Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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 4939 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

Cheers PT

 

There really Peed me off at the time and I was fuming so may have been a bit hastly..>LOL

 

Would really like to get them if you can think of anything?

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

Only owe about 300 quid and the interest i am claiming is 700 quid.

 

Would the judge give me the interest back with a declaration?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only owe about 300 quid and the interest i am claiming is 700 quid.

 

Would the judge give me the interest back with a declaration?

i think youre screwed, frankly

 

your at the halfway house where as you should be all or nothing

 

it seems your trying to rely upon the doctrine of mistake but not pushing the correct remedy mate

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that really pees me off is every summons I have had the POC are crap and I have asked them to be thrown out. They never did.

 

On this one the judge has struck it out on his own initiative

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but the reason is that most pleadings will make an allegation of breach of contract, even the most basis allegation

 

HOWEVER,

 

your claim alleges, well i dont know what it alleges and the judge will probably consider that if he cannot identify a valid basis for the claim then its an abuse of process

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

I need some help!!

 

Basically Next PLC peed me off a few month ago as they reduced my credit limit to the balance.

 

I asked for agreement and they admited they have not got it.

 

I then asked for all the interest I paid for the last 10 years refunding. THey refused and I started Court proceedings for the money.

 

My POC were brief as did ot on line and today had an order form the Court saying its been struck out on no reasonable grounds.

 

I have got a couple of weeks to send a new Statement of Case.

 

Does anybody know if there is any case law where they can not charge interest with out a credit agreement....

 

Cheers

 

HAK

 

i would imagine- that in this case the "boot my well be on the other foot"

 

although there may not have been a properly executed agreement- there was nevertheless "an agreement" and i would imagine you would find it 100% impossible to deny that.

 

if there is no legally enforceable agreement for you to sue on either- then i am sure that you would have been deemed to have "made a gift of the interest you have paid"

 

i would say the chances of you succeeding in reclaiming the interest you paid are zero

 

(sorry if that is not what you want to hear)

Link to post
Share on other sites

its possible to recover monies paid, but that is under the doctrine of mistake, under the belief that the agreement was enforceable

 

its very tricky though and wouldnt be the place for the CAG to take such arguments forward

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a vague POC, try this one:-

 

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq331/mightyacorn2008/NatWest/NatWestCountyCourt0001.jpg

 

I might try that one, how about:-

 

By agreement entered into between the claimant (Mightyacorn) and the defendant (PT 2537) the defendant has failed to pay the sum of £XX,000. The claimant has asked for it, but defendant failed to pay. I now claim £XX,000, plus interest.

 

You gonna cough up the amount PT?

 

Why isn't one like that struck out straight away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure it's the right place to ask this.

Regarding the Consumer Credit(Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regs 1983(SI 1983/1557)

3(2) There may be omitted from any such copy..

(b) Signature box, signature or date of signature..

 

can anyone explain why this reg was put into the Act?

Many thx..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure it's the right place to ask this.

Regarding the Consumer Credit(Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regs 1983(SI 1983/1557)

3(2) There may be omitted from any such copy..

(b) Signature box, signature or date of signature..

 

can anyone explain why this reg was put into the Act?

Many thx..

 

Because it wasn't easy to reproduce documents in 1983 - they didn't have photocopiers, electronic storage systems or a simply way to reproduce documents required under the Act.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it wasn't easy to reproduce documents in 1983 - they didn't have photocopiers, electronic storage systems or a simply way to reproduce documents required under the Act.

 

car2403, thx for the reply. I admit I felt it a simple question but could not reconcile an answer especially in view of how OC's are using that reg as an excuse to not supply a copy of an executed agreement. With such complicated associations and inferences within the Act I just wanted to be sure I hadn't over looked some simialar complicated reason for that reg being included.

 

If I may follow by referring to 3.2 (a)

3.2 (a) any information included in an executed agreement....only which is not required to be included there in by the Act..as to form and content."

 

Would 3.2 (a) not counter the omission within 3.2 (b) ?

ie: is 3.2 (a) saying you cannot leave out things (perhaps signatures !!) that are required to be within an executed agreement.?

 

many thx..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it wasn't easy to reproduce documents in 1983 - they didn't have photocopiers, electronic storage systems or a simply way to reproduce documents required under the Act.

