Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • notodebt
      SJP letter from courts - Car tax fine

      By notodebt · Posted

      I disagree with the charge and also the statements sent. Firstly I have not received any correspondence from DVLA especially a statutory notice dated 2/5/2024 or a notice 16/5/2024 voiding my licence if I had I would have responded within this timeframe. The only letter received was the single justice procedure notice dated the 29.5.2024 this was received on 4.6.2024. I also disagree with the statement that tax was dishonoured through invalid indemnity claim. I disagree that the licence be voided I purchased the vehicle in Jan 2024 from RDA car sales Pontefract with agreement to collect the car on the 28.1.2024. The garage taxed the vehicle on the 25.1.24 for eleven payments on direct debit  using my debit card on my behalf. £62.18 was the initial payment on 8.2.24  and £31 per month thereafter the second payment was 1.3.24.This would run from Jan 24 to Dec 24 and a total of £372.75, therefore the car was clearly taxed before  I took the car away After checking one of my vehicle apps  I could see the vehicle was showing as untaxed it later transpired that DVLA had cancelled my tax , without reason and I did not receive any correspondence from DVLA to state why it was cancelled or when. The original payment of £62.18 had gone through and verified by my bank Lloyds so this payment was not declined. I then set up the direct debit again straight away at my local post office branch on 15.2.2024 the first payment was £31 on 1.3.2024 and subsequent payments up to Feb 2025 with a total of £372.75 which was the same total as the original DD that was set up in Jan, Therefore I claimed the £62.18 back from my bank as an indemnity claim as this payment was from the original cancelled tax from DVLA and had been cancelled . I have checked my bank account at Lloyds and every payment since Jan 24  up to date has been taken with none rejected as follows: 8.2.24 - £62.15 1.3.24 - £31.09 2.4.24 - £31.06 1.5.24 - £31.06 3.6.23-£31.06 I have paper copies of the original DD set up conformation plus a breakdown of payments per month , and a paper copy of the second DD setup with breakdown of payments plus a receipt from the post office.I can also provide bank statements showing each payment to DVLA I also ask that my licence be reinstated due to the above  
    • tobyjugg2
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By tobyjugg2 · Posted

      You know hes had it when they call out those willing to say anything even claiming tories have reduced taxes on live tv AS Salmonella says: The Conservative Party must embrace Nigel Farage to “unite the right”, Suella Braverman has urged, following a disastrous few days for Rishi Sunak. The former home secretary told The Times there was “not much difference” between the new Reform UK leader’s policies and those of the Tories, as senior Conservatives start debating the future of the party. hers.   AND Goves replacement gets caught booking in an airbnb to claim he lives locally .. as of yesterday you can rent it yourself in late July - as he'll either be gone or claiming taxpayer funded expenses for a house Alongside pictures of himself entering a house, Mr McGuinness said Surrey Heath residents “rightly expect their MP to be a part of their community”. - So whens farage getting around to renting (and subletting) a clacton beach hut?   Gove’s replacement caught out on constituency house claim as home found on Airbnb WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Social media users quickly pointed out house Ed McGuinness had posted photos in was available to rent     As Douglas Ross says he'll stand down in scotland - if he wins a Westminster seat - such devotion.
    • notodebt
      SJP letter from courts - Car tax fine

      By notodebt · Posted

      I've completed a draft copy to defend and will post up here for review.  Looking over the dates and payments this all stemmed from DVLA cancelling in Feb , whereby I set up a new DD in Feb hence the overlap, why they cancelled when I paid originally in Jan I have no idea. Anyway now stuck with pending court action and a suspended licence . I am also firing off a letter to DVLa recorded disputing the licence revoke
    • Passerby0233
      MET ANPR PCN - NtK - BP Blue Boys Tonbridge - Burger King Car Park NOT BP car park.

