Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I Know I will get flamed for this , but for once time only I am with MET . The so called  “graffiti” is there to help people , Parent and child bays , Disabled bays , and electric charge point bays are all there for a reason  , just suppose you had an electric car and it was in need of charging ,had children in the car and need extra space to get them out ,had a disabled passenger who needs extra space . how would you feel  if the bay was obstructed . I have no doubt the experts here will guide you to having the parking charge cancelled . But morally ………..
    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
  • Our picks

joeski

ahhhhh daily mail give it a rest *yawn* !!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2462 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

if the daily mail isn't banging on about non existent snow then it is slagging off benefit claimants, you can tell a newspaper is on its way out when it keeps repeating the same old rubbish!

 

give it rest daily mail, your tiresome and boring now *yawn*

 

its funny how nothing is said in this article about MP's and bankers who are the real scroungers with their expenses, bonuses etc.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289593/More-20-everyones-income-tax-goes-straight-benefits-sparking-fresh-calls-cuts-welfare.html

Edited by joeski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 1.5 million people take the Daily Mail every day.

 

Shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt is strange that they forgot to put the amount for pensions on

 

pensions are about twice the amount as benefits and might have changed the perspective


If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The daily heil has a graph showing the rise in the cost of living but they want to see a cut in benefits. Just goes to show you the kind of people they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has any one notice advt. in daily mail mainly for disabled people i.e high chair -hearing aids- mobility scooter etc. and yet daily mail always against benefits

if we disabled people do not support daily mail advertiser then daily mail is doom

i do not buy any thing from daily mail advertiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much MPs expenses are in comparison to benefits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was amusing that they call for welfare to be cut but at the same time help with rising living costs. That one lost me.

 

Also they (probably deliberatly) fail to mention JSA is only a tiny part of the welfare budget.

 

The question did the government tell them to print this story so joe bloggs is onside for next welfare announcement, or is the paper itself initiated this to try and push the government in that direction.

 

Also the quesiton as well, why does the paper feel it wrong for those able to help those not able, as that story pretty much says that statement.

 

Also how can income tax expenditure be fairly broke down?

 

Overall government spend is much higher as is other taxes such as VAT and corp tax plus overall spending is higher than all taxes. Do they just pick and choose what to put in the income tax income?

Edited by worried33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that those on benefits also pay tax is often missed ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that those on benefits also pay tax is often missed ...

 

Indeed. Some benefits are taxable too. I can't remember the figure off the top of my head; but I seem to remember that quite a few who claim HB are working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. Some benefits are taxable too. I can't remember the figure off the top of my head; but I seem to remember that quite a few who claim HB are working.

 

is there anything this useless goverment wouldn't tax?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is there anything this useless goverment wouldn't tax?!

 

The rich - if they thought they could get it passed.


We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much does the conflicts in areas like Afghanistan and other places cost the British taxpayer every year? Not forgetting where there is no conflict but we have troops. How much are we giving away in grants or loans to various other countries every year. How much do we pay the EU each year? Lastly how much does it cost to fund the NI, Welsh and Scottish parliamenst every year? I would imagine that we could save billions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. Some benefits are taxable too. I can't remember the figure off the top of my head; but I seem to remember that quite a few who claim HB are working.

 

*raises hand*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed. Some benefits are taxable too. I can't remember the figure off the top of my head; but I seem to remember that quite a few who claim HB are working.

 

HB is not a taxable benefit, but you are correct that many people who claim it are working. In fact, I believe that only around 12% of claimants are unemployed. The rest are pensioners, sick or disabled, or working on low wages. Most new claims are made by those who are employed.


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

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

get what the daily mail is banging on about snow again today, acting like snow in winter is a massive deal *yawn* :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is where I live, joeski! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what seems to be missing in all this debate is everyone is starting to talk like the government quoting the welfare bill.

 

I am of the opinion that state benefits are an inherent right considering people have paid into it through national insurance contributions. The national health service is the same.

 

Welfare i would class as home help, meals on wheels, social services, housing benefit etc

 

To class the national expenditure of benefits, and label it as welfare is again disguising the real issue, and vastly distorting the real figures in which the welfare bill to the country is vastly superior to what the country spends on social security payments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Wail (or Fail) as I like to call it thinks it is the mouthpiece of Middle England - well its idyllic Middle England died with the onset of the Second World War.

 

Also as I like to say, "There are lies, damn lies, statistics and Daily Mail statistics!"

 

They love including Council Tax benefit (which goes direct to the council in most cases) and Housing Benefit (which goes to the landlord) in their ludicrous claims that people on benefit have x amount to spend - try getting £142 a fortnight for 2 years and then come back and say I live a life of riley on it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is where I live, joeski! :D

 

well it isn't here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is people buy it by the truckload. Don't you believe it,middle England is alive and well and blaming everything on immigration,benefits and the subversive elements. They pander to peoples fears and prejudices. I am sorry to say they do it extremely well.


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

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...