Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • 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

Settle f&fl or part 36? -help/advice


jonji
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3791 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 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

He's not very well he said! He's probably gone to bed! Never mind.......maybe tomorrow eh! :lol:

 

All these eager people awaiting a response too!! I was choking and laughing at the same time before after I had been checking my emails awaiting something to come through......was funny!

Edited by jonji
Addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

Check in on you on the morrow jonji.

 

Not going to bed just yet, but soon will be, otherwise I might end up in the 'midnight club'. Check this club out, look up "wish me well" Halifax taking me to Court in these legal issues forum, this is from about 3 years ago, I hope you p*** yourself laughing at what we did to the Halifax.

 

Godzilla for now.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that Mouldy hehehe! Obviously couldn't be real .........gathering it's just a P**s take; couldn't possibly be real.........could it?????????

 

It was real and this case really helped me to make my mark on CAG!

 

What authorities is the Claimant relying upon and why?

 

Do not feel vulnerable as regards posting out here in the public domain. Seriously, do not worry about the Claimant or any of his spies. Concentrate on your SO application and the reasons and evidence and authorities that you have served in support thereof.

 

Unfortunately, the attempt at making contact under the supervision of the Site Team has not worked out, so please keep your posts out here in the public forum, you will find that by doing so, other CAG members will see your thread/case and they will post up their advice/help and support thereon if they are able to. Many hands make light work jonji, so please, do not feel that you must hide something away from "prying eyes", really, do not worry about the Claimant and his spies, if indeed he has any.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha.......I didn't get to read it all but what I read was very funny. I shall read it to the end one day after all this has finished.

 

Spent today getting all my stuff in order so I can make a paginated file of my own! I am still doing that and probably finish it after tonight and the weekend. So many papers- and I found more in the old CAB file! Loads of scanning and printing to do because I lost some stuff on my old laptop last year. Had a load of messing at the start of the week trying to recover it. Think managed it all though and have hard copies anyway. Just knowing what's there and whats not by making up the file as I go along and checking it out! Sort of like revision too with all the reading.

 

Nothing really to report now I guess. My application is going to be looked at during the hearing re a strike out; amend my defence if their application to have their summary judgment application restored;my costs.

 

Letter today from court (oh so I did have something to report!). Just to say that my application was put before the judge yesterday and it has been placed on file to be considered at the hearing. Is that a good or bad thing?

 

Hey Mould, hope you are feeling better today :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Letter today from court (oh so I did have something to report!). Just to say that my application was put before the judge yesterday and it has been placed on file to be considered at the hearing. Is that a good or bad thing?

 

 

as suggested prior, combined, and J has at an SJ hearing the power to strike out an SJ applicant. :)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think its a bad thing :)

depending on outcome, there may be the issue of costs to resolve but j should address that.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha.......I didn't get to read it all but what I read was very funny. I shall read it to the end one day after all this has finished.

 

Spent today getting all my stuff in order so I can make a paginated file of my own! I am still doing that and probably finish it after tonight and the weekend. So many papers- and I found more in the old CAB file! Loads of scanning and printing to do because I lost some stuff on my old laptop last year. Had a load of messing at the start of the week trying to recover it. Think managed it all though and have hard copies anyway. Just knowing what's there and whats not by making up the file as I go along and checking it out! Sort of like revision too with all the reading.

 

Nothing really to report now I guess. My application is going to be looked at during the hearing re a strike out; amend my defence if their application to have their summary judgment application restored;my costs.

 

Letter today from court (oh so I did have something to report!). Just to say that my application was put before the judge yesterday and it has been placed on file to be considered at the hearing. Is that a good or bad thing?

 

Hey Mould, hope you are feeling better today :-)

 

Read it all, I guarantee that it will make you cry withlaughter in the face of these robots and also prove to you that one personagainst an almighty army can indeed defeat and win against the same.

Be careful as regards making your own trial bundle, the Judge may considerthe same a rival bundle to which you have no permission to file and serve andhe may also consider that your bundle is taking a liberty and he may, therefore, consider the question of costs in favour ofthe Claimant in the light of your rival bundle, which may take up some time of the Court –possibly 1 or 2 hrs in deciding suchupon arguments/submissions made by both you parties on the same.

At the hearing, the Claimant will most definitely object toyour trial bundle!!!!. Which will have been filed and served without the Court’spermission and the Claimant’s agreement thereon, he will also argue that his skeleton argument has been prepared with his trial bundlewhich the Court Ordered him to prepare and file and serve at least 7 daysbefore the hearing of his SJ and your cross application to strike out.

Contact Claimant’s sols and requestservice of their clients’ trial bundle and the authorities that he relies upon in at least 7 days before the hearing of hissummary judgment application and your cross-application to strike out hisclaim.

Feeling a little bit better today, thank you jonji.

Kind regards

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mould........don't understand what you mean ????? I have asked for permission to rely on a further ws in response to their most recent. I have document that go with and are needed for that ws. As I have to serve and file seven days before a hearing, I have already done that. The file I am talking about in the quote above, is for my own benefit so all is in order.

 

Answer me this if you can please.......If the last order was to ask for permission to submit a further ws and the other side did ask permission and then produced a witness statement, wouldn't I need to do another ws in response? Hence the reason I asked for permission via letter to DJ. In order for the other side to get this within the timescale, I had to post it off in time along with documents relied on. Which I have.

I am getting confused with it all as the other side are witness statement happy!

