Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I think final version of WS now prepared with exhibits added.  All numbered properly. Of course it can still be tweaked if necessary. Laura will not need it on 25 June as that is just a Preliminary Hearing for her to represent her son. But as DCBL messed up and thought it was WS time why not prepare things calmly in advance. Defendant's WS - versione 3 + attachments.pdf
    • Your case shows the idiocy of employing a solicitor to do things you could easily do yourself. Had Countryside dealt with their own case they would have entered judgement on 4 June and there would have been no way back for you. But they thought they were clever by running to Rachael and Sean of BW Legal for a more "professional" (aye, right) service.  These dodgy solicitors can only make money on private parking cases by doing everything on the ultra cheap and certainly cant check the judgement date for every single separate case. Ho!  Ho!  Ho! Anyway, glad you got the defence filed OK. The next stage is that the central bulk court will send out a simple form called a Directions Questionnaire to you and to Countrywide which is part of the allocations process to your local court.  If you read this short thread you will see all the stages of the court process  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406892-highview-parking-anpr-pcn-claimform-urban-exchange-manchester-claim-dismissed/#comments
    • It is already trespass, nothing further needed to make out trespass. Not sure where ‘interference with goods’ helps you / how you’d bring a claim for that that stops them parking there.
    • Thanks Dx,    For some further information, the holiday was booked as a package holiday for 2. One of the 2 had to be changed, and changing costs £700 for a new flight as "tickets had been issued and they cant do a name change". I cant quite figure out how compensation works for things when it comes to package holidays.    From what I can tell  - The plane was due to land in Turks and Caicos to drop off passengers, something happened during descent, resulting in technical fault.  - The rest of the original flight from Turks & Caicos -> Montego Bay was cancelled  - A New flight was put on today, which was then delayed by 1.5hrs aswell  - Hotel was provided for the night after much hassle.  - 1.5 days, 2 evenings of holiday lost  If I understand correctly, since the original flight (LHR -> Turks -> Montego Bay) was cancelled, they are both entitled to a refund on that full flight? I can't quite work out if they are only entitled to a refund for the equivalent of Turks -> Montego Bay, or for the full LHR->Turks->Montego Bay, since it was issued as one ticket/all Virgin, and they should have arrived yesterday..?)  I can't work out how to get the cost of that compensation, or whether its a set figure, and how the loss of days of holiday is factored in   I am aware:  If you received less than 14 days’ notice of the cancellation, you are generally due compensation, awarded in pounds or euros depending on where your flight was due to depart from, according to the following scale: £220 / €250 for all flights of 1,500km or less (e.g. Glasgow to Amsterdam); £350 / €400 for all flights between 1,500km and 3,500km (e.g. East Midlands to Marrakech); £520 / €600 for all other flights (e.g. London to New York). Compensation will be reduced by 50% if the arrival time of the replacement flight doesn’t exceed the arrival time of the original flight by: two hours for flights of 1,500km or less; three hours for flights between 1,500km and 3,500km; four hours for all other flights. So I "think" its £520pp for the flight part as compensation (7500km)... but some sites say its a full refund for the flight... is it both?  Thanks,  Ryan  
    • Our business was only transacted digitally as I was not in England at that time.  
  • 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 4981 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

Mr Robert Udy is the name of Crap One's computer at Nottingham

 

Pull the uddy one!!! :D

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

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

Did your charges claim fail then?

 

I took a part payment, chased for the remainder, and they closed my account in retaliation. I have told them I am refusing payment because I refuse to acknowledge their right to leverage the overdraft in such a way.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all you clever people on this thread...Just one question if you forgive me from not wanting to wade through this entire thread again... When do the new regulations come in re DCA's being fined if a complaint is investigated, and which body is doing the fining ?

 

 

FAQs - timescale for consumer credit complaints

 

FAQs - consumer credit complaints

 

consultation paper - chapter 7, questions for consultation

 

 

ARE THESE ANY HELP ?

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

Professor: Quick question.When you go to the Court of Justice which divison is your case being heard in.

 

Hi Term and everyone else. Apologies for the few days abscence, have work to do.

 

Its in the bankruptcy section, room 211 to set aside demands with the registrar. Despite what nonsense anyone writes on the stat demand the idiotic brief for Amex put High Court of Justice room 110. Should really be room 101.

 

Anyways, looks like I wont have to go as the morons respresenting Amex have withdrawn the stat demand without me even having to bother to go to court to set it aside.

 

I will post their reply and my letter I sent when I get a minute. You will particulary enjoy the very short letter from Amex solicitors in this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an extention of the input from Professor Fate and the replies therto.

 

If this person is MIB it does matter because this thread is there to argue around the CCA & give advice to those who are sticking their toe in the water. The mention of Stautory Demand and the 'B' word is enough to put aload of people off, who wouldn't be, if they are just starting to establish their rights.

 

For those who may have been affected by this persons input, please please Google 'stautory demand', the information that you gain by that cursory inquiry and the instructions that you gain should be nough to put your mind at rest. Remeber a Stat demand is just as dangerous to the filer as it is to the defendant if the former hasn't got all his facts right.