 

I meant to also ask if anyone knows if there is any case Law having covered or referred to this or if/how it has been largely accepted by a court ?

Many thx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to also ask if anyone knows if there is any case Law having covered or referred to this or if/how it has been largely accepted by a court ?

Many thx

 

 

I guess you mean under s77-79 CCA. If so, look over here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html

 

Though defending a case brought against you is a different thing. ;)

 

uteb

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you mean under s77-79 CCA. If so, look over here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html

 

Though defending a case brought against you is a different thing. ;)

 

uteb

thx, but I'm not sure that deals with what I was trying to find out.

My understanding is that the Manchester test case dealt with what is required to comply with a s77-79 request and that a s77-79 request can be complied with by supplying a copy of an executed agreement not having signatures.

 

However has the reason car gave as to pre photo copy machines being the reason as to why we have reg 3.2(b), ever or anywhere been specifically referred to or accepted by a court?

 

hope that makes sense and apologies if this was indeed covered in the Manchester test case uptoeyeballs.

Many thx

Link to post
Share on other sites

thx, but I'm not sure that deals with what I was trying to find out.

My understanding is that the Manchester test case dealt with what is required to comply with a s77-79 request and that a s77-79 request can be complied with by supplying a copy of an executed agreement not having signatures.

 

However has the reason car gave as to pre photo copy machines being the reason as to why we have reg 3.2(b), ever or anywhere been specifically referred to or accepted by a court?

 

hope that makes sense and apologies if this was indeed covered in the Manchester test case uptoeyeballs.

Many thx

 

Your'e correct about the Manchester case and car2403 is no doubt correct about the technology issues going back a few decades.

 

I kinda though it was law, so wasn't open for challenge in court.

 

It might help if you explained where you are and what you are trying to achieve. You should also set up your own thread....

 

uteb.

Edited by uptoeyeballs
fat fingers

Link to post
Share on other sites

car2403, thx for the reply. I admit I felt it a simple question but could not reconcile an answer especially in view of how OC's are using that reg as an excuse to not supply a copy of an executed agreement. With such complicated associations and inferences within the Act I just wanted to be sure I hadn't over looked some simialar complicated reason for that reg being included.

 

If I may follow by referring to 3.2 (a)

3.2 (a) any information included in an executed agreement....only which is not required to be included there in by the Act..as to form and content."

 

Would 3.2 (a) not counter the omission within 3.2 (b) ?

ie: is 3.2 (a) saying you cannot leave out things (perhaps signatures !!) that are required to be within an executed agreement.?

 

many thx..

 

I meant to also ask if anyone knows if there is any case Law having covered or referred to this or if/how it has been largely accepted by a court ?

Many thx

 

Yes, it would be nice to know which questions you are asking and why, but I think this post clears things up somewhat about signature boxes and may clear up any misunderstanding, or any misleading that has been done in your circumstances?;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1193633.html

 

;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it wasn't easy to reproduce documents in 1983 - they didn't have photocopiers, electronic storage systems or a simply way to reproduce documents required under the Act.

 

 

Ahh!!!

 

But that begs..... Or the right question to ask ought to be why then, since the introduction of reproduction systems (And it has been quite a while now) has not the specific section authorising lack of requirement of a signature not been amended....and to what purpose would that inactivity serve???

 

m2ae:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

car2403, thx for the reply. I admit I felt it a simple question but could not reconcile an answer especially in view of how OC's are using that reg as an excuse to not supply a copy of an executed agreement. With such complicated associations and inferences within the Act I just wanted to be sure I hadn't over looked some simialar complicated reason for that reg being included.

 

If I may follow by referring to 3.2 (a)

3.2 (a) any information included in an executed agreement....only which is not required to be included there in by the Act..as to form and content."

 

Would 3.2 (a) not counter the omission within 3.2 (b) ?

ie: is 3.2 (a) saying you cannot leave out things (perhaps signatures !!) that are required to be within an executed agreement.?

 

many thx..

 

 

Signature has been EXPRESSLY authorised to be omitted...

 

And the secretary of state or Minister responsible under s60 has the power to prescribe by Regulations information to be included or information that may be omitted from Regulations

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4939 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...