Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) 'possible (lol) electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer     Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
    • Isnt there some indication in there of at least intent to inform arbuthnot? IF he wasn't then it would seem to be Vennells decision to keep him 'uninformed .. Although seems to me if arbuthnot was unaware - he was either incompetent or should have very detailed records of denials. Seems vennells is constantly at the core of all the lying about all these issues though.
    • Paywalled/subscribe HB I'm unaware of the details on this HB but why is it a potential taxpayer burden? Hasn't a judge already ruled port has rights of access - so shouldn't costs be on the private company (South Tees Development Corporation) trying to change established access?     LIVE: High Court updates as CEO gives evidence in access rights row between STDC and PD Ports - Teesside Live WWW.GAZETTELIVE.CO.UK The face-off between the Teesport operator and Mayor Ben Houchen's South Tees Development Corporation continues in the High Court  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

I'm Nearly There - Help!!


formula6
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6372 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

Hi

 

Can someone please help....!

 

On my business account claim I received the defence from Cobbetts today (last week I got the defence and CPR18 on my personal account - all sent back nicely), only stating a defence and NO CPR18. I was quite surprised at this, but even more surprised to read the defence which states:

 

1. This defence is filed and served without predudice to the right of the Defendent to apply for summary judgement in respect of and/or to strike out the Particulars of Claim

 

2. The defendent is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim to the extent that the Particulars of Claim fail to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendent. In particular:

 

2.1 The Particulars of Claim set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, are incoherent and do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendant.

 

3.The defendent invites the Claimant to remedy the above. In the event that the Claimant fails to do so within 14 days of the service of the Defence then the Defendant will aply to the Court for an Order striking out the Particulars of Claim.

 

4. The defendant reserves the right to plead further to the Particulars of Claim once and if the Claimant properly particularises the same. In the meantime, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all.

 

The thing is, in the Particulars of Claim I used the business template for the N1 for business (didnt want to use MCOL as I needed more text space) and listed it all and attached the spreadsheets.

 

Are they trying to scare me off? Obviously this wont work but I just need to know what the best thing to do is! Shall I send copies to Cobbetts again with a short covering letter, and also send these as copies to the court (noting on Cobbetts letter that I have sent copis to the court)?

 

Thanks for any replies peeps.

14th June 06 - Request of Charges sent to NatWest

22nd July 06 - Approach for Repayment sent, £5,279.00 claimed for business account & £3,927.00 for personal account)

28th July 06 - Acknowledgement letter received

4th Aug 06 - Offer of Goodwill payment received 2006 (£1,050.00) - Personal account.

17th Aug 06 - Offer of Goodwill payment received (£918.00) - Business account.

17th Aug 06 - LBA (both accounts) sent (not accepting either offers)

23rd Aug 06 - Recieved letter from famous Mr Higley telling me where to go.

5th Sept 06 - MCOL Submitted - for Personal (£4,422.56 inc interest)

8th Sept 06 - N1 (hard copy claim) submitted - for Business

13th Oct 06 - AQ sent (business)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael. I'll send it out today.

 

Just as I write this I have another letter recieved today for my personal account. It is a reply for my standard template letter stating why I shouldnt have to give more reasons via the 'Request for Further Information'.

 

This is their reply:

 

We refer to your letter dated ../../....

We note your comments on our Request for Further Informtion. It is our clients contention that your Particulars of Claim did not properly particularise your claim. For example, our client cannot properly defend a claim where you have not given the details of each charge your claim is disproportionate and unreasonable.

The court is bound by an overriding objective to deal with cases justly and ensure that parties areon an equal footing. It was clearly the case that our client could not respond to your claim where you did not provide sufficient particulars. Our client therefore objects to your allegation that the request is intimidating.

 

But I have given a detailed Particulars of Claim - I even gave them more copies when I returned the AQ.

 

SHALL I RESPOND TO THIS LETTER? Or ignore it - there is no request to reply to it.

 

Thanks for any help.

14th June 06 - Request of Charges sent to NatWest

22nd July 06 - Approach for Repayment sent, £5,279.00 claimed for business account & £3,927.00 for personal account)

28th July 06 - Acknowledgement letter received

4th Aug 06 - Offer of Goodwill payment received 2006 (£1,050.00) - Personal account.

17th Aug 06 - Offer of Goodwill payment received (£918.00) - Business account.

17th Aug 06 - LBA (both accounts) sent (not accepting either offers)

23rd Aug 06 - Recieved letter from famous Mr Higley telling me where to go.

5th Sept 06 - MCOL Submitted - for Personal (£4,422.56 inc interest)

8th Sept 06 - N1 (hard copy claim) submitted - for Business

13th Oct 06 - AQ sent (business)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't bother. Or you could send a mirror image:

 

Dear Sir,

 

I refer to your letter dated XXX

 

I note your comments on my allegation that your CPR Part 18 request is intimidating. It is my contention that my Particulars of Claim did properly particularise my claim. For example, a schedule of charges, which fully details each charge I claim is disproportionate and unreasonable, has been sent to your client, the court and yourselves at every stage.

 

I agree that the court is bound with an overriding objective to deal with cases justly and ensure that parties are on an equal footing. It was clearly the case that your client could respond to my claim since I have provided sufficient particulars. I object therefore to your allegation that your client was not on an equal footing.

 

 

Yours faithfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I LIKE IT!

 

Thanks a lot for that Michael. I'm going to do it right now!!:D

14th June 06 - Request of Charges sent to NatWest

22nd July 06 - Approach for Repayment sent, £5,279.00 claimed for business account & £3,927.00 for personal account)

28th July 06 - Acknowledgement letter received

4th Aug 06 - Offer of Goodwill payment received 2006 (£1,050.00) - Personal account.

17th Aug 06 - Offer of Goodwill payment received (£918.00) - Business account.

17th Aug 06 - LBA (both accounts) sent (not accepting either offers)

23rd Aug 06 - Recieved letter from famous Mr Higley telling me where to go.

5th Sept 06 - MCOL Submitted - for Personal (£4,422.56 inc interest)

8th Sept 06 - N1 (hard copy claim) submitted - for Business

13th Oct 06 - AQ sent (business)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...