Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • issuance of a claimform pauses the sb clock.   surely you cant say they are in default of your sec 78 as they have complied, better to say they have not fully complied.   the DN is NOT covered by a CCa request.   ive removed your earlier upload as crossing thru with a felt pen dos not obscure your details and  your name is clearly visible as well.        
    • Whoops........... I think I might have missed that bit off 😆   Here it is in its entire form:   1.    The defendant opened a studio regulated consumer credit account under reference ********* on 30th November 2011. 2.    In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to maintain the required payments and the agreement was terminated.  3.    The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 25th September 2015 and written notice given to the Defendant. 4.    Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £716.38 remains due and outstanding.  And the Claimant claims; a) the said sum of £716.38; b) interest pursuant to s69 Count Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.157, but limited to one year, being £57.31; c) costs.     Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.   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.   Paragraph 1 is admitted insofar that a contractual relationship in the past with Studio did once exist but I do not recognise the account number referred to by the claimant.   Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted. The claimant would not be aware of any alleged breach or in a position to plead such fact as an assignee as the defendant did not enter into any agreement with the claimant and is therefore put to strict proof to verify the nature of the alleged breach and service and copy of a Default Notice pursuant to CCA sec 87.1.   I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served 25th September 2015 pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974.   On the 30th September 2019 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a Section 78 request. To date the claimant has failed to comply to my CPR 31.14. The claimant also remains in default of my section 78 request and are therefore unable to enforce any agreement until such compliance.   On the 7th October 2019 Lowell provided a photocopy of an agreement and statement.  They confirmed that they have requested a copy of the Default Notice from the original creditor and this will be sent to me upon receipt.  To date, 23rd October 2019, I still await their compliance.   It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/agreement/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14 and sec 78 CCA1974 and therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to section 87(1) CCA1974 c) 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;   As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   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. If there is anything that needs amending or changing please let me know. The debt becomes SB on the 23rd Nov, so if I can drag it out to then I am guessing that there is nothing they can do?
    • Hi thanks all off you for your help.   I'm having rest now.
    • I haven't sent my N180 paperwork back to the Court yet (due next week) but Idem have sent me a copy of theirs.   They have ticked 'no' to mediation and have informed me that they're requesting a hold on proceedings for a month so that they can attempt settlement. 
    • just to update, i have received a letter this morning from Arrow Global-   We thank you for your letter and acknowledge your request for documentation pursuant of the consumer credit act 1974. We do not accept that we are the creditor as envisaged by the above statute. However, we are willing to assist in obtaining that which has been requested.We will now process your request for documentation from the creditor and will respond in due course. We confirm that all collection activity will be suspended pending provision of the documents.   So i assume Arrow have not bought the debt and are collecting for either another DCA or indeed the origianol creditor in this case would be Marks & Spencer. not sure to as if this is good news that they have not produced it or bad news they may be going back to M&S,Can anyone chuck some light on it for me   Many Thanks to all
  • Our picks

bobthebuilder69

DIY store trolley in their car park failed - rolled away and hit another car - who's liable?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2218 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

Just moved house and

 

was at the local DIY store whose car park is on a bit of a slope and has signs everywhere,

used one of their provided trolleys to get a pile of DIY stuff,

 

got out to the car put the brake on, put baby in the back whilst doing this the trolley rolled off and bumped into someones car,

 

they were not happy,

 

i reported the failure of the brake to the staff at the DIY store

 

am i liable for the damage to the other car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both you and the other driver should go into the store and speak to the manager, if the brake on the trolley is faulty then IMO it is the stores liability.


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes def.

 

if a brake is fitted and it did not work

 

hope you can identify which trolley it was

 

p'haps there is CCTV the manager can view too?

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the OP is responsible, as you used the trolley and had control of it; having said that I would certainly try to put the blame on the store as providing a faulty trolley.

You would have to prove the trolley was defective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sleeper cell is active today!!


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the proof of negligence is the hard one.

was the diy store responsible for the possible faulty trolly brake ?? "even though they didn't know about??

were you responsible for not returning it to the area from which you collected it from?/ and did you make sure the trolley would not roll away before you left it do put your child in the vehicle?.

hard one to call,good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes ofcourse they are responsible for the faulty brake knowing about it or otherwise

 

good pearls of wisdom there...

 

H+S . duty of care

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes ofcourse they are responsible for the faulty brake knowing about it or otherwise

 

good pearls of wisdom there...

 

H+S . duty of care

 

dx

 

I'm not sure the fault would lie squarely with the retailer, though. The user would have a duty to use the trolley with reasonable skill too. I'm not sure it's a very clear cut situation at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting points, very interesting to add..

 

The brake failed after it was applied (applied following the instructions provided (sign)) I have no mechanical knowledge to 'test' the brake to know if it was defective or not therefore surely it is the responsibility of the store to ensure the manual handling equipment was correctly maintained?

 

Today the other party has sent what i judge to be a 'fake' solicitors letter, not signed or dated, no name of the solicitor or address of the solicitor, no registration details, not on headed paper on cheap copier / printing paper (you can see through it) and alot of the vocabulary used in the letter is not as a solicitor would use.

 

Is it a crime / offence to impersonate a solicitor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what does it say !

p.s just another thought I assume you had the third party involved confirm with you that the said brake was faulty,not just applied in an incorrect manor?.

I think this is what you will be up against,unless again said trolly can be called as a witness." showing it is faulty" obviously not in person.

Edited by themagician

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much damage we talking about, did op take photos?

Maybe worth seeing if TP is willing to proceed to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ive googled the address on the letter stating acting for our client, its a residential address, the letters contents are poor and the vocabulary isnt that of a solicitor, and surely an un-signed / un-dated letter has no credence anyhow.

 

The damage, a tiny dink, one of those dent pullers it would be gone, paint isnt even broken, yes plenty of pictures, the estimate from the garage is also of questionable origin, no details of the garage its from seem to exist, i think its a bit of a [problem] myself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't car insurance not enforceable on private property?

 

If this happened to me I would be apologetic but nothing more, I have had cars damaged by trolleys in car parks and on complaining to the store been told 'go through your insurance', only for my insurance to say that it is not their responsibility as it happened on private property

 

I'd respond to that letter once and state that in taking legal advice (you don't have to say where) you are advising them that you believe you are not liable for any damages and they should direct their claim to the store, no further correspondence will be entered into unless they forward an official claim from small claims court.

 

Personally I wouldn't have provided any contact details at the scene as you were not obliged to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at your original post I'm wondering how they knew it was your trolley?

 

You are either the most honest person in the world and owned up to them when they returned to their car, or they were there and saw it - if it is the latter then why didn't they stop it?

 

Either way I think their letter is just trying it on and the next letter would be for a bill of about £300 for a garage to repair the damage, no way would I be admitting liability on this one, especially as I bet there are signs up that state private car park used at owners risk

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to refer them to the DIY stores insurers.

 

its a daily/weekly/montly task for the staff to check the brakes work under their insurance providers policy

rules

 

and under H+S rules.,

 

if the retailer provides the trolley

and the brake is faulty & that was the cause of the damage, then it squarely lies with the DIY insurers

 

they will inspect the safety check sheets. & view and CCTv at the time.

 

why do you think they put up signs & instructions


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im honest, too honest.. there are signs everywhere and i mean everywhere stating cars parked at owners risk yes

these signs are totally worthless / waste of the board they are written on if you can prove negligence!.

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...