Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @jk2054 - I haven't started a claim with OIC or MIB yet, due to being unable to obtain the name of the other driver.  @BankFodder cheers for that, I'll go back to them with this info & update on here when I've had a response.
    • Andy thanks for your reply. No i am now being evicted from the house i moved into after that previous post. The letting agent lied to me when they said the landlord would not be selling the house. SHe did not mention that the landlord tried to sell the house last year, i was not told this, 4 months into the tenancy i got the eviction notice. Its obvious they lied to me and used me to fill in the gap between their attempts to sell the house. I have filled in the defence form as it was easy to follow the old one from my previous post. I will post it later on in the hope someone can give it the once over. It has to be in by the end of this month may 31st.  
    • It's a GR Yaris - Finance is with Alphera, who are part of BMW I believe. I'm sure the unit is very expensive to repair, I have even told them I would be happy with a refurbished/reconditioned unit, in trying to be reasonable as well.
    • Without seeing this envelope, document and sticker it is impossible to advise properly. However, just going on what you have told us, there are two ways you can deal with this: !. The easy way. This has the lowest risk but the guarantee of a penalty for speeding.  You can respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box you can explain that you responded to the request for driver’s details but it was recently returned to you, seemingly not actioned. However, you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. You could also ask the court to consider sentencing you at the fixed penalty level (£100 and 3 points) as this prosecution seems to be the result of an administrative problem outside your control. 2. The not so easy way with higher risk. This could see you convicted of the FtP charge but has the possibility that you escape with no penalty whatsoever. You can do the same – plead not guilty to both charges. If you go down this route the speeding charge cannot succeed as they have no evidence you were driving. This comes from your response to the request for driver’s details which the police say they have not got. You can mention in the “Reasons” box that you returned the request for driver’s details as required. You will then face a trial for the FtP charge and you can produced your response together with the envelope and sticker showing it had been returned to you. The risk with this is that if your defence fails you will be fined a week and a half’s net income, pay a “Victim Surcharge” of 40% of the fine, pay prosecution costs of around £650 and have six points together with an endorsement code (MS90) which will see your insurance premiums rocket.
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Judge Ordered Claimant To Supply Info - They Haven't


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3906 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 Bazza,

 

Will do.

 

Yes they have finally complied and the statements back up my argument, however it wasn't sent in time to meet the deadline given by the court which means I have next to no time to prepare my case.

 

Bel

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Bazza,

 

Will do.

 

Yes they have finally complied and the statements back up my argument, however it wasn't sent in time to meet the deadline given by the court which means I have next to no time to prepare my case.

 

Bel

 

Respectfully ask the court to strike out their claim / allow your claim, or if the court feels unable to do so, seek further time to prepare your case based on their failure to provide you with the documents.

 

The court will be able to recognise "data dumping" (supplying information out of time to deluge one of the parties with too much info to digest properly in time.

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Phew, a little boggle eyed from all the number crunching but so glad that I did it.

 

I put all the information that the OC had supplied into a spreadsheet broken down by week showing the contractual payments, the payments actually made and when, the charges due, the actual charges applied to the account and any charges refunded.

 

What it showed was that firstly, instead of charging me the £20 the agreement stated for late payments, they were actually charging me the stated DN fee of £25.

 

In addition, the agreement stated that they can only charge a DN fee if I go 2 or more payments overdue. Again, taking this from their own paperwork, there were only 2 occasions that they could charge that fee. All the other times, I was actually in credit or less than two months in arrears.

 

The spreadsheet also shows that even with the refunds, I have been over charged and subsequently overpaid on fees which were included in the DN and TN.

 

More importantly, when they served their penultimate DN on which they then served their first TN, from their own statement of account the amount on the DN includes the charges which were either wrong in their amount or should not have been charged anyway.

 

Even though I had told them that the fees were incorrect and hadn't responded to my letter of complaint, they still went ahead and terminated the agreement. It also shows that I had paid more than the outstanding arrears at the time of the DN and TN after the agreement was terminated.

