Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, the vehicle went to Audi Chingford on Thursday 13th May. I did state beforehand that I only wanted a diagnostic. The technician out of courtesy opened the drain letting huge deposits of water escape the seals. Video evidence was provided via AUDI cam. The link for the audi cam has been forwarded to BMW and Motonovo. I spoke to branch manager explained the situation and he stated he would sent me an email outlining the issue. Audi state this is not really an issue and more of a design flaw. However, the seals still have water ingress. I purchased the vehicle with £0 deposit on a 60 months HP plan for £520.00. The vehicle total was £21000. I did not go for any extended warranty. I live almost 70 miles away from the aftersales centre in Peterborough. I have previously uploaded the document I forwarded to BMW however it was in word format. I have had to buy a new tyre almost three days after purchasing vehicle. BMW still have not compensated me for the v62 cost as they said they would. 
    • I would suggest that you stop trying to rely on legal theory – as you understand it. Firstly, because we are dealing with practical/pragmatic situations and at a low value level where these arguments tend not to work. Secondly, because you clearly have misunderstood the assessment of quantum where there are breaches of obligations. The formula that you have cited above is the method of loss calculation in torts. In contract it is entirely different. The law of obligations generally attempts to remedy the breach. This means that in tort, damages seek to put you into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. In other words it returns you to your starting position – point zero. Contract damages attend put you into the position that you would have been had the breach not occurred but this is not your starting position, contract damages assume that the agreement in dispute had actually been carried out. This puts you into your final position. You sold an item for £XXX. Your expectation was that you your item would be correctly delivered and that you would be the beneficiary of £XXX. Your expectation loss is the amount that you sold the item for and that is all you are entitled to recover. If you want, you can try to sue for the larger sum – and we will help you. But if they ask for evidence of the value of the item as it was sold then I can almost guarantee that either you will be obliged to settle for the lesser sum – or else a judge will give you judgement but for the lesser sum. This will put you to the position that you would have been had there been no breach of contract. I understand from you now that when you dispatch the item you declared the retail cost to you and not your expected benefit of £XXX. To claim for the retail value in the circumstances would offend the rules relating to betterment. If you want to do it then we will help you – but don't be surprised if you take a tumble.  
    • I was caught speeding 3 times in the same week, on the same road. All times were 8-12mph higher than the limit. I was offered the course for the first offense and I now need to accept the other 2 offenses. I just want to be ready for what might come. Will I get the £100 fine and 3 points for each of them or do I face something more severe?  These are my only offenses in 8 years of driving.
    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower. I still believe that I should be claiming for the item's full value, rather than how much I sold it for, as this is the same for insurance: we don't insure the value we paid, but rather the value of the item to put us back into the position we would be in if we ever needed to claim. Its for the loss adjuster to argue the toss
    • amusing that 'bad economic judgement on behalf of prior party ISN'T a major reason to wingers to move to deform yet immigration is, where record levels of such has been driven by the right wings terrible brexit and the later incompetent dog whistle 'proposals largely driven to whistle to the right wingnuts Just seems to confirm the are clueless numpties 'wetting their own shoes   Has farage bought a property in Clacton yet?   yet concern for the NHS is listed as a major issue even by those saying they are moving to deform  
  • 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 
        • 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

E.Kent Hospital PCN's sobell/white taking me to small claims court **Discontinued**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4069 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 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

On the balance of probabilities .... They have to totally prove their case....

 

Contradictory. The latter statement is wrong and misleads the OP and general readers.

And PPCs do sometimes win.

 

In these particular cases (Ones ive won and heard of) the rules of the small claims track pre October 2012 were that The Onus is on the claimant to totally prove their case. It was not for the defendant to prove they were not the driver ie Liability / probability.

 

I cant find anywhere (Thank fook) where a PPC has won in court when the identity of the driver was unknown / disputed. Most people cave in when you get the infamous Northampton County Court Claim. (Well bulk Centre,) They rely upon payment for the threatogram or hope the defendant doesnt turn up.

 

The OP's case is different in that they admit being there.. Personally Id offer £2 per notice for the loss of revenue the land owner incurred ie 9 x £2 as for the other £885 or so they can [EDIT] right off as per OFT etc

Edited by ims21
circumvent language filter
Link to post
Share on other sites

In these particular cases (Ones ive won and heard of) the rules of the small claims track pre October 2012 were that The Onus is on the claimant to totally prove their case. It was not for the defendant to prove they were not the driver ie Liability / probability.

Please SM, this is still incorrect and likely to mislead. As you have characterised things above you have effectively described the level of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) required in a criminal court where the onus is indeed upon the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt given the presumption that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This is not what applies in the county county - small claims track or otherwise.

