Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • HI DX Yes check it every month , after I reinstated the second DD I was checking every week. Also checked my bank statements and each payment has cleared. When responding to the court claim does it need to be in spefic terms ? Or laid out in a certain format? Or is it just a case of putting down in writing how I have expained it on CAG?
    • Come and engage with homelessness   Museum of Homelessness MUSEUMOFHOMELESSNESS.ORG The award-winning Museum of Homelessness (MoH) was founded in 2015 and is run by people with direct experience of homelessness. A very different approach. If you're in London you should go and see them
    • You have of course checked the car is now taxed and the £68 is stated against  the same reg?  If the tax for the same car did over lap, then I can't see you having an issue pleading not guilty Dx
    • The boundary wiill not be the yellow line.  Dx  
    • Afternoon all Looking for advice before I defend claim for car tax payment that the DVLA claim I owe £68 from an idemity claimback from my bank and unpaid tax  brief outline. Purchased car Jan 30th ,garage paid the tax for me after I gave them my card details  first payment £68 out in Feb 24  followed by payment of £31 from March due to end Jan 24 Checked one of my vehicle apps and about 7-10 days later car showing as untaxed? No reason why but it looks like DVLA cancelled it , this could be because I did not have the V5 and the gargae paid on my behalf but not sure did not receive a letter to say car was untaxed.  Fair enough I set up the tax again staight away in Feb 24  and first payment out Mar 31st , and each payment since has come out each month for £31 , this will end Feb/Mar 2025, slightly longer than the original tax set up, all good. I then claimed the £68 back from my bank as an indemity refund as obviously I had paid but DVLA had cancelled therefore it was a payment for nothing?  Last week recieved a SJP form dated 29th May stating that DVLA were claiming for unpaid tax and a false indemity claimback which of course is the £68. It also stated that I had received two previous letters offering me the oppotunity to pay that £68 but as I had not responded it was now a court claim that I must admit guilt for or defend. My post is held for weeks at a time from Royal Mail ( keepsafe) due to me receiving hospital tretament at weeks at a time that said I did not receive any previous letters from DVLA. I am happy to defend this and go to court but wondering what CAG members think? In summary I paid an initial amount of £68 and then a DD of £31 , tax cancelled  I set up a new DD at £31 a month all in the month of Feb 2024, I claimed the £68 back from my bank. DD has been coming out each month without issue and I have paperwork to show the breakdown for both DD setup's plus bank statements showing the payments coming out . The second DD set up has extended payments up to Feb/Mar 2025. DVLA claiming the £68 was ilegally claimed back despite the fact they cancelled the original DD for reasons unknown. Is this defendable ? I will post up documents including the original DD conformations 
  • 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 4978 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

 

Maybe the answer lies in the word SHOULD(??)

 

 

Can see where you're coming from jax

 

Dictionary definition of 'shall' (should - past tense of shall) - '...express obligation, command, condition or intention'

 

Doesn't say 'may' or ' might' does it? :wink:

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

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

are you still going to appeal?

 

Yup, absolutely - I am waitign for everyone to check over what I want to put on the form and when I get the order and teh N640 (which should be tomorrow or the enxt day) the the N164 (appeal form) will be submitted straight away!!

 

Bring it on! :)

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

Maybe the answer lies in the word SHOULD(??)

 

 

the answer lies in that the judge will see it how they want to be honest - doesn't matter what you tell/show them, if they agree they agree, if they don't, they don't - even if was a a specific paragraph of a specific act saying "the document must be original, otherwise it cannot be used and the court must assume it does not exist" personally signed by the Queen, it would still only mean whatever that specific judge thought it was!!

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

Actually now you've thrown a different slant on what I was thinking FG.

 

'shall' ... express obligation, command ... to my mind is interpreted as MUST

 

I was thinking that 'should' would mean 'it ought to be, but doesn't have to' as opposed 'must be'

 

Do you follow?

 

Jeez we really are flogging this one for all it's worth, eh:p

 

And all this started because I have what appears to be an enforceable agreement but not a 'true' copy ... only what looks like a reconstructed scanned document.

 

So even if I get Lloyds to admit to not having the original document ... where does that leave me in terms of getting it deemed unenforceable on the basis there is no 'original' document??

 

Thinks .... I'll write to Lloyds and see what they come back with, ask to inspect the original and then take it from there!!

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

link above doesnt get the one i want Regards gaz

 

Try this: CPR - Parts and Practice Directions

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

link above doesnt get the one i want Regards gaz

 

More speifically:

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – STATEMENTS OF CASE - This practice direction supplements CPR Part 16

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

Actually now you've thrown a different slant on what I was thinking FG.

