Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • occysrazor
      Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued ***Judgment***

      By occysrazor · Posted

      Thank you. Will confirm once this is received
    • AndyOrch
      Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued ***Judgment***

      By AndyOrch · Posted

      You will receive a Notice of Judgment with details of the judgment and payment details
    • honeybee13
      Caught Shoplifting at John Lewis

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Hello, welcome to CAG. It would be a good idea for you to read other shoplifting threads here to get an idea of how this works. The police won't get involved now, so no chance of arrest. You need to avoid that branch of John Lewis for a while though. Basically, John Lewis's security people will give your details to either a firm like Retail Loss prevention or DWF solicitors who will then write to you with scary-sounding letters to frighten you into paying them some kind of penalty. They have no legal power and can't take you to court, only John Lewis can. Last time we saw a retailer in court against shoplifters, it went very badly for them and we haven't seen a case like that since - over 10 years ago. But you need to figure out why you did this. If you need support, talk to your GP and aske them. They will have heard it all before and won't judge you. Best, HB  
    • BankFodder
      Moneyclaim - DPD (MyParcelDelivery)

      By BankFodder · Posted

      In addition to the information you've been given above, I suggest that you spend some time reading up on the stories on this sub- forum. There is a lot of information about suing as an entitled third-party. Take a couple of days – and by Monday you will be much more confident. More in control and you will have fewer questions to ask but the questions that you do think up will probably be more relevant and more interesting to your case. Do the reading. This is always an essential first step   Additionally please can you give us more details. What was the item, was it correctly declared, was the value correctly declared, what was the value that was declared? Very importantly what date did you send it?
    • unoTechnology
      Caught Shoplifting at John Lewis

      By unoTechnology · Posted

      I got caught today shoplifting some shampoo & conditioner at John Lewis. I felt absolutely awful. The people were quite nice as I returned the items without any hesitation, gave them my name, address & DOB. They did not ask for official ID, and let me go after taking my picture and then handing me a paper saying I am banned for life. I just now read on the paper that they may share my details with third parties (police) and am extremely stressed. I've previously shoplifted, not at this John Lewis but others of their stores (an absolutely horrible habit made worse by cost of living crisis).... How likely is it that they will actually start an investigation for this offense? May I get arrested for this? While I was in the backroom, the security was quite nice and told me that no police would be involved unless I broke my ban.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

IS IT ME?

By IS IT ME?
in Mortgages and Secured Loans

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3752 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 6.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted (edited)
I NOT had Any thing from the chamber you know full well as do others.

 

Thanks Sequency,and IIM?

 

I wonder could you elaborate for us. You say you have not heard anything, just to clarify, does this mean that the decision has not yet been reached/ handed down ?

 

Was your case one of the ones heard on the 20th Jan?

 

Could you tell us what the status is of your hearing then please, or is there some reason why you cannot say.

Edited by Dodgeball
Jan

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
I NOT had Any thing from the chamber you know full well as do others.

 

Welcome back to CAG Is It Me?, you have been missed

 

I don't know what you have and have not received from the Chambers.

 

However, Crapstone spoke with the chamber last Friday (so no accusations of 'shoehorning' can be laid at my door) and as posted, the Property Chamber has confirmed that the decision has been sent to the parties concerned. As your friends application was heard on 20 Jan and a decision has been sent out by the Property Chamber, it is strange he/she has still not received anything yet

 

I was told that the decisions had been sent out to the parties concerned Fletch and that it would not be made available online. Anyone requiring a copy of the decision would need to have a direct interest and make a case to the judge for a copy to be disclosed.

 

I am DUMBSTRUCK that your friend has still not heard

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
Sometimes posts will show up late for various reasons, I'll always try and flag it if there are long delays. :)

 

Thanks I appreciate it, I have missed some of his previous posts and I know he likes to have a response.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
Posted
this forum just seems to be a joke,,,,i guess those reports about it are correct,,,,,,what exactly is the agenda here,,,,and worst of all,,,who`s working for who?,,,,its just got soo obvious,,,,a joke

 

Why is it a joke? There is no agenda. No one is working for anyone. Why has it become obvious?

 

The situation, how I see it is this: a decision was sent to the parties. By now, Is It Me? should be able to furnish us with information as to the outcome. For whatever reason, he is not doing so. I hope that clarifies the current position. Now, should we not get the decision via anyone involved directly - there may be the chance to get it via other sources - it just may take a little extra time.

 

So there we have it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted (edited)
this forum just seems to be a joke,,,,i guess those reports about it are correct,,,,,,what exactly is the agenda here,,,,and worst of all,,,who`s working for who?,,,,its just got soo obvious,,,,a joke

 

I think that it would suit certain persons purposes not to have the results, because it would enable them to continue the dangerous fiction.

