Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 160 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

Possible fabrication of documents


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3410 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

Thanks Becky. I'm sure they cannot comment or advise, they just act as 'piggy in the middle' so to speak. But they definitely are pushing to for us to accept wording we're not comfortable with. Eg, insisting that the settlement is full and final (which I agree to), for now and the future, but only on my side. I think it should be full and final on BOTH sides. Although I'm not sure if there is some way of them retaliating, but I don't trust them not to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, I think you should be asking for full and final settlement on both sides. If the employer wants to bring a claim against you they should reveal it now.

 

Also consider whether you need to ask for a clause that the employer must provide a neutral reference if asked as part of the settlement.

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

If you haven't agreed wording yet then the full and final settlement clause absolutely should be reciprocal. It should also expressly state that the parties agree to bear their own costs. As SP says, an agreed reference can be attached, and you would also usually include a confidentiality and a mutual non derogatory or disparaging statements clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning, and thank you both. All the usual confidentiality stuff is there, together with a 'basic' reference, which actually only confirms the length of employment, which is disappointing, and they're refusing to move on the wording. There were no issues throughout Hubs employment (love that little name that Emmzzi (?) gave earlier, but their pride is hurt and it must be sticking in their throats to say anything positive.

 

Hubs has been asking around too, and we're both coming up with the same answer, full and final on both sides. The fact they are refusing that wording (because they say it would stop them taking action if the agreement is breached), makes me wonder what they could do in retaliation.

 

I may be 'over thinking' this, but given the lies and fabricated evidence they have created, I simply can't help but wonder what else they could or would fabricate in an effort to cause me grief and get the monies back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a pretty easy workaround to that.

 

 

The clause would simply have to be reworded to a clause in full and final settlement of all current and potential future claims, save for claims for accrued pension rights, personal injury of which you are currently unaware, and claims to enforce the Agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement that F+F wording would stop them taking action if the agreement is breached is nonsense. Still, it is easy to address this by including the wording becky has suggested!

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

The statement that F+F wording would stop them taking action if the agreement is breached is nonsense. !

My thoughts exactly! Either someone doesn't know what they're doing (which I believe is the case, as it's only a junior member of staff dealing with it), or they will try and retaliate, which is unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would just like to say thank you to everyone that helped with the various trials and tribulations that Hubs has had to endure this year, and the whole fiasco is now over.

 

Fingers crossed that doesn't turn out to be 'famous last words' :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain what this means please? It's taken from ACAS site: I don't understand what is meant about the 'not payable under general contract law'. :-s

 

"How does a declaration by the Respondent affect enforcement of my settlement?

It is possible for the Respondent to make a declaration that the money owed to you is not payable by them under the general law of contract. In order to do this they must make a separate application to either the court or the Employment Tribunal.

If such an application is made then you cannot continue to enforce your settlement in court until the declaration application is determined.

However, if you are sure that no such declaration has been made you can advise the HCEO and the court of this by signing the certification on the Enforcevent form"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. I'm just looking at enforcing a COT3, if necessary, and it seemed to me like a bit of a 'get out' clause. But that does lead me to another question: if there are 2 respondents, that could mean that each will say the other is responsible for paying, couldn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see. I'm just looking at enforcing a COT3, if necessary, and it seemed to me like a bit of a 'get out' clause. But that does lead me to another question: if there are 2 respondents, that could mean that each will say the other is responsible for paying, couldn't it?

 

maybe. So you need to be very clear which legal entity (partnership, ltd co etc) you are taking to court and which is awarded against.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...