Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi friends,  I’m a bit worried I may have got confused with timings here. I thought I had 33 days from my acknowledgment to submit a defence but the date added above says 3/6/24.   have I missed the date?   if so how can I apply for an exception due to my disability and problems with deadlines and dates etc (ADHD)?   what should I submit as a defence?   I’ve had no reply from BW so far    just been back on MCOL and it says 28 days from service if I completed an acknowledgment of service so does that mean 28 days from that of acknowledgement (I.e. 16/5) which would make deadline for defence 14/6?   Thanks! Panicking here.
    • Normally we don't advise playing your cards early in a snotty letter, but as you have appealed we might as well use what you wrote in the appeal against them. There is no rush, you have until 6 July to get it to them.  See what the other regulars think too. How about something like this? -   Dear Rachael & Sean, cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea you'd actually thought I'd take such tripe seriously and would cough up! As usual you'll have been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so you would have seen that I appealed to your client.  Indeed the driver on the day is a textbook example of having done exactly what you should do when you do not wish to be bound by the T&Cs in a private car park. Of course none of that mattered to the spivs you represent but do you really want to put such a useless case in front of a judge? To be fair, your clients are very useful members of the human race - as comedians.  How I loved the page turner of their antics at The Citrus Building in Bournemouth.  It was chuckle after chuckle reading about them, letter after letter, month after month, insisting they were legally in the right, even through someone who had done just the first day of a GCSE law course could have told them they weren't.  Until the denouement - BOOM - an absolute hammering in court.  In fact - SLAM, BANG - managing to lose twice against the same motorist for the same car park in front of two different judges. Your client can either drop their foolishness now or get yet another tolchocking* in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend the dosh on a nice summer holiday, while every day laughing at your clients' expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO COUNTRYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD   *  This word is used under licence from Brassnecked
    • Well yes, ... and the tax dodgers ... Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows A previously unknown focus of an I.R.S. audit is a dubious accounting maneuver that effectively meant taking the same write-offs twice on a Chicago skyscraper. nytimes.com WWW.NYTIMES.COM  
    • more detest the insurrectional ex variety dx
    • Laura, I was surprised that the Director said that you hadn't appealed twice. I thought that the letter you posted on 24th June was the second appeal and that was to the IAS. And they did say that there was no further appeal possible. Could you please explain how many times you appealed. I am going to read your WS now. PS  Yes I meant to say that the keeper did not have a licence therefore it was wrong of them to assume he was the driver and the keeper. Thanks for picking that up.
  • 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 4980 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

I am surprised at the ICO - they seem to actually be acting lately on these issues.....

 

Hi Don't supose they give you this in writing did they i would love to waive it at

Wescot

 

Petr

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

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The K-Zone: statutory interpretation

 

([1844] 11 Cl;Fin 85): "... the only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is, that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver."

 

Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1: "... the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity ... in which case the ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency but no farther."

 

The days have long passed when the courts adopted a strict constructionist view of interpretation which required them to adopt the literal meaning of the language. The courts now adopt a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true purpose of legislation and are prepared to look at much extraneous material that bears upon the background against which the legislation was enacted.''

 

The regulations can only clarify and expand not contradict the clear words of tte statute

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been listening in on all of the discussion all weekend, and I'm still rock steady on my s85 stance. Hmmm, I'm waiting on a response from MBNA and the temptation to use BA's DL for WW is V Strong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this does become law there is an alternative which is in S9 of the Enterprise Act(2002).Now for arguement's sake if every debtor was to take that route could you imagine the effect that would have on the Banking,cc,dca's industries.

 

Term

 

Apologies - could you clarify please?

 

S9

Repeal of certain powers of direction

Section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41) (in this Act referred to as "the 1973 Act") and section 13 of the Competition Act 1980 (c. 21) (powers of Secretary of State to give directions) shall cease to have effect.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise if I am posting in the wrong thread.

 

In response to my SAR, Creation Finance sent me my statements. I also recieved separately an unsigned 'Default Notice' for £0.00. My account has been in a DMP for 16 months and they stopped charging interest 4 months ago. Any advice anyone?

:lol:
Link to post
Share on other sites

BA posted a DL for WW way back on this thread. We thought the MIB may change the DL for WW as WW may not want the CAG who had sent an SAR to MBNA to contact WW on his DL. You could ask BA to put the DL for WW back on the thread, but you could also search through to get the DL already listed. You could PM BA for the DL of WW, up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise if I am posting in the wrong thread.

 

In response to my SAR, Creation Finance sent me my statements. I also recieved separately an unsigned 'Default Notice' for £0.00. My account has been in a DMP for 16 months and they stopped charging interest 4 months ago. Any advice anyone?

 

mamatemi1

 

yes you are probably in the wrong thread:

 

not sure what you expected from the SAR - statements are usual...

 

start a new thread in this section here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/

 

and read the instructions and faq here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/

 

if it doesnt make sense pm me....

