Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @Man in the middle I've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Thanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe concenquences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points?
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
    • Been perusing the actual figures on the polls above wondering where the '16% claimed for deform comes from? I understand that there are 'weighted' end results based on secret calculations ...   Probably going to repeat this later, but remember that the ukip/brexit/reform/deform party has ALWAYS had poll speculation FAR better than their actual  performance at elections - by large margins. SO: The labor and Tory votes come largely from simply the people who say they will vote for them - sorted Lab 43% Tory 20%, with maybe another small 1-2% coming from the weightings of the 'not sures' Greens largely get what is declared from 'other' , although with another declared green bit from the 'pressed' question   So as the share of the voting displayed in 'other' granted to reform/deform is around 11%, where does the '16% too often being reported come from? Seems that reform has been granted as beneficiary of effectively ALL the don't knows and wont says, who when pressed didn't actually declare for someone else ... effectively adding 40%+ to their reported polling % - rather strange given their consistent under-performance compared to polling - or perhaps that is the cause of the higher rating eh?   Now I admit the possibility (probability?) of wingers being ashamed of declaring their support for the yuckey lemon end of the spectrum ... but surely  that should affect the 'Torys as well? Maybe the statisticians have simply weighted in that deform wingers are simply more likely to lie?   But - without 'weightings' and assumptions that faragits will get everything that isnt declared as a definite and unequivocal 'not that Piers Morgan' - reform is on around 11% it seems.   Add to that the history of polling a lot less than the hype - and the simple fact that faragit wingers seem to be spread across the country (presumably skulking in their moms spare room despite being 45+) and greens and lib dems seem to be community minded - I think two seats will be an epic result for farage. Hardly the opposition - far more raving wingnut party.   and importantly - Has farage got a home in clacton yet?
    • "as I have no tools available to merge documents, unless you can suggest any free ones that will perform offline merges without watermarking" (which you don't) ... but ok please upload the documents and we'll go from there
  • 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

Claim Form DLC/Hillies old-MBNA credit card *** Settled by Tomlin Order***


Alloyz1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3682 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 301
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

claimant stated that they will not oppose set aside (unless they now change their mind!)? so, forthcoming hearing is to confirm the set aside and then re your strike out app'n which they will oppose? if no strike out, then should continue as norm? unless J decides things otherwise?

each parties WS can be addressed.

check with andy :)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Just a few questions after a little thought and discussuon:

 

The Notice of hearing of Application states "The hearing of the defendants application for judgement to be set aside will take place at......." No mention of my strike out application. Is that an important omission?

 

Would this hearing possibly continue on to consider the claimants original claim, or would that be a seperate hearing, as currently we have not filled out the DQ and I have not seen any additional evidence from the claimant except the agreement, T&C and DN so would be hard pressed to respond without being able to consider their evidence?

 

If the claimant is not opposing the set aside, could the DJ go against that and let summary judgement stand?

 

Many thanks

 

A

Edited by Alloyz1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not an important omission and nothing to worry about as long as your application asks for a strike out.

 

The judge will probably give directions for filing DQs etc at the hearing if he doesn't strike out the Claimant's claim.

 

There's no way to predict what will happen so best be as prepared as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate that Ganymede, I think I have everything in order but would appreciate someone having a look at my WS to make sure there is no obvious errors.

 

I have submitted my WS as evidence to support my application to set aside and strike out, but we have not got to the DQ or disclosure stage yet in the original claim, so presume I could alter it as it has not been submitted in response to the original claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate that Ganymede, I think I have everything in order but would appreciate someone having a look at my WS to make sure there is no obvious errors.

 

I have submitted my WS as evidence to support my application to set aside and strike out, but we have not got to the DQ or disclosure stage yet in the original claim, so presume I could alter it as it has not been submitted in response to the original claim?

 

 

 

Sorry when is your application being heard?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Responding to your PM Alloyz.

 

I see Gany has clarified your queries.

 

Regards

 

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

alloyz

have a look for eg at cpr rule 3.4 and associated practice direction 3a, which is the basis of your SO application. if they negate that ie show 'reasonable grounds' for bringing their claim, then J wouldn't ordinarily strike out their claim?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ford

 

The set aside is the main part of the application, if I got strike out as well that would be a bonus! I will submit my WS proves they have no case.

 

I don't expect to get SO to be honest, but you never know and at least it makes the claimant work for it!

 

A

Link to post
Share on other sites

" I will submit my WS proves they have no case."

 

Your WS should prove that you have a defence not that they have no case...they obviously have a case they have an agreement.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The word Court conjures up visions of wigs/gowns and witness boxes....think of it more of a room with chairs and tables.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Set aside and strike out hearing next week.

 

I submitted my WS to support my application to SA and SO.

 

The claimant has now produced a fully compliant set of T&C which addresses every aspect of my WS....... This set has never been produced in 4 years of dispute.....

 

My WS was based around the T&C they had previously produced? They have confirmed twice a different set were in place, until they recieved my WS and now these?

 

Further the OC has confirmed a totally different set were in place...

 

Any advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was this document disclosed at Standard Disclosure N265? pre judgment...have they permission to introduce it as evidence?

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have not reached Standard Disclosure as yet.

 

They went for SJ and attained it. I did not recieve any application or supporting evidence at that stage, just a DO stating SJ.

 

I filed application to SA and SO and supported this with my WS.

 

Only after I filed this has this new compliant set of T&C been included

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmm I see .....as I have stated earlier in your thread Alloyz defences based on T&C or Default Notices are a gamble and weak...It may have been wise to accept their offer of settlement when they broached it.

 

REgards

 

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a letter OC with the T&C claimant is relying on (or was relying on) asking if these were in force at the time of signing.

 

They have replied with 'no' and supplied the set in force at the time of signing (the OC set have never been provided by the claimant! and is not the claimants first or new set!)

 

I may need to change a few things with my defence I think

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, the above post is a bit of a panicked ramble...

 

I have this morning emailed the claimant a copy of the letter I have from the OC confirming which T&C were in force at the time the agreement was signed. The letter included the T&C the OC refers to.

 

The letter therefore confirms none of the T&C the claimant relies on are the correct ones.

 

Further, the T&C stated by the OC as the ones in force at the time I signed the agreement are not compliant with CCA74.

 

Lets see what I get back.... Very interresting Monday morning ;)

 

A

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...