Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Appreciate your response BankFodder. I am aware that the Consumer Rights Act does not apply in my case as I operate a business and, instead, should rely on the Supply of Goods and Services Act and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I was a little unsure as, when I read the judgement of Hashim Farooq v EVRi Parcelnet, July 2023 I presumed that,  as Farooq had supplied laptops through Amazon,  the Consumer Rights Act would not apply but the judge refers to it in Section 22 as to why the claimant should be given judgment. Have I read this correctly? The reason for not offering full reimbursement was because I did not take out insurance for the full value.  In regards to correspondence from my customer,  I have emails from her in my timeline stating that she was waiting all week and that no one attempted delivery.  I have no doubt that she will be willing to corroborate the events with a written statement.
    • When you post information here you will have to post it in single file multipage PDF format. Follow the upload link. However, it would be more helpful if you could simply answer the questions that we have put to you and we can deal with paperwork afterwards if we think we need it.  
    • I was trying to post all the paperwork that I have, namely facebook ad, messages between the seller and my son etc . But I'm getting the message that the files are to large. 
    • First of all please can you tell us the name of the seller, something about the van – age/year, mileage, price paid. How far away is the seller from where your son lives? Who do you take it to for this inspection? Are they prepared to give you a written list of the things that they found? This is very important and you may well have to get an independent inspection from somebody such as the AA. This will cost you some kind of feedback we expect that we will be able to help you get it back. I would say that if you have to bring a court claim – which is likely – then your chances of success are better than 95% but the difficulty might be enforcing the judgement against the seller. We will have to no more in order to give you better advice. Does it have an MOT? What is the date of it and who gave it the MOT? I suggest that you start taking pictures of all of the defects that you can find.   Also I am going to say that I believe that you came over from Facebook where you were already informed that we would need at least all of the information which I have requested above. It will save a lot of time and effort for everybody if you can simply come up with the things that we ask without too much delay
    • My autistic son brought a van from a private seller. ( there was 5 other cars on his drive and another van, plus loads of machanic tools in his hallway,  so he probably is a unofficial dealer).  He gave the van a once over, he checked for any warning lights that might be on, there was none. He checked underneath for any rust etc, it all looked fine. The body was rough, but you'd expect that for the age of the van.  He got his brothers machanic to give it a pre mot check, as the van was old so he expected it to have a few problems. The van is a deathtrap, the seller had blacked out all the warning lights that were on the dash,  and I mean all.  He had also painted some kind of black stuff on the underside, to hide all the damage there.   My son drove it for over 2 hours to get it home. The machanic said he's surprised my son is still alive, and an untrained eye would not of seen what the seller had done.  Iv asked the seller for a refund and for him to have the van back, but he is refusing. Is there anything we can do.   
  • 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

Jade-Simone vs Abbey


Jade-Simone
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6083 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

Hi,

 

I've had a look at GaryH's template and have printed every thing in preparation. I am going for the P18 option (request and notice to admit facts) before applying for a strike out but I'm not sure whether I wait until I hear from the court regarding Abbey's stay application or whether I send my request before I hear from them? Can I just post this to the court? Also is there a specifc form for P18 or is the printed version ok? I've prived everything as from GaryH's template.

 

Until reading GaryH's posts, I was not aware that Abbey had changed their t&c's. The whole thing is just laughable!

 

regards

-JS-

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

 

I received a fast track allocation today with the following:

Upon considering the papers filed herein

Upon it appearing to the Court that:

(a) a test case has been issued in the High Court between the Office of Fair Trading and certain banks under the title Office of Fair Trading -v- Abbey National PLC and Others (Claim No 2007 Folio 1186) ('the test case'), with a view to determining issues of legal principle in relation to the recovery of charges made on bank current accounts and the applicability of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and other legislation to such charges

(b) further information in relation to the test case is likely to be available through the website of the Office of Fair Trading at:

The Office of Fair Trading: making markets work well for consumers

© the issues raised in the test case will affect this claim.

ORDERED that

1. This claim be allocated to the fast track and is stayed until further order with a view to awaiting the final decision in the test case (which shall be interpreted as the outcome of any appeal or the expiry of time for permission to appeal the first instance decision).

2. The Defendant shall within 28 days of the final decision in the test case file at Court and serve on the Claimant:

(a) a case summary of not more than 500 words setting out the effect of that decision;

(b) their proposed directions in this claim.

3. Upon receipt of the documents set out at paragraph 2 of this Order the file be referred to a resident District Judge to consider further directions.

4. Either party may apply at any time, by application on notice in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 23, to lift the stay.

5. Any party affected by this order may apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed provided that any such application is made to the Court in writing no more than seven days after the date on which this order was served on that party.

Now that I have received this do I still send the P18 option (request and notice to admit facts) to Abbey and or the court before applying for a strike out? Or will it be wise to wait until the Oft test case?

thanks

-JS-

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI JS

 

You can apply for the stay to be lifted.

 

Dont know if your on benefits but if you are then these cases are not normally stayed if you can persuade the court that to stay claim would put even more financial difficulty your way.

 

Regards :)

30-12-2006--Requested statements from Local Halifax.

02-02-2007--Statements Recieved.

18-04-2007--Prelim sent.

20-04-2007--Reply , Thanks , give us 8wks letter.

02-0502007--Sent L.B.A. & Schedule of Charges

11-05-2007--Recieved reply ,still investigating.

17-05-2007--Sent Amended L.B.A. for Contractual Interest this time.

14-06-2007--Received standard Bog Off letter.

13-06-2007--Took N1 to Local Courts.

26-06-2007--Copy of N1 from Court, issued 21-06-2007. to Halifax, Deemed Served 25-06-2007

Have till 09-07-2007 to file Defence.

05-07-2007--Note that Acknowledgment of Service been Filed on 29-06-2007.

Have 28 days from date of Service to File Defence.

07-07-2007--Offer from Halifax.

09-07-2007--Rejection letter sent to Halifax. Next day delivery.

10-07-2007--Money put in Account:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can do it as soon as you like, I dont think that i would leave it too long though and be warned, possibly the only chance of it being successful is if you can show financial hardship by the case not continuing.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...