Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Advice: 'debt' passed from Hutchinson 3G


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3563 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

I have accounts with 3 Mobile.

 

I was contacted by 3 about the possibility of my taking a phone and contract off them.

It was an inexpensive contract for an inexpensive phone which I told them I would consider.

They attempted to post me the phone, which I rejected delivery of and phoned them to inform them of this.

As such I did not receive the SIM card a week later in the post as would have been standard protocol.

 

I have made my feelings on the matter more than clear to three over numerous phone calls

and quite politely, I might add.

 

I know myself to be within my rights, just as I know them to have nothing on me but one thing.

 

At one point during one conversation they all of a sudden became rather vague

and as a result they have a single and lone mark against me as there exists a legal grey area

in which they have room to manoeuvre.

 

As many of you will know, these legal grey areas exist merely because there is

nothing to say that they are not legal and they only serve to set the stage

for baffling further action in terms of loopholes in other aspects of that supposed contract.

 

Now, I realise since I neither accepted delivery of the phone nor initiated the account

by activated the SIM which I did not receive, I am not legally liable for that account.

 

What I did find was that there had been a small direct debit on my bank account for four months,

at which point I cancelled without prior notice to 3.

 

On top of that I have been harassed about this 'contract' which they feel me liable for,

to which I have rejected further payment.

 

They even had the cheek to offer me a £200+ disconnection fee,

and I submit that the phone they proposed to have off them would not be worth £200 new

and encrusted in sapphires.

 

At this point the proposed debt has been shunted off to a debt collector,

who strangely will not talk to me unless I call them back on their toll number (big surprise there)

and despite having made my case to 3 more than adequately and remaining within my legal rights in doing so,

they still persist.

 

At this point, I have emailed a CEO of this collection company

and mysteriously had another collection slip from 3 (regarding this 'debt' which has already been sold off)

after the day that email was sent.

 

By now, as you might imagine, I am beyond tired of these shenanigans

and am quite frankly thinking about cancelling the rest of my direct debits with 3.

 

I can bin all the letters and block all the phone calls,

what I cannot morally fathom is paying anything further to a company

which have become known to me to be entirely unscrupulous.

 

As I say, they are bullies and they are charlatans.

 

I personally have a severe and rare case of bipolar disorder.

Over the past 20 years I have scarcely worked and as my mental condition

has been improving over the past 5 years I have been making increasing efforts

to get into work, as with DC's austerity measures being in full swing in the UK

I also cannot fathom being a burden to the dole any longer,

as I have seen so many fall by the wayside as a result of these austerity measures.

 

Although my condition has been somewhat improving over the past 5 years,

even as recent as this year I have be plagued with mental difficulties,

yet still carry on with the work effort and all of these accounts

I have with 3 (which I am normally inclined to pay on time and in full) are representative

of manic over-preparedness in efforts to return to work.

 

So, at this point I am wondering what the repercussions would be of have 4 marks of bad credit

against me for mere mobile contracts.

 

As I understand it, it could be a blow to me if I ever wish to have finance

within the same fiscal spectrum for the next three years.

However, this is a risk I am willing to take, as I almost cannot live with the knowledge

that my contributions to a unconscionable mobile service provider

are likely further efforts by this same provider to do similar things

to other people which have been done to me.

 

I'm now finally getting paid work, albeit part time at the moment.

I intend to keep with this trend, but I am clearly unhappy with the trend of being rentboy to 3 Mobile.

 

So as regards these matters, any and all good advice would be appreciated and I thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...