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

BA posted a DL for WW way back on this thread. We thought the MIB may change the DL for WW as WW may not want the CAG who had sent an SAR to MBNA to contact WW on his DL. You could ask BA to put the DL for WW back on the thread, but you could also search through to get the DL already listed. You could PM BA for the DL of WW, up to you.

 

cheers mate, I'll pm her...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

The K-Zone: statutory interpretation

 

([1844] 11 Cl;Fin 85): "... the only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is, that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver."

 

Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1: "... the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity ... in which case the ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency but no farther."

 

The days have long passed when the courts adopted a strict constructionist view of interpretation which required them to adopt the literal meaning of the language. The courts now adopt a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true purpose of legislation and are prepared to look at much extraneous material that bears upon the background against which the legislation was enacted.''

 

The regulations can only clarify and expand not contradict the clear words of tte statute

 

The one we all know section 77 shall produce an executed copy.

section61 a copy shall not be executed untill signed.

Reg 3.1 1983/1557 does not have to have signature

 

Regulation overiding clear legislation.

reason si's are legislation they are passed by the lords and can suppliment replace or revoke statue.

 

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

cheers mate, I'll pm her...

Originally Posted by m55dlc viewpost.gif

BA posted a DL for WW way back on this thread. We thought the MIB may change the DL for WW as WW may not want the CAG who had sent an SAR to MBNA to contact WW on his DL. You could ask BA to put the DL for WW back on the thread, but you could also search through to get the DL already listed. You could PM BA for the DL of WW, up to you.

U what where when who hey pardon.

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

Regulations cannot revoke or override statute;- when there is conflict then the primary legislation takes precedence.

 

On another note any current terms and conditions containing a right to vary are incomplete unless accompanied by the original signed document demonstrating the right to vary as a proper part of the agreement. I would suggest that the right to vary clause must always be accompanied by the original

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Term

 

Apologies - could you clarify please?

 

S9

Repeal of certain powers of direction

Section 12 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41) (in this Act referred to as "the 1973 Act") and section 13 of the Competition Act 1980 (c. 21) (powers of Secretary of State to give directions) shall cease to have effect.

 

Sorry: Wrong section of the Act it should be:Part 10 S248 - S272

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulations cannot revoke or override statute;- when there is conflict then the primary legislation takes precedence.

 

On another note any current terms and conditions containing a right to vary are incomplete unless accompanied by the original signed document demonstrating the right to vary as a proper part of the agreement. I would suggest that the right to vary clause must always be accompanied by the original

ineresting

 

does this mean that we can demand that our section77 requests are signd orriginals as stated in section 77 and section 61 of the act?

 

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

 

On another note any current terms and conditions containing a right to vary are incomplete unless accompanied by the original signed document demonstrating the right to vary as a proper part of the agreement. I would suggest that the right to vary clause must always be accompanied by the original

 

Forgot to say that the above is my take on it but the only proof of the right to vary is in the original agreement. the generic mailer without that is the allegation of one party -the act becomes a shyster's charter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

for what it is worth the electronic distance marketing alters sections 61(a) 63(3) 64 69 176 189

 

Now i would say these wes alfered but i supose you could say they were ammended whats is a word

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

2002211106485034420_fs.jpg

 

the above is the first terms and conditions that was sent to me when i joined with this credit card issuer . please note that they also imply that the terms and conditions are also a "copy of your agreement for you to keep . It includes a notice about your cancellation rights which you should read "

 

it appears to my goodself that right at the beginning when i had the pleasure of joining they sent me this instead of the executed agreement -

 

do you not agree so i honestly think the contract is inenforceable.

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question. If you have an agreement in a store for a store card, there is an agreement sheet you can fill in with your details, but there is nothing that states there is another page of the agreement. You then have a secondary page which states interest and has the sigs on it (both them and us!). What would the signature document have to have on it to link it to the agreement page? In the example I'm looking at, it is relatively illegible, but there doesn't appear to be anything linking the signature page to the agreement page.

 

Where would the law stand on this then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I've got an application form style agreement, filled in in a shop, with a bad copy of a faxed microfiche. This is not an executed agreement. How am I going to convice a judge that this does not constitute what is required under s78. The DCA is progressing this....

 

The signature of the person executing the agreement is the same as the person who authorised the 'in store credit' of £130.00 There is a statement above the signature box headed Instant Credit that states 'your right to cancel in the box below will not apply to this agreement'. The cancellation box states 'once you have signed this agreement you will have for a short period of time a right to cancel it. Exact details of how and when you can cancel it will be sent to you by post by us.

 

Is it cancellable or not? Doesn't this indicate that the application is not guaranteed and therefore the issue of card is not certain? It also goes on to state that 'if you do receive a card from us this agreement shall continue from the date shown on your card carrier.'

 

The dates on this then are irrelevant are they not? If the agreement continues from the date on the card carrier, is that not the date the agreement started then, by all accounts?

 

How does this instant credit stuff affect the agreement / application arguement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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...