      By Passerby0233 · Posted

      Thank you both for your expert knowledge and understanding. You're fighting the good fight by standing up for people like me and others with limited knowledge of this stuff. I thank you. I know all my DVLA details are good. I recently (last year) renewed my license, and my car's V5 is current with the correct details; the same is valid for my partner. I'll continue to ignore the love letters 😂 and won't let it bother either me or my partner.  I'll revisit this post if/when I get a letter of claim.  F**k ém.
    • BankFodder
      Lost items sent through Parcel2Go and EVRi

      By BankFodder · Posted

      Please check back later on today for a fuller response and some edits

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

HSBC v Pipster - Court Tomorrow!! *****Discontinued*****

Pipster2797

By Pipster2797
in Financial Legal Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4464 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 359
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted

I’m going through this as fast as I can – need to counter the WS, and do a quick skelly.

 

The judge should rip their arses for delivering the WS on the day of the hearing – it should have been issued with the application.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted

OK, folks, WS in response to their pile of rubbish done. All a bit quick, but hopefully coherent. It was a bit of a combined WS and skelly as it included the relevant case law and statutes.

 

Save to say we found an example DN from the time, exact same wording, and it only allowed 14 days to rectify. Ooops. Anyway, Pipster never received it. Amex v Brandon is therefore a bar to enforcement.

 

Also, we can show they have not – and cannot ever – comply with a s 78 request, as a contract or application form was never, ever signed. It was done over the phone. So Carey – which they rely on – blows them out of their own paddling pool. Phoenix v Kotecha 2011 means it’s therefore unenforceable.

 

Some of it sensitive and we know the oppo look in, so done off forum as the hearing is in a short while.

 

One overriding factor – and the reason I help in cases like this – is that the OP was trying to settle with the creditor, and they failed to supply documents requested under statute. That’s not on.

 

Let’s hope we’ve done enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pipster2797

Pipster2797

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well thank you firstly to Donkey B for all the help with this. He saved my bacon on it as think i would of lost had it just been my WS

 

Not a loss but not a win either.

 

Basically I got there and HSBC Sol was already there. Had a quiet word with me. I gave her the new WS. She read through it and mentioned that she had brought the Carey case with her. I said I was already aware of the case and I’ve also read it. Tried to explain again to her that a recon may suit a s78 request but to enforce then the signed agreement has to be there.

 

Got in to the room with the judge, first thing he commented on was the length of time this case had took as claim was first brought in May 2010 and he started straight away at her not so much that they had served the WS on me as LIP today but that they had served it on him today, she then gave him a copy of the Carey case and he asked her if she expected him to read the full case within 30 minutes on top of her WS and my amended WS. She tried to pick the bones out and gave him the gist but I kept piping up and repeating that it does fulfil a s78 request but to enforce you need the signed CCA and HSBC were trying to enforce here so different from Carey. She kept repeating Carey, in the end the judge got a bit annoyed and bit at her that I wasn’t disputing the findings of the Carey case but I was actually saying sec 127 of the consumer credit act was applicable, he then asked her to explain to him why sec 127 wasn’t relevant as per their WS, she couldn’t answer him. He also said that this was going to have to go to trial. Thought I was about to get what I wanted at this point. She waffled on about Carey again but avoided his questions.

 

He brought up about the DN and I was trying to get my point across that I only got it this morning and done some research and found a one on the internet that was word for word and the dates didn’t give enough time for service etc and to remedy the breach. He asked her how long it should give and her reply was 14 days I think?? Couldn’t believe what I was hearing. She then tried to get the judges mind off the DN by going on about Carey and thought she was going to bring up about the DN not being relevant as it wasn’t in Carey. Was ready with my reply but again she kept bleating about s78 from carey.