 

'shall' ... express obligation, command ... to my mind is interpreted as MUST

 

I was thinking that 'should' would mean 'it ought to be, but doesn't have to' as opposed 'must be'

 

Do you follow?

 

Jeez we really are flogging this one for all it's worth, eh:p

 

And all this started because I have what appears to be an enforceable agreement but not a 'true' copy ... only what looks like a reconstructed scanned document.

 

So even if I get Lloyds to admit to not having the original document ... where does that leave me in terms of getting it deemed unenforceable on the basis there is no 'original' document??

 

Thinks .... I'll write to Lloyds and see what they come back with, ask to inspect the original and then take it from there!!

 

jax

:cool:

 

To be honest Jax, I really think that you'll struggle with this without having to take it to the house of lords and court of appeal.

 

don't forget that in a county court, it's balance of probably over proof beyond resonable doubt - and we've all seen that, despite the explicitness of the CCA, that the DJ's have been making "illegal" rulings that go against the act and in most cases, making rulings against rulings already made by a higher court (hope that makes sense).

 

the court would probably accept a certified copy of an agreement as an original - they have accepted a template pro-forma I was apparently sent as confirmation that the default notice would have looked like that, despite them not having the original.

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

That's the same as I posted Uniboy

 

jax

:cool:

 

Oh, sorry! lol :)

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 question again is that, if the judge forms his own opinions, then what is the point of having these practice directions? Doesn't make sense

 

jax

:cool:

 

Je ne sais pas!

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

What constitutes a 'certified' copy then?

 

Personally, I think that it shoudl be the original that is produced because otherwise they could say that anything was included and get away with it, but I have first hand experience of what the DJ's are like.

 

A certified copy could be anything - just because the bank has provided it in response, a DJ COULD say it was certified, or if the bank have written "certified" on it, it COULD be seen as a certified copy.....I really don't know mate!

 

Don't forget that they submit this as evidence to the court and the judges don't expect them to lie becasue they could get done for conntempt of court and the judges don't think they would lie.......we all know however that this not the case and the banks would do anything to get their own way.

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

Personally, I think that it shoudl be the original that is produced because otherwise they could say that anything was included and get away with it, but I have first hand experience of what the DJ's are like.

 

A certified copy could be anything - just because the bank has provided it in response, a DJ COULD say it was certified, or if the bank have written "certified" on it, it COULD be seen as a certified copy.....I really don't know mate!

 

Don't forget that they submit this as evidence to the court and the judges don't expect them to lie becasue they could get done for conntempt of court and the judges don't think they would lie.......we all know however that this not the case and the banks would do anything to get their own way.

 

So .... in your opinion, would you say it would be futile to take this further even if the bank admits to not having original??

 

soz im blind oopsss found it

 

No worries gaz LOL ;)

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So .... in your opinion, would you say it would be futile to take this further even if the bank admits to not having original??

 

If they have admitted to not having the original then I think it's difficult for them to enforce it anyway.

 

My friend took a credit card co to court regarding them not having an agreement (which they admitted) and the judge allocated it to the fast track - my mate withfrew the claim and did a balance transfer because e did not want to run the risk of and could not afford the costs involved (he would have needed legal rep).

 

It's entirely up to you Jax, it depends on the DJ lottery and how far they decided to take it in terms of to court etc......and again, what the DJ says when it is presented to them.

 

If you asked me before my last experience, I would have said - yeah, do it, I would. right after it, I would have said, "think twice". But now, I would probably say, try to go for it, if you are confident enough and have enough time/money.

 

My claims have been going for over a year and I only just got to trial, which hasn't helped. I don't really have the time or money to concentrate on both claims at the same time so I am only taking the credit card oneto court.

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

A certified copy could be anything - just because the bank has provided it in response, a DJ COULD say it was certified, or if the bank have written "certified" on it, it COULD be seen as a certified copy.....

 

That is EXACTLY what a certified copy is Un1 - however it also has to be a 'true' copy & how can the bank (or its solicitors) claim that if they don't have access to the original. And if they do have access to the original, what are there reasons for not producing it in court and are they valid?!

 

and the judges don't think they would lie.......we all know however that this not the case and the banks would do anything to get their own way.

 

Lie - me, m'lud?!! We all know financial institutions are respectable responsible organisations (just look at Barings, N. Rock etc. etc.) & we all take great care of our customers' data (RBS) :wink::grin:

 

FG

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

Thanks uni

 

What I am thinking is to find out whether or not they have the original agreement. If they do, then I won't pursue it on the basis that the copy I have received is a scanned one.

 

If they ADMIT to NOT having the ORIGINAL, I will take a view when the time comes.

 

Thanks for your advice. It gives you food for thought.

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked on the link for the £60.00 copy.. looks as though someone has purchased it :D

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks pt:)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4978 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...