 

As for clicky, to some extent this thread is, its IS very exclusive because the arguments have developed and are at times very technical, unless you take the time to read over 200 pages. However, that doesn't make it any the more less informative.

 

As reagrds PF, he obviously has a IP address it may be interesting to see how that compares with the other 'commando raids on our gang'.

 

Kind regards,

 

Mike

 

I have an IP address, I also have a home. I am not MIB, I dont see why you seem to think I am MIB?

 

Unfortunately I dont have loads of time to spend on this very informative forum because I have a full time business to run. If I sit here on the forum I just read and respond and dont get any work done.

 

SO please dont get paranoid about people because they dont live on here because I think it just put other people off from joining and making a contribution to help others in a similar circumstance to yourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Professor

 

What part of London are you from? I hope you don't mind me asking afew (ahem) security questions before we go on.

 

You mention stat demand, and the high court. So, I take from that the inference you are in the profession?

 

I live in North London. I am not a lawyer.

 

I am in the electronics business, have set up and run a few companies in my time. Have had some good successes and failures over time.

 

Last 2 years my business has suffered due to the fact my asshole ex business partner raped the company for over six figures so I lost rather a lot of money.

 

Hence the need to know what I am doing vs my creditors as at the time I could barely afford to pay a mortgage and feed my family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my mind it doesn't really matter whether Professor Fate is MIB or not. If he is, big deal. The MIB's can read this site anyway, whether we like it or not. If in doubt about a fellow CAGer or not, just remember everything said on this forum is public.

 

Interesting angle you raise on the 'stat' PF. I presume a statutory demand issued through the high court is the first phase of a potential bankruptcy process - if you can't pay. Although Amex can be as stupid as the rest of us I'd be genuinely surprised if they'd try that route if it had absolutely no merit whatsoever.

 

It is the first and only step in bankruptcy. I fobbed them off many times after a while they didnt bother to send me anything until late last year I got a letter from their solicitors with the usual threats which I ignored. Then in February i got a letter from a trace agency saying they were to present a statutory demand on behalf of a client. I didnt know which creditor as I have a few. I ignored that as well. No name of creditor does not deserve a response. I mean how can you respond to un-named creditor?

 

On 2 March 2007 I was presented by hand with a statutory demand by an agency aptly called C-I-N. They are on the web. The guy at the door gave me some BS about being a clerk of the court blah de blah which was utter BS but I said nothing, not even confirm my name. Generally dont confirm anything verbally.

 

The server did not get a written acknowledgement from me or anything else as sometimes its advantageous in case of delays. Plsm read the section regarding serving a stat demand or I can post If you prefer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

we are going off thread again.........!!

Prof. Fate - maybe you could open a thread in Amex forum?

 

It's OK LB the Prof is just providing rebuttal vs our belief he's a MIB. We all feel more at home discussing things with people when we have a bit more background info. The surgical nature of his (hers?) original question piqued my paranoid alarm bells level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
No forthcoming answer to post 4444 then..Comom InKogneeToh,,you're my hero here...surely you have the answer

 

I answerd it two nights ago:D April 2007 & sometime in 2008 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh m55, I am disappointed - nobody checked me out when I joined this thread (although it was some time at the beginning - about a gazillion years ago it seems!) - does that mean I sound so stupid it wasn't even WORTH checking me out?:sad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's OK LB the Prof is just providing rebuttal vs our belief he's a MIB. We all feel more at home discussing things with people when we have a bit more background info. The surgical nature of his (hers?) original question piqued my paranoid alarm bells level.

 

His.

 

Didnt know it was that surgical. Just the way I always am.

 

Havnt seen an Amex forum, can someone post pls?

 

Regarding the post about a company not been able to profit during a default of section 85, is there any common ground that this is so? Why does not the same apply to section 77-79?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
It's OK LB the Prof is just providing rebuttal vs our belief he's a MIB. We all feel more at home discussing things with people when we have a bit more background info. The surgical nature of his (hers?) original question piqued my paranoid alarm bells level.

 

M55.You must start to chill out.I got a default notice yesterday from Arrow Global and I just laughed giving me 14 days to cough up all else.The only coughing I will do is to clear my throat.Anyway I can use the default as a tool because it do's not follow the Act on one little technicality Westclott sent me one the day previous for the same alleged debt.Now this is the juicy bit Arrow brought the debt from my good old buddies MBUSA but without any evidence.In one paragraph they say they have been assigned and in the next they say they've brought it.Sorry they won't confuse the Terminator.So as I have no agreement with Arrow they will be receiving a S10 DPA notice early next week and Westclott will receive a CCA request then we will see who is confused.Anyway as it's St Pat's day and im English I am just going to forget it.So if the MIB's are watching the beers are on you.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Regarding the post about a company not been able to profit during a default of section 85, is there any common ground that this is so? Why does not the same apply to section 77-79?

 

Hi

 

VERY good question!

 

I am still looking for some evidence/case law/common law or even sod's law that shows that a creditor may not profit when in default.

 

All that the CCA says is that he may not enforce, i.e. take any action to force payment.