 

Thought it was all going my way and going well but he decided to relist it for a 2 hour hearing for the strike out. He said my WS today would be used as my defence in light of recent docs i.e. the DN. They admitted there was no DN just the template and no CCA either. Judge said I can’t order for docs to be sent when there isn’t any. Wasn’t happy I had put directions in when I know there aren’t any docs. I got away with it by saying to be fair the draft directions were wrote up before I got HSBC’s WS this morning and I had worked all morning on it rather than ask for an adjournment as the case has dragged on long enough. He seemed ok with that and asked me if it was all my own research or had I got the info from the internet. I said it was all my own work but I did research from the internet.

 

So he has ordered that 14 days from the order HSBC have to write a skelly argument and serve it to the court and me and then I have 28 days to put my skelly to the court and the claimant and then the first date after that for a 2 hour hearing.

 

Not a loss and gives me some time to get the Skelly in place and make sure everything is perfect and HSBC can’t play funny beggars as they have to get their skelly in place first. He did try and scare me by saying that as I am LIP I won’t have any costs but if I lose HSBC have hired and I will have what could be considerable costs. Bit my lip but felt like saying so you think I should just roll over and give in despite what the law says?

 

So don’t know if it’s a stalemate or round 1 to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pipster2797

Pipster2797

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

One overriding factor – and the reason I help in cases like this – is that the OP was trying to settle with the creditor, and they failed to supply documents requested under statute. That’s not on.

 

Let’s hope we’ve done enough.

 

 

Well you did do enough and more than you should of. I can only thank you again.

 

I spoke to the solicitor outside and discussed and she was trying to batter me down to admitting the money and I told her the full story of how it had went, why I originally requested the CCA but HSBC done everything they could to stop me from checking charges etc and trying to push my debt down. Think she may have realised at that point that my intention was not to avoid the debt but to lower it through possible PPI (turns out there isn't any PPI) and charges. Think she realised that HSBC's main aim was to avoid me knowing there was no CCA when that wasn't what I was after and just information to lower my debt. As it still is. I'm hoping that with charges and interest I can get a full and final settlement on the account and haggle for the default to be removed.

 

Anyway's I'm going to relax with my little boy now and play toys and watch cartoons because over the last week I haven't spent enough time with him. May also have 1,2 or even more beers tonight.

 

Thanks again to everyone for their comments but again to DonkeyB for a huge help and a debt I probably never be able to repay to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted

That’s a fair result given the amount of sh*te the judge had to take from them. As we said at the start, these tossers do not play fair. This judge saw through that. They blast away at Carey to cover the fact they have no evidence. They send witness statements in late to try and hoodwink the judge and the defendant. They lie to you and tell you that you are not entitled to a witness statement. In short, they cheat. You have to be wise to their tricks.

 

It may well be worth you trying to negotiate with them – if they’ll listen, and if that’s what you want. The aim of today was to stop them getting a ridiculous summary judgment.

 

My view now is that as they have gone for you tooth and nail, you are entitled to fight back. They cannot win this on Carey. I imagine their rep started to realise that.

 

Let’s see what the judge’s order brings.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
NewToTheFight

NewToTheFight

Posted
Posted

Well done Pipster, with Donkey's support you have won today - they did not get what they wanted.

It is for them to prover their case, they have no documents

How can they prove you signed something? Because Marge in accounts specifically remembers your application from umpteen years ago?

 

I think not

Link to post
Share on other sites
DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted

The point is quite simply that Pipster signed nothing – the card was arranged over the telephone.

 

Their argument is that, as their systems are wholly reliable, the likelihood is that he WOULD have signed a contract.

 

Our simple counter argument is that if their systems are so reliable, how come they don’t have a copy of the contract he signed?

 

They can’t rely on the efficiency of their systems, then deny that efficiency in the same breath, simply to suit their case.

 

The judge said as much in the Harrison v Link Financial case – Link produced an MBNA employee who swore that certain things must have happened because that’s how things were done. Luckily, Mr Harrison had proof to the contrary. Too often the judiciary believe these well-meaning fibbers – oh it’s a bank, they must do things properly. Well, no, they do not.

 

There is no signed document with Pipster’s scrawl. Never has been.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...