 

Were someone to rely on your assertion and do nothing (which is what it implies) leaving a claimant to prove his case then the claimant is going to win because his is the only case the judge is going to hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The OP's case is different in that they admit being there.. Personally Id offer £2 per notice for the loss of revenue the land owner incurred ie 9 x £2 as for the other £885 or so they can [EDIT] right off as per OFT etc

 

You are right in that this is a different matter as she is being taken to court by people acting (supposedly) on behalf of her (then) employer and I find it difficult to believe that the circumstances of this dont have a definitive answer. If she was still employed by EKH the answer would be quite simple and remedy could be sought via an Employment Tribunal this would have no doubt focussed the mind of the twonk responsible for this situation and the action by Sobell/White would be dropped like a hot rock.

other than following the employer's breach of implied and written terms in employment law I cannot think of anything that would kill this action before it gets to the court door.

I'm sure that all of our input is helpful to a small degree it doesnt actually offer the OP a consise specific course to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right in that this is a different matter as she is being taken to court by people acting (supposedly) on behalf of her (then) employer and I find it difficult to believe that the circumstances of this dont have a definitive answer. If she was still employed by EKH the answer would be quite simple and remedy could be sought via an Employment Tribunal this would have no doubt focussed the mind of the twonk responsible for this situation and the action by Sobell/White would be dropped like a hot rock.

other than following the employer's breach of implied and written terms in employment law I cannot think of anything that would kill this action before it gets to the court door.

I'm sure that all of our input is helpful to a small degree it doesnt actually offer the OP a consise specific course to follow.

 

That maybe correct to a certain degree, however sobell & co will go for blood in view of the amount, and given the fact that the op states the charge notices were applied during her course of duty.

 

She cannot have an employment tribunal unless she worked there more than 12 months.

 

The charge is the main key here in that it is not an actual pre estimate of loss incurred by the land owner and is an unjustified increase of charges applied by the debt collector as many other regulars have correctly previously stated, therefore it is a penalty charge for non payment.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal

 

You must have worked for your employer for a minimum period before you qualify for the right to claim unfair dismissal at a tribunal. If you’re classed as an employee and started your job:

  • on or after 6 April 2012 - the qualifying period is normally 2 years
  • before 6 April 2012 - the qualifying period is normally one year

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a separate note I was absoloutley wetting myself at an article posted by a trusted member. To read it, go to google and type Daily Mail archives june 2006, family homeless after polish builders turn squatters....... Another quite simply astonishing performace in court from old mikey !!On par with what he said at mine.... "There is no evidence that the car wasn't there.. but there is evidence that it was"........... a statement i will cherish over many pints of beer.Another thing that struck me...maybe its old hat to some of you.... I once got a letter from sobell from a SW19 post code not the usual Graham White" post office" address in west byfleet.It appears that this post code is the same one used by Turnbull Rutherford solicitors of HFO fame

Link to post
Share on other sites

Definately 12 months, I had one and won

 

Definitely wrong (now anyway).

 

Thank the Coalition - and in particularly the 'Business' Secretary for that particular change. Amended to two years as the one year period was felt to be a barrier to small businesses and they wanted to be able to hire and fire people more easily.

 

Exactly as dw190 states

 

Qualifying period to claim unfair dismissal

 

You must have worked for your employer for a minimum period before you qualify for the right to claim unfair dismissal at a tribunal. If you’re classed as an employee and started your job:

  • on or after 6 April 2012 - the qualifying period is normally 2 years
  • before 6 April 2012 - the qualifying period is normally one year

[/Quote]

 

Thanks to our glorious leaders, employees will shortly have to pay to take a case to a Tribunal - around £200 to lodge the case and £1000 or so if the case proceeds to a hearing!

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Result!!!!!

 

"Had a letter today from Sobell dated 23rd April stating "discontinuance" which seems to be legal talk for "get you next time". "

 

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77364&pid=812277&st=0entry812277

 

Send him an invoice for dealing with his correspondance.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they do pass it on to the hospital, what a strong, headline story for the media showing the bullying, moneygrabbing, antics of PPCs work against sence, reason, fairness and the public good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you put in a counterclaim when you submitted your defence form? If you did then they owe you money. Write to the court and explain that you dont want the matter dropped and send them your bill.

If you didnt then they have got off lightly as you could have asked the judge to have the summons struck out as vexatious and you would have stood a good chance of that happening and got a few quid on top of your expenses.

Pleased that you got the result you did though as it will save you a lot of stress, inconvenience and time wasting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...