 

Answers on a postcard please.....

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

i know i may be at risk of sounding a little like the good professor, though im certainly not MIB.

Is there much proof of (by way of case law or other) for actions in court that have gone before and been judged on ?

 

 

i have to ask this again as its bugging me now (infact this whole issue about s85, 77 ect ect)

 

does anybody in this forum have proper authority (ie case law) to show that the s85 claims, consolidation of interest and the like are legitimate claims, and not just someones interpretation from cag ?

 

i have searched the database of case law and cannot find a single ruling regarding issues of this nature. How many cag members have already been down this route in court and won up to yet ?

 

somebody please put me straight on this

 

Johnny

Dont Rush - Take Your Time - Dont always take me seriously

:p

 

If you feel i have helped you then click

Here, if you feel i have not helped you then click Here, if you want to complain about this go Here, if you would like bank secrets then go Here.

 

MBNA - Case Charges+PPI+CI+LA+Damages+costs

RBS Credit Card - Case Charges+CI+LA+Costs

Barclays - Case Charges+CI+LA+Damages+costs

Halifax - Case Charges+CI+Damages+costs

Online Finance - Case Charge+CI+Damages+costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the real clue to this is in the original agreement where it shows what happens if either party defaults or is in breach of their obligations under the agreement. Usually there is a long list of redress for both parties regarding this, the creditors right to sue you and enforce etc. I think that if there is no redress for a debtor under similar circumstance (that there is in fact no redress for a breach or default by a creditor) it would fall under the Unfair Contract Terms 1999 as the agreement is clearly one sided and bent against the consumer. Such a thing as proven would render the agreement void.

 

Just a suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that you wont get redress for interest or charges through the CCA.

 

The way to get charges removed is of course common case law.

 

The way I would go for interest accured would be in a section/or non section of your original agreement using the 1999 legislation that if you have no redress for a creditors breach or default the agreement is likely to be unfair.

 

Some judge must rule on this to make it so, cant find anything yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Hi

 

VERY good question!

 

I am still looking for some evidence/case law/common law or even sod's law that shows that a creditor may not profit when in default.

 

All that the CCA says is that he may not enforce, i.e. take any action to force payment.

 

Answers on a postcard please.....

 

Regards, Pam

 

Hi Pam I haven't got a postcard but I do have the CCA in another window and this is the one with the amendments as at 2003.Now I have been looking for what your asking but please bear with me it is there somewhere.Anyway I've been looking at S82 of the Act which may have some bearing on S85.If I am correct in what I'm thinking the whole credit industry is going to be blown wide open.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The way I would go for interest accured would be in a section/or non section of your original agreement using the 1999 legislation that if you have no redress for a creditors breach or default the agreement is likely to be unfair.

 

.

 

Hi

 

I don't think that would be of any use because regulated consumer credit agreements must be in a specified form and I haven't seen any that include any clauses regarding rights etc. apart from the statutory ones.

 

IMO the rights of each party are set out in the CCA and it's associated regs., and I see nothing about reclaiming interest if the creditor defaults.

 

There was a post earlier (I'm sure in this thread) about the language of the CCA being very precise, so I can only conclude that it means what it says and nothing else!

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Hi

 

VERY good question!

 

I am still looking for some evidence/case law/common law or even sod's law that shows that a creditor may not profit when in default.

 

All that the CCA says is that he may not enforce, i.e. take any action to force payment.

 

Answers on a postcard please.....

 

Regards, Pam

 

R Lukacs-Rajnai v Lloyds Bank Plc [1996] EWCA Civ 1027 (22nd November, 1996)

 

There is no need to read the whole judgement I've added the revelent parts below.

 

I have posted this piece of case law before which touch's on S85.Now if this case had been presented in a better way then I beleive the appelant would have won and a precedent set.

 

The Recorder was of the view that there was no breach of the duty of confidence, and that there was no negligence by the bank in supplying her with a fresh

contextup.pngcredit cardcontextdown.png, even though they knew she was a defaulter. I have looked very carefully at the judgment and I can see no possible ground open to this lady to challenge it. The truth of the matter is, as the Recorder identified, that her main complaint relates to the withdrawal of her contextup.pngcreditcontextdown.png as notified to the contextup.pngcredit agencies. It arose directly from her default on the loan agreement and she was aware that that course would follow. It was no action which gives rise to a Counterclaim.

The applicant's second complaint is against the judgment entered against her summarily. She really wishes to appeal that judgment. It is not before us, but even if she were to seek to apply, four years after Judge Cox dismissed her attempt to appeal the District Judge's order, it is now much too late for this court to interfere.

In conclusion, I would say that I fully understand how the difficulties have arisen. I am not in a position to say to what extent her real anxieties are or are not worth founding, but it is too late to interfere with the judgment. I do not know whether the applicant would have succeeded on that judgment or not. There is no opportunity for the bank to explain whether or not they complied with Section 85, but we cannot deal with it now.

Now suppose the judge had decided to go down the S85 route and this case law is over 10 years old what would the repocussions for the bank been. The Terminator Q.C now rest's his case because he needs to get ready to go out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4981 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...