Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
    • Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.
    • Not sure what to make of that or what it means for me, I was just about to head to my kip and it's a bit too late for legalise. When is the "expenditure occured"?  When they start spending money to write to me?  Or is this a bad thing (as "harsh" would imply)? When all is said and done, I do not have two beans to rub together, we rent our home and EVERYTHING of value has been purchased by and is in my wife's name and we are not financially linked in any way.  So at least if I can't escape my fate I can at least know that they will get sweet FA from me anyway   edit:  ah.. Sophia Harrison: Time bar decision tough on claimants WWW.SCOTTISHLEGAL.COM Time bar is a very complex area of law in Scotland relating to the period in which a claim for breach of duty can be pursued. The Scottish government...   This explains it like I am 5.  So, a good thing then because creditors clearly know they have suffered a loss the minute I stop paying them, this is why it is "harsh" (for them, not me)? Am I understanding this correctly?  
    • urm......exactly what you filed .....read it carefully... it puts them to strict proof to prove the debt is enforceable, so thus 'holds' their claim till they coughup or not and discontinue. you need to get readingthose threads i posted so you understand. then you'll know whats maybe next how to react or not and whats after that. 5-10 threads a day INHO. dont ever do anything without checking here 1st.
  • 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

How to deal with Swift Advances....


Caz72
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4102 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

Mine is similar Cvsc. Some time ago I posted the contact Sam Bragg at the OFT which helps keep complaints focused. An FOS contact name would be helpful.

Unfortunately due to the processing structure of the FOS even if i was able to give you my case workers email she would not be able to assist anyone as they have to be assigned your particular case in order to recover the facts and advise accordingly. That said tho, complaints logged regarding anything other than PPi get dealt by seperate departments within Fos so tend to get dealt with much more quickly than PPi complaints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the FOS are struggling to cope at the moment and have had to take on more staff. My complaint has been with them for a year now which suits Swift fine as they are still charging interest every month, my bill has gone up £1200 in the last year since the FOS were handed the complaint. The funny thing is the FOS said Swift would be very unlikely to charge interest while it was being looked at, you would have thought they would have known the company better by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the FOS are struggling to cope at the moment and have had to take on more staff. My complaint has been with them for a year now which suits Swift fine as they are still charging interest every month, my bill has gone up £1200 in the last year since the FOS were handed the complaint. The funny thing is the FOS said Swift would be very unlikely to charge interest while it was being looked at, you would have thought they would have known the company better by now.

John, It is my understanding following a recent press release that the Fos have taken on hundreds of new staff for the PPI section only and does not affect complaints to other departments and other subjects.

When you say your complaint has been with the Fos for a year, do you mean you have not been assigned a case worker yet or adjudicator?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the letter they sent to me last week said they were sorry for the time being taken but they had a massive workload. I was assigned a caseworker last March, it was then passed to an adjudicator last November for their final judgement. I am 90% certain they will find in favour of swift as they usually do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the letter they sent to me last week said they were sorry for the time being taken but they had a massive workload. I was assigned a caseworker last March, it was then passed to an adjudicator last November for their final judgement. I am 90% certain they will find in favour of swift as they usually do.

John, Final judgement can only be given be an Ombudsman, the adjudicator may find that there is no complaint to be had, however you are then given an opportunity for the adjudicator to look again at your complaint, especially if there is new evidence or information to be added.Whilst an adjudicator can recommend that a firm takes action they cannot enforce it, only an actual ombudsman can do this hence why my complaint took this exact route and the adjudicator found that the charges were unfair and excessive but swift refused to comply with there request to refund so the case is now with the ombudsman for review and possible enforcement.Remember an Ombudsman is an actual person who can enforce the law against a financial institution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...