Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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
      • 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

HFO CAPITAL/services/turnbull CCJ


melmumof3
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3168 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

It will be interesting to see on what grounds they have appealed. I doubt they can change the claimant to HFO Services at this stage.

 

I'm not sure if you can challenge an appeal in the same way you can challenge a set aside. Also, I don't know if you're entitled to know the grounds of the appeal before it's made. Hopefully someone can advise.

 

My my, Mr T, you would have done so much better to walk away from this one. Now we're getting very angry... and you wouldn't like us when we're angry...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 665
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It is a very big mistake to anger the good CAG people, we are here to defend our consumer rights just as much as you might like to defend your legal rights...

 

Mr T and HFO should have been closed down a long time ago... but of course it isn't going to happen, as they 'provide much needed jobs' for 'lower intelligence' people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Mel... there are certainly cases where people have had more than one bite at the cherry by issuing new claims - see here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/210585-claim-struck-out-can.html

 

Don't panic - I feel a lot of CAG-inspired witness statements coming to help you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks DB....ive read all the thread, what is res judicata, and is it relevant to my own case?....

 

A matter (already) judged ;). Seems relevant.

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

mel

 

I feard they wold have started again and issued a fresh N1 claim form. You could then have raised the 'res judicta' efence - It litterally means 'the matter have been adjudged'. SurfaceagentX20 did an excellent post on it a few months back. If I can find the reference I'll post up.

 

However, it looks like HFO are going down the expensive route (for them) of appealing. I think you will have to see what comes from the court about the grounds for the appeal.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks DB....ive read all the thread, what is res judicata, and is it relevant to my own case?....

 

 

It means that you cannot bring a new claim which is substantively the same as one that has already failed in the legal process.

 

Not relevant to an appeal, BUT would prevent them re-issuing any new claim.

 

so, basically the appeal is the end of the road

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the extract I took from X20's excellent post-

res judicata.doc

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Docman, MandM

 

I think an appeal is their only option - albeit a stupid one, is it will open a huge can of very squiggly worms for them concerning their deeds of assignment and their dodgy witness statements.

 

To begin a claim in a different name on the same evidence would be vexatious and would probably require the permission of the court.

 

Still, mel can keep us all amused in 2010 as we help her demolish HFO single-handedly...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Docman, MandM

 

I think an appeal is their only option - albeit a stupid one, is it will open a huge can of very squiggly worms for them concerning their deeds of assignment and their dodgy witness statements.

 

To begin a claim in a different name on the same evidence would be vexatious and would probably require the permission of the court.

 

Still, mel can keep us all amused in 2010 as we help her demolish HFO single-handedly...

lol....:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, mel can keep us all amused in 2010 as we help her demolish HFO single-handedly...

 

I find this thread more gripping than anything on TV :D:D:D that's for sure. There's been some cracking work done here and I feel that Mel is in the safest of hands.

 

Will continue watching with interest and see what unfolds.

 

Best of luck Mel

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this thread more gripping than anything on TV :D:D:D that's for sure. There's been some cracking work done here and I feel that Mel is in the safest of hands.

 

Will continue watching with interest and see what unfolds.

 

Best of luck Mel

 

M

its just like a soap my thread, fictitious character names and made up as its gone along lol

 

serious note, i wish i wasnt so damn scared again!...:|

 

You did me and yourselves proud, and WE can do it again i hope :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont worry mum he knows he is on a very very sticky wicket and if neccessary we may now even be able to bring the law to bear upon them for trying to pervert the court of justice so let us know asap what they are appealing against

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I was going on hiatus but this caught my attention...

 

What an absolute act of desperation from this company... I'm not keen on them bringing these types of cases to court anyway simply because they must know the legal ground is shaky at best. But to appeal on the basis of their completely dodgy assignments?

 

I will help you fight this tooth and nail mel...

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for them replies patrick and john... i shall let everyone know what they are appealing against (i assume its over the confusion of who owns the debt, clarified with this new M and S letter sent to me last week... will be their new evidence i guess?...)

 

have a fab christmas all xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

VJ, get some rest and time with the family - you've done so much on here recently for so many people and you deserve a break. There's enough of us gnarled old gits here to get by.

 

The appeal is a mistake. Of the highest order. They have effectively asked for the assignment deeds to be looked at in detail.

 

Bring it on, Alice. Hope you have reinforced knickers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime, Mel, go back to what I said earlier - call M&S again, record the call (find a way - I can help!) and ask why they have changed their story.

 

Ask specifically why they have written to you again in contradiction of a previous letter. Ask directly if HFO or TR have asked them to send this letter to you, and why.

 

PM me with your location so I can muster resources. This is war!

 

Must change my avatar to Cpt Mainwaring...

Link to post
Share on other sites

mel

 

I think DB's suggestion about contacting M&S is a very good one. You should wrie to the Compliance Officer and ask why they are flouting the FSA rules about what they should put on their letters.

 

Contary to popular belief, M&S Money is not part of the store. It is part of HSBC. See the following form its web site

"

Marks & Spencer Money and Your M&S are trading names of Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc.

Registered in England No: 1772585. Registered Office: Kings Meadow, Chester CH99 9FB. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. A wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Bank plc."

 

As a regulated firm, it has to disclose who it is and the fact that it regulated by the FSA. Unless you have been very clever with PhotoShop, it looks like this is a blank letterhead with just the M&SMoney logo that someone has printed out and then sent unsigned. Now where have I seen that type of behaviour before????

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Docman

 

I have received letters from M&SMoney with just that logo on, so it could well be genuine. However I agree with you that mel should contact M&S to find out why they would send that letter out of the blue.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me as though TR/HFO are appealing on the grounds that the letter from M&S was mistaken, and that the assignation was to HFO Capital.

 

Even if we accept that as fact, the deed CP2 which assigns all of HFOC's current and future purchased debt to HFO Services kills them dead in the water, as HFOC is the claimant.

 

Then if they want to change the name of the claimant, then that would prove they have lied in their witness statement.

 

Which brings us neatly to 'vexatious litigation'.

 

They cannot win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mel

 

I think DB's suggestion about contacting M&S is a very good one. You should wrie to the Compliance Officer and ask why they are flouting the FSA rules about what they should put on their letters.

 

Contary to popular belief, M&S Money is not part of the store. It is part of HSBC. See the following form its web site

"

Marks & Spencer Money and Your M&S are trading names of Marks & Spencer Financial Services plc.

Registered in England No: 1772585. Registered Office: Kings Meadow, Chester CH99 9FB. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. A wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Bank plc."

 

As a regulated firm, it has to disclose who it is and the fact that it regulated by the FSA. Unless you have been very clever with PhotoShop, it looks like this is a blank letterhead with just the M&SMoney logo that someone has printed out and then sent unsigned. Now where have I seen that type of behaviour before????

hi doc,

i did think it was an odd letter, but the envelope has the address of kings meadow on the back, so i assume this is definately from m and s.

am in the process of sorting out a call to M and S....;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

'vexatious litigation'

yes absolutely you need to also writeto mr turnbum personally and remind him that you shall make a case against him for 'vexatious litigation' this will put him in front of the judge with nowhere to turn no excuses and also effect his reliability to trade honestly it will also effect his registration with the law society and his credibility will be finnished completely in doing this i think alice turnbum will have to think seriously about going forward with possible forged documents this is an imprisonable offence there is no excuse for this but if it is the case he is ultimately responsible since he was made aware of this from the start,go for it mum and a very merry xmas to all and a really happy new year

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...