Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It sounds as if they need better algorithms or another way to check. DWP algorithm wrongly flags 200,000 people for possible fraud and error | Housing benefit | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Two-thirds of housing benefit claims marked as high risk in last three years were legitimate, figures show  
    • I'm afraid that both yourself and we will need to see the claim form as a basic minimum. As this person has issued proceedings, we can't go any further at all without understanding the detail of what they are claiming on the basis of the claim. When you receive a claim form then you might normally respond within 14 days either with a defence or an acknowledgement of service. If you don't respond with either of these then the claimant can go ahead and obtain a judgement against you in default and that then becomes a bit tricky and also a bit expensive to overturn – called "a set-aside" If you don't file a defence but you supply an acknowledgement, then you get a further 14 days so up to 28 days to file a defence. I understand that you have had difficulties accessing the claim form. I'm afraid I don't know why that is not sure how much help we can give you on that. You're going to have to do this is a matter of urgency whatever the runs are rights of your position are. Once we understand the claim form, then we can advise you as to the next step and also we can put the claim in the context of your own story and decide how best to defend. I'm at a bit of the lost to give any more constructive advice at this point. Access to the claim form is essential. You could telephone the County Court business centre which I think is in Northampton. They have a helpline and maybe they can give you some solutions – but in the meantime, why can't you access the password reset? Have you checked your spam folder?
    • Thanks very much BankFodder, your help is invaluable and I will read through it more carefully this evening.  At this time I am not aware of any information I have left out. And thanks to jk2054, I realised after sending it about the third party rights, you are absolutely correct and I will proceed as standard BOC claim. I'll come back with any questions once I've had a thorough re-read and so I hope to get the letter emailed and posted early this week so I can start the 14 day clock. Thanks again, M
    • The original LOC is wrong. You are nothing to do with third party rights.   you placed the order on EVRi's website so there is no third party rights in it, its a standard BOC claim
    • nike pre provide the labels arguably here the easiest target is nike because they will give in very easily.  
  • 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

TE7 & TE9 Forms Which address ?Advice needed

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4216 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,


I hope someone can help me with the following:


I need to fill in TE7 & 9 for an unpaid PCN from July 2011.


I have not received any correspondence as it was sent to my old address ( which is tenanted and the tenant did not forward any letters etc despite having a clause in the contract and I frequently visit the property).mad2.gif


First letter from the bailiffs the tenant forwarded I received on Saturday to my current address.


I got TE7 & 9 from the internet , but which address do I put down for myself?


The form says: `ensure that all details are correctly entered from the form TE3`


But the TE3 will have my old address on it, so do I put down my current address?


I am concerned that I won` t receive any letters if I put down my old address or that my appeal will be rejected for putting down my cuurent adress which doesnt match the TE3 order?


Many thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PCN was served to an address you gave the DVLA and still own, its unlikely you are going to have much luck getting anything done regardless of what address you use.


Thanks, But I changed the address with the DVLA in 2009,I also paid other PCN's issued by the council under my current address

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed they must have erred quite badly but who cares exactly how they messed up. The council's mistake is their mistake however they made it. The poster is clear "But I changed the address with the DVLA in 2009"i

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TE7 & TE9 forms really need to be carefully looked at by MOJ because, when submitting an Out of Time witness statement most respondents will NOT have received the Order for Recovery and therefore, cannot comply with the requirement to provide the SAME information as that appearing on the TE3 (Order for Recovery) !! It is no wonder that so many forms are incorrectly completed.


On both forms you need to provide your CURRENT address.


On the TE7 you need to ensure that you provide a REASON as to WHY you had been unable to submit the form "within the given time".


You will need to put something like the following:


It would appear that all statutory notices regarding this PCN had been sent to my previous address at: xxxx. I updated my address with DVLA when I moved.


As I had not received an Order for Recovery at my current address I was unable to file this statement within the time frame outlined in the Order for Recovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If your application is rejected the reason for this will be outlined in the Statement of Truth from the local authority. The Traffic Enforcement Centre User Guide clearly provides that the LA must send one copy of their SoT to TEC and the 2nd copy should be sent to the application . It just so happens that so many local authorities are failing to provide this vitally important document to the respondent !!!! This is the case with 2 large London Boroughs !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...