 

I intend to quote the pertinent parts from Woodchester v Swain - are there any other additional cases/CCA law that anyone knows of that I can also quote?

 

I had written to the court pointing out that the solicitor could not have served the statement of account when they said they had due to the fact the time and date stamp on the fax together with the fact it also had the date the report was run right in the middle of the page shows that it had to be sent after the date they have sworn service took place.

 

As I have still to hear back from the court as to whether they are going to agree to my claim to have it struck out at this stage, I am preparing my case just in case.

 

Any other support/advice/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks all,

 

Bel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an aside, do you think I should put in a complaint about the solicitors actions? The more I think about it, the more I'm shocked.

 

If they can lie about something like this on a sworn statement instead of holding their hands up and admitting they messed up, what else would they lie about?

 

Bel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,

 

Having not heard from the court, I called them this morning to be advised that even though I had sent them proof that the solicitors had lied, they are not changing the court date by either allowing my claim or allowing me extra time.

 

Not too sure how to take or what to read into that?

 

I'm preparing my witness statement as will need to get this to the court and the solicitors by tomorrow.

 

Any suggestions to my previous questions on Saturday would be greatly appreciated!

 

Bel

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not enough of an expert to cite the case law, but go with pointing out the overcharges and erroneous DN's.

 

By all means point out the "data dumping" and "mistaken dates", and your request for extra time as a reason you may not be as prepared as you'd like : but the court ruled not to reschedule, so don't challenge them directly.

 

Get court proceedings sorted, mentioning the solicitors behaviour, before considering an SRA complaint : if the court mentions it when ruling it can be extra ammo!

 

Can someone more knowledgable than me comment on the effect of the false fees on any DN, and then any TN?

Might the TN become defective? If defective, is the agreement still extant / enforceable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bazza,

 

Have just picked up on another nugget. The OC had agreed to waive some of the fees that were erroneous and at the time these made the DN defective and therefore the TN null and void. The refund was made well after both DN and TN were issued. On their statement, it shows the fees as being refunded in March however, I have a letter direct from the manager and the complaints department that show that the refund took place in May. If it had taken place in March, I would not have a valid argument. As it stands, it now appears that I can now add falsifying records to suit themselves to the mix?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWCA Civ 905

Case No: A2/2007/1827

IN THESUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

MR JUSTICE FIELD

HQ04X03766

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

30 July 2008

B e f o r e :

THE RT HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD

THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY

and

THE RT HON LORD JUSTICE WALL

____________________

Between:

 

(1) Burkhard Hedrich

(2) Hedrich Consult

Claimants

- and -

Standard Bank London Limited

Appellants

- and -

Messrs Zimmers

Respondents

I have just briefly read your case (speed reading that is)and as regards non – disclosure or non-compliance with a Court Order on thesame, perhaps have a good read of the above authority (search same by google orwhatever search engine you use) as itmay help you with further argument against this represented party and hissolicitors acting.

Kind regards

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, if default notice is not compliant with s.87(1) CCA 1974 (as amended), then Claimant cannot continue to enforcement action (the said s.87(1)) provides you with a complete Defence if the creditor has not complied with the same - search Harison v Link and American Express v Brandon and of course Woodchester v Swain.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you The Mould and Bazza!

 

You are most welcome my dear fellow CAG member. The authorities that I have cited for you are most important as regards your Defence to this action and all your legal arguments against the same. Study the same my good friend, print off copies of the same for yourself, a copy for the Court and a copy for the Claimant.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The first and crucial DN included 35 default charges of which only 19 were 'valid'. However, all but 3 of those charges were charged out at the DN rate of £25 when they should have been charged out at the late payment rate of £20. Those fees are contained within the signed agreement and they have supplied no confirmation that that their rates were going to change.

 

At the time the DN was issued, I was still waiting for a response to a letter of complaint querying said charges and the OC didn't respond directly, their only response being a TN.

 

Their DCA contacted us and I explained to them why we felt they had no right to do what they were doing (defective DN etc means they can't enforce etc) and they came back with the offer of paying half the fees and the arrears. We paid what they told us was the arrears and the fees.