 

However, this forum has a more responsible attitude towards its members.

 

There are plenty of forums that will promote these silly unsubstantiated ideas so perhaps one of them may be better suited to you.

Edited by Dodgeball
unsubstatiated
  • Haha 1

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
I NOT had Any thing from the chamber you know full well as do others.

 

If you was involved in the hearing Is It Me? today is the day you have to start being full and frank on this thread. This circus has gone on for long enough

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted (edited)
If you was involved in the hearing Is It Me? today is the day you have to start being full and frank on this thread. This circus has gone on for long enough

 

I think it unlikely that we will receive any reliable information from the OP or Apple Ben, it looks like it is down to others like yourself to find out the facts.

 

You would think that even if the application was unsuccessful they would feel an obligation towards others that they may have encouraged into taking the same course of action.

Edited by Dodgeball
spel

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
I think it unlikely that wee will receive any reliable information from the OP or Apple Ben, it looks like it is down to others like yourself to find out the facts.

 

I know what you mean but I would personally prefer those facts to come from IIM?

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
Some of these posts are out order. It's none of anyone's business apart from IIM & their friend!

 

The day IIM? and Apple started posting on a public forum and actively encouraging people to make applications to the Property Chamber based upon fanciful ideas, misunderstandings of the law and risking costs, it became others business.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
Peterbard

Peterbard

Posted
Posted
Some of these posts are out order. It's none of anyone's business apart from IIM & their friend!

 

If they did not recommend this course on action to others and placed it on a public forum I may agree.

 

Lets not forget this was nor presented as a theory, but a fact. Many would be effected by this.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted
Oh, is that what Crapstone is implying??

 

She is misguided if she thinks I have a crystal ball.... lol

 

You'd think if she had the decision and it was in the lenders favor - it would make sense to post it up - I know I wouldn't hesitate at all.

 

 

Apple

 

As IIM? is not updating his own thread and as Apple has said that they would not hesitate to post the decision, here it is

 

I have removed names and addresses to protect the identity of those involved

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted

Apple has repeatedly interpreted this and that to mean pretty much anything Apple wanted it to mean. This is what the Property Chamber thought of the 'Apple Arguments'

 

Screenshot_85_zps0f4332cb.jpg

 

"At the heart of these and other applications is the primary allegation that the charges are invalid as the lenders did not execute the relevant deeds. This argument originated in a document posted on the internet. It is however, an argument without merit, and which rests on a misunderstanding of the formalities necessary to create a valid charge as security, for a loan"

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted

Despite my previous arguments to the contrary and even the provision of the dictionary definition of the word "or" - Apple insisted that a mortgage by demise was the same thing as a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage and that a borrower could not grant a charge by deed expressed to be by way of legal mortgage

 

Screenshot_86_zpsb8c16070.jpg

 

"it follows, therefore, that the assertion that the Deeds are invalid because they are mortgages by demise is simply unsustainable"

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted

Apple has repeatedly claimed that s.23(2) of the LRA 2002 are the powers of the borrower and not the lender. Is It Me? previously implied that the lender was DUMBSTRUCK during the hearing in regard to s.23(2) and that they are the powers of the borrower

 

Screenshot_87_zps3d29520e.jpg

 

"The owners of the registered charges, in these cases are the Respondents, not the Applicants. The Respondents may create a sub-charge by charging the indebtedness secured by the primary mortgage."

 

The Respondents were the lenders, confirming that s.23(2) are indeed the powers of the lender, as the registered proprietor of the registered charge.

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted

Apple has previously asserted that you take a pinch of this legislation and mix it with a bit of other legislation and then hey presto the deed is void.

 

Screenshot_88_zps71f76d19.jpg

 

"I should add that reliance on section 74 and 74A of the Law of Property Act 1925 is entirely misconceived"

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
bhall

bhall

Posted
Posted

Apple has previously dismissed posts about equity -

 

Screenshot_90_zps06aae82b.jpg

 

"Southern Pacific and Accord argue that, if they are wrong on their primary case as to the validity of the Deeds, the charges granted by the Applicants would nonetheless be valid as equitable mortgage, I have no doubt that this is correct."

 

Screenshot_91_zpsc341a324.jpg

 

"it is to be noted that other such case's will also be dealt with on the same basis, and will be dismissed"

 

Yes Mark, I am Bones

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ell-enn

Ell-enn

Posted
Posted

Oh dear - I hope no one goes on to lose their home due to reliance on this as a defence :(

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3752 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...