If the order says we can rely on our previous WS's does that mean that I can just bring them up OR do I have to include them in a NEW WS????????? See I am getting very confused!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine the witness statement would have accompanied their N244 to revive the SJ application. Have a look at whether the date of the statement and the date of the N244 are the same.

 

If your previous WS has already been filed at court then of course you can rely on it at the hearing.

 

With these things it is more important to focus on being ready to explain the merits of your case to the judge (and make sure you have the documents together - such as transcripts of any case law you are relying on) rather than focussing too much on the procedure. It was improper of the other side to put a bunch of extra information in their application to revive the SJ, but ultimately this should not affect the merits of the judge's decision.

 

WS are primarily designed for factual issues. It doesn't sound like there are any new facts since the previous version. If you are wanting to raise new legal points or address the points in their WS, I suggest that shortly before the hearing you file with court and serve on the other side a skeleton argument which concisely sets out the legal arguments you intend to make in court.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you steampowered for that. So I CAN rely on ws's and documents that are already filed from the previous hearings. Do they not need to be in my last witness statement then? Maybe I need to find some legal representative for this hearing. They always have a barrister and I am a litigant in person! :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if you put lots of documents which duplicate each other on the court file the judge will be annoyed. Just make sure the judge has the right documents at the start of the hearing.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mould........don't understand what you mean ????? I have asked for permission to rely on a further ws in response to their most recent. I have document that go with and are needed for that ws. As I have to serve and file seven days before a hearing, I have already done that. The file I am talking about in the quote above, is for my own benefit so all is in order.

 

Answer me this if you can please.......If the last order was to ask for permission to submit a further ws and the other side did ask permission and then produced a witness statement, wouldn't I need to do another ws in response? Hence the reason I asked for permission via letter to DJ. In order for the other side to get this within the timescale, I had to post it off in time along with documents relied on. Which I have.

I am getting confused with it all as the other side are witness statement happy!

If the order says we can rely on our previous WS's does that mean that I can just bring them up OR do I have to include them in a NEW WS????????? See I am getting very confused!!!!

 

As regards the first paragraph of yourabove post, in the ordinary course ofcivil procedure progress, where a party has made an application, whateverthat application may be made for, the other party has a right to respond to suchapplication.

However, in your case, the Claimant has made an app for SJ and he hasasked that the Court imposes a condition upon you, that being, that the Court has ordered that you requireits permission to file and serve your WS in response to Claimant’s SJ app.

As to the second paragraph of your abovepost, if the order states that you canrely upon any previous WS, then of course you can rely upon any suchprevious WS filed and served by you, thiswould be in addition to your cross-application seeking strike out of Claimant’scase and all matters relied upon in support thereof by you.

Can you please post up the Claimant’ssummary judgment application and his WS served in support thereof, and the authorities upon which he relies –minus all personal details.

Kind regards

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mould.....the SJ application stuff is on post #70 above. The WS is 40 plus paragraphs and is basically going through the whole case from start to finish.

 

Thanks :-)

 

Invaliddefault notice served – as admitted by Claimant, his claim cannot proceed incontravention of statute – period. The Court of Appeal qualified this fact of lawin the Brandon case.

Claim isover and must be struck out. You are not liable for Claimant’s costs as hiscase was bad in law. You must keep on respectfully referringthe trial judge’s attention to these irrefutable facts, regardless of Claimant’scontentions. He has admitted that he has not complied withhis obligations imposed upon him under s.87(1) CCA 1974 (as amended), therefore, he is not entitled to proceed to enforce theagreement that he terminated in reliance of service of an invalid statutory default notice!

Keep on arguing s.87(1) CCA 1974(as amended), Claimant’s admission that he failed to comply with his statutoryduty thereunder and the successful Brandon v American Express case decided bythe Court of Appeal.

Kindregards

TheMould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you TM for your enthusiasm and sorry I haven't responded sooner. Not been too well myself for a few days.

 

Called the court earlier to see what the time allocation is for the hearing.......well, what was two and a half hour is now only fifteen minutes..........G U L P!! (They have probably already made up their minds what the outcome will be).

Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing! Hope it's the end of it whatever! It's really taking it's toll on me now.

Actually thinking of trying to get some legal representation as I don't feel up to it the way I am at the moment!

 

Regards,

 

Jonji

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you TM for your enthusiasm and sorry I haven't responded sooner. Not been too well myself for a few days.

 

Called the court earlier to see what the time allocation is for the hearing.......well, what was two and a half hour is now only fifteen minutes..........G U L P!! (They have probably already made up their minds what the outcome will be).

Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing! Hope it's the end of it whatever! It's really taking it's toll on me now.

Actually thinking of trying to get some legal representation as I don't feel up to it the way I am at the moment!

 

Regards,

 

Jonji

 

It might be the case that in the light of your SO application and the Court of Appeal's authority handed down in the Brandon case, that the Court will hold in your favour on the invalid DN issue and therefore strike out the claim as it cannot continue in contravention of the above stated higher authority and statute. (s.87(1) CCA 1974 (as amended).

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TM......and if they don't and their application get them summary judgment, what happens then? Do I appeal? Would I have to pay up there and then- even before an appeal could take place?

 

 

Hi mjt2013........I haven't got carried away (don't believe in counting my chickens before they hatch). I don't think it has been 'block listed' though as the last court order stated a time for next hearing as 2.5 hours! This has now been listed for a fifteen minute hearing late in afternoon!

 

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...