 

Another complaint went to the OC over the handling of that payment between the OC and the DCA as they had lied about what was said during the various conversations. A SAR was sent asking for a transcript of the conversations as the DCA told me all calls were recorded, but despite 6 requests, this has not been forthcoming!

 

I then notice on the statement supplied by the OC that the last payment to clear the arrears was moved a month on from when we actually paid it and the default fees was moved 2 months back even though they were paid at the same time. If the default fees had been paid when they said, I would be on very thin ice as the difference in which it would have been detrimental to me would have been minimal. But I have two letters that clearly state when the payments were made from different departments within the OC's company which give the same information, so copies of these will also be presented to the court.

 

There's a common pattern of both the OC and the solicitors amending things in an attempt to strengthen their case however I have letters to back me up.

 

So yes, I think I have ample proof that it does not meet the requirements of the act to be acceptable.

 

Would you agree?

 

Bel

 

Bel

Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to add that my spreadsheet also shows that the arrears that they quoted in the DN was actually arrears and default charges. The actual amount to remedy the breach should have been less than half.

 

Bel

 

Yes, I agree with your contentions. What about the remedy date - 14 clear days to remedy the default relied upon by your creditor (s.87(1) CCA 1974 (as amended). The default notice appears to be invalid based upon your posts here, therefore, no enforcement proceedings can be continued by your creditor based upon his breach of his statutory duties under s.87(1) of the said act.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The first and crucial DN included 35 default charges of which only 19 were 'valid'. However, all but 3 of those charges were charged out at the DN rate of £25 when they should have been charged out at the late payment rate of £20. Those fees are contained within the signed agreement and they have supplied no confirmation that that their rates were going to change.

 

At the time the DN was issued, I was still waiting for a response to a letter of complaint querying said charges and the OC didn't respond directly, their only response being a TN.

 

Their DCA contacted us and I explained to them why we felt they had no right to do what they were doing (defective DN etc means they can't enforce etc) and they came back with the offer of paying half the fees and the arrears. We paid what they told us was the arrears and the fees.

 

Another complaint went to the OC over the handling of that payment between the OC and the DCA as they had lied about what was said during the various conversations. A SAR was sent asking for a transcript of the conversations as the DCA told me all calls were recorded, but despite 6 requests, this has not been forthcoming!

 

I then notice on the statement supplied by the OC that the last payment to clear the arrears was moved a month on from when we actually paid it and the default fees was moved 2 months back even though they were paid at the same time. If the default fees had been paid when they said, I would be on very thin ice as the difference in which it would have been detrimental to me would have been minimal. But I have two letters that clearly state when the payments were made from different departments within the OC's company which give the same information, so copies of these will also be presented to the court.

 

There's a common pattern of both the OC and the solicitors amending things in an attempt to strengthen their case however I have letters to back me up.

 

So yes, I think I have ample proof that it does not meet the requirements of the act to be acceptable.

 

Would you agree?

 

Bel

 

Bel

Thank you for the above Bel

 

Notwithstanding the errors in the DN and the terms and conditions affecting such, what is the date of DN notice and the date stated therein for you to remedy the breach relied upon therein?

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought as much.

 

The date is just about within by a day - not enough for a court to rule in my favour on that I'm afraid ;-)

 

Thanks again The Mould

 

Don't worry, date and amount to remedy the breach relied upon must comply with s.87(1)!

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon what you say, amount to remedy breach relied upon by creditor is inaccurate, therefore, invalid for the purposes of s.87(1) and so.......creditor not entitled to terminate and demand full amount claimed on the account! Creditor has actually repudiated on the contract! Look this up (repudiation of contract and innocent party's options to elect as consequence of such fundamental breach of contract)

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi The Mound,

 

Have read some articles and wondered if you could clarify something for me.

 

Why do you think they have repudiated the contract as opposed to recission?

 

Bel

 

Recission is a remedy under the common law that is available for the innocent party to elect as a remedy.

 

Repudiation is where one party to a contract refuses to honour his obligations thereunder and treats such as no longer valid.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...