As well as claiming costs if you win a SD set aside hearing, can you also claim for stress and suffering?

 

HAK

 

What's an SD hearing?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Uni

 

Notice subseccrion (a) says containing this means the terms must be contained within the document the section.

(b) refers to other pieces of information. Which means other documents mentioned in the above.

 

Prof Goode makes this point in his book where he talkes about the difference between the terms contained and embodied, its on page 322. I have reproduced the bit of the act unfer here.

Unfortunately i cannot include the quote from Dr, goodes book athough i can send you a scan of the page if you email me.

 

Big difference between the words contained and embodies.

 

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed

terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the

prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the

creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than

implied terms, and

©

the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for

Butterworths Direct - Print Page 38 of 160

 

http://wellington.butterworths.co.uk/wbs/NETbos.dll?POView?sk=AAFIMJMA&bk=... 22/12/2001

 

If you could scan and email it, that would be great - do you want me to PM you my email, or do you still have it?

 

Peter - what's the best way for me to proceed with this, I assume this should be entered into the appeal reason - but, could they not say that this should have been mentioned in the original hearing?

 

my main issue is that I didn't get their skeleton arguments until the night before the trial (they submitted them to the court in the morning of the trial!!!) and the definitions part wasn't even mentioend in them.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct Chris, although if deemed unreasonable you could be spanked for costs, in reality i cannot see that happening and the other sides costs would be minimal

 

Jesus - I hope I don't get costs, and can't see why I didn't.

 

they tried to get the judge to award 6k costs agsint me, saying that I'd acted unreasonable - but thankfully, she didn't agree.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

This really dies need challengining.

 

You only need to look at the act.

Section 61a is quite clear as is SI1983/1553 that the agreement must contain the terms.

The provision mentioned in subsection(b) is to provide an overall coverage for the inclusion of other information relavant to the document not those stipulated by section 60.

 

Dr Goode even conjectures that section (b) could be interpreted to mean that all documentaion involved in the purchasing of the loan should be included, this would mean any advertising and pre contractual information even that not set in writing, for instance any verbal promises made by the creditor under section 56 (in the anticedent neotiations ) would have to be included as since they were spoken they could not be regarded as implied terms and would fall under section 61(b).

If they were not, then in theory section 65 would apply and the agreement could be made unenforceable. In practice the court would not be likely to allow this but it illustrates the funcion of section 61(b) and also the meaning of the term "embody" which is a world away from, "contained", as in 61(a) wich relates to the terms that must be within the agreement.

Besty regards

Peter

 

I agree it needs challenging - I need to get clued up on the whole appeal process to be honest.

 

The main thing Peter is that they didn't give me their arguments until the night before. also, the fact they were going to mention the definitions weren't in them - he brought them up seperately so there was no way for me to prepare. The judge was aware of all of this too.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

& if I request one I can see my council tax going up immediately!!

 

LMAO

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

My library has it - but for reference only!

Edited by un1boy

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

My library has it - but for reference only!

 

I will try and nip to the Library this week and also see if they have a copy.

 

If so I will photocopy the info and post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If so I will photocopy the info and post

 

Sounds a good idea but do you know how BIG this volume is? And are you sure that there wouldn't be copyright issues on that knightmare?

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

:DI was just going to copy the relivant page

 

Cop out knightmare!!

 

(Do check the copyright though)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus - I hope I don't get costs, and can't see why I didn't.

 

they tried to get the judge to award 6k costs agsint me, saying that I'd acted unreasonable - but thankfully, she didn't agree.

 

There are no costs awarded in the small claims court, (unless the behaviour is unreasonable) however a schedule of costs will be prepared by the opposition just in case it goes to appeal. If you take the case to appeal and lose you will be liable for the other sides costs.

 

 

 

Paul

Edited by paulwlton

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I am sorry I can’t get my scanner to work.

The section is on page 322 under the heading signature of documents.

The relevant quote from Goode is.

“By Para(b) the document must embody all express terms of the agreement word "embody”(in contrast to “Contain” in Para (a) )means that a document need not set out all the terms in itself but may refer to another document, however that document must be expressly referred to; an implication however clear, would not suffice.”

The point is.

Section 61a contains the instructions to the creditor that all the “prescribed terms” must be “contained” within the agreement.

Whereas the section used as the defence in Uniboys case refers to section 61(b) which refers to the “terms” “embodying” the agreement which refer to all other information not contained in the regulations (default procedure, contact information, matters relating to company policy, etc. These can be located in another document as long as it is expressly referred to in the text of the agreement.

The judge appears to have been misled in this.

 

 

Regards

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

Hi

I am sorry I can’t get my scanner to work.

 

The section is on page 322 under the heading signature of documents.

The relevant quote from Goode is.

 

“By Para(b) the document must embody all express terms of the agreement word "embody”(in contrast to “Contain” in Para (a) )means that a document need not set out all the terms in itself but may refer to another document, however that document must be expressly referred to; an implication however clear, would not suffice.”

 

 

The point is.

 

Section 61a contains the instructions to the creditor that all the “prescribed terms” must be “contained” within the agreement.

 

Whereas the section used as the defence in Uniboys case refers to section 61(b) which refers to the “terms” “embodying” the agreement which refer to all other information not contained in the regulations (default procedure, contact information, matters relating to company policy, etc. These can be located in another document as long as it is expressly referred to in the text of the agreement.

 

 

The judge appears to have been misled in this.

 

 

Regards

Peter

 

 

This is grounds for appeal on a mistake in law

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is grounds for appeal on a mistake in law

 

HI

 

Sorry yes i believe that this is the only acceptable cause for appeal in these cases.

 

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

I could be wrong, but I think it refers to a statutory demand set aside hearing!

 

 

Jeff.

 

Sorry if I'm being thick - but what is a statutory demand hearing for?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...