Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update:   A couple of weeks further along, and the charge has now been cancelled. In that regard alone the outcome is acceptable.   In the interim ...  There have been additional demands from CPP/PE in the most glorious and laughable obfuscated prose/legalese I have pressured PALS I have chased past correspondence I have contacted other Execs I have involved my MP who has now acted I had primed the local newspaper who was planning a piece this week   However ...   - PALS didn't respond until I complained in person after almost 2 silent weeks; then promised to help and a couple of days after that advised that the Hosp had said thye had no authority over the Parking Co. I told them the hosp had told them wrong, explained why and pressed them to go back ... since when I have heard nothing despite chasing them. - UHCW Trust Estates & Facilities Dir. is yet to respond, though contact was *only* a week ago. - UHCW CEO/Chief Administrator has never acknowledged/replied-to any of my letters/chases. - UHCW CEO/Chief Admin reacted immediately to MP letter however by passing it and my correspondence to Estates and Facilities Dir to deal with, who in turn replied to MP with cancellation, who yesterday copied that to me for confirmation received this morning.   Passing thoughts ...   - People who could/should have been dealing with it for the injured party elected not to. - PALS has good intentions but is useless if they don't have a leaflet on it - will follow the Hosp line on everything else without questioning their words. - The Trust's Administration is not approach-friendly, in this instance stating "... car parking managed by a Private Finance Initiative Service Provider"  and that therefore  ".. Trust has no power ...  in the processes applied by CPP .." Oh, really?!  - Trust accepted CPP's word that the equip't was not faulty as claimed, not the rather more reliable word of a visitor having been put to considerable inconvenience at 5 a.m.and who went to some length with staff to deal with it instead of buggering off home. - CPP "have agreed (to cancel) as a gesture of good will." WHAT?! THEIR good will? THEY are willing to let MY failings pass and kindly make allowances? Couldn't be more self-delusionarily wrong!   Sadly, I can guarantee that what is actually important in all of this will not get any attention   - providing an alternative payment method for patients/visitors for when the equipment malfunctions ... at any time not just the wee-hours ...  and tell staff ...  and put notices up. - UHCW taking any notice of their culpability in CPP's unlawful breaching of GDPR in accessing keeper details now that it has been brought to their attention. Head In Sand.       All of this comes of course from pulling-up the drawbridge and deny, deny, deny. It is the knee-jerk response of almost all large organisations, but one for which there should be no place in a Hospital Trust that should strongly want to distance itself from uncaring attitudes and irresponsible practises.   Anyway ...   Anyone finding this because of a similar issue of their own, my strongest advice is to heed the advice given to you on this forum - it put me straight on to the right path and got rid of some nervous uncertainties which makes all the difference to peace of mind, something that CPP relies on to add pressure for those who aren't aware of what's what.   My thanks again to all who kindly helped.            
    • At the investigation yes, they are seeing if they can build a case.   Like the police interview you before deciding if you are going to be charged. Not everyone is charged as some people have done nothing wrong!   If you tell people what the investigation is about before they go in, a proportion will use that knowledge to prepare really good lies. That's why companies don't do it.   I would have a read up on the ACAS site of guidelines for both investigations and disciplinaries.    https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1874
    • So they've back-tracked on their original statement that his insurance has been voided. If it's not been voided and was in force at the time of the accident there is no role for MIB. MIB gets involved if a driver was uninsured at the time of the accident, but 1st Central are now telling you he was insured. In the response you have had from MIB that is what they say, he was not uninsured. Whoever it was who told you that the policy had been voided was, by the sound of it, telling you something that simply wasn't true.   I've never heard of 1st Central but from their website it's clear they are an insurance broker not the actual insurance company https://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/who-we-are  As a broker they are acting for their client, the driver, and have no duty to be impartial in considering whose fault it was.   So looks like you have no option now other than to start a small claims court action against the driver.
    • Pass all of these letters to mib when you start the claim. Eventually they will have to pay up.
    • Only that I will be updated this week.    So what your saying then is I should recieve a letter inviting me for a disciplinary hearing and attend a disciplinary. I thought the disciplinary was to give you the outcome of the investigation.     It seems a little odd that I have an investigation meeting I am asked question and given the chance to reply to the questions. It seemed odd that in this meeting I was shown evidence against me that I had not previously seen. Surely I should have been given the evidence first before being asked questions about it. It feels like they are building a case against me at the investigation meeting......
  • Our picks

G2M

carter 2Xclaimforms - EGG debts

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2587 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I submitted the defence as follows;

 

The defendant has minimal knowledge of the amount claimed by the

claimant and requires strict proof thereof.

 

The claimant refuses to use the defendants new address, despite a

letter informing them of my new address, I believe this is an

abuse of court process.

 

A CCA request has already been sent on 02/03/2012 - and still

remains unfulfilled by the claimant, thus bringing the account

into dispute.

 

Documents relied on in the claim were not produced with the claim

so a CPR request, which also remains unfulfilled was sent to them

on 02/03/2012, as they should have had this paperwork prior to the

claim NO extension to produce the required paperwork should be

allowed.

 

Since then I received a letter informing me that Carter will no longer be working on the case and it has gone to AG's specialist litigation team.

 

I then received a letter from Arrow saying they are unable to comply with my CCA request due to me not confirming my new address, they also returned my Postal Order, however this was sent to my new address.

 

It looks like I'll be in court as I have had the AQ which needs to be returned by the 21st May.

 

Any advice appreciated.

Edited by G2M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" I then received a letter from Arrow saying they are unable to comply with my CCA request due to me not confirming my new address, they also returned my Postal Order, however this was sent to my new address." :!:

 

Then they remain in default of your request.

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent back my AQ, along with a covering letter after reading this thread;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?131499-Directions-for-N150-or-N149-Allocation-questionnaire

 

today I received from the court a form advising that the judge considers this suitable for mediation, I intend to tick the 'NO' box, statingI do not wish to use mediation.

 

I guess the next step is getting a hearing date from the court, I am still waiting for the docs requested earlier in this thread. I hope I'm going about this in the right way, an help would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi G2M

 

Failure to attempt mediation can have an adverse affect on costs should you be successful.( For either party)

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again,

 

I ticked the 'YES' box to mediation and got a call from the mediator today.

 

I explained to the mediator that the account remains in dispute with them as they still have not sent me a true copy of my agreement under the CCA 1974 and therefore I don't acknowledge any debt to them and the account is unenforceable, the mediator told me that Arrow have the application form that I filled in online back in 2004 and that in their opinion this will suffice to enable the judge to make a judgement in their favour.

 

She also said that they intend to continue to court, and that so a few questions please?

 

Is the judge able to find in their favour in the absence of a true copy of my agreement?

 

Should I just rely on the absence of this as my defence when I'm in front of the judge?

 

Any other thoughts would be appreciated if I have missed any important points that may help me.

 

Many Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be silly just to rely on that one fact, you need to build your case based on the debt being in dispute and a lot of other factors.

 

Has it been established when you last made a payment on this account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply sillygirl.

 

You would be silly just to rely on that one fact, you need to build your case based on the debt being in dispute and a lot of other factors.

 

This is probably where I could use some help :oops:

 

I sent them a CPR 31.14 letter asking them to disclose the docs they relied on in the claim, they did not send me these either.

 

I last made a payment about 2 years ago ish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...