Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK - thank you. I understand the concept of LIP, and the need to keep my claim as simple and straightforward as possible. The legal arguments presented in what I called my skeleton statement were already in the original template I downloaded from this site. In that document I opened with "I am not proposing to set out the sequence of events." Might it be worthwhile for me to include a very brief timeline at that point, which would perhaps then allow it to become my witness statement? Or do you consider two separate documents are required? 
    • BF do you know where the instruction for skeleton has come from? Its just WX + docs. Do you think a skeleton is needed if the only issue in dispute is the legality of the exclusion terms. it seems excessive as well as wx no?   ah yes good point with LIP wx format i didnt think about the LIP judge softhand 
    • And incidentally, the really important part of this is that when you go to court, you are totally thorough and fluent not only with the facts – but with the effect of the legal points you are arguing. The facts are broadly not in dispute but the legal effect for instance of either having insurance or not having insurance. Of requiring insurance – these are the things you need to understand fully. Preparing your court bundle and eventually refining it bit by bit is terrific revision for you and will put you in control but also understanding its content fully and being fluent with its pages in the position of every point you are making is also essential.
    • Skeleton argument/witness statement – it's just a matter of terminology and we don't need to make an issue of it. Actually the three-page document that you have posted first of all and which you have called skeleton argument – is a witness statement which would be attached to the bundle which would be part of your indexed court bundle. I haven't looked at it in detail get or how it supports your claim or how it addresses any of the points made in the defence. I'll have to do that in the next two or three days. But for the moment, it looks fine. You have posted a second document which you are describing as an anonymized witness statement and as far as I can see, I agree with Cagger @jk2054 that much of your circle witness statement is a bit of a waffle and contains irrelevant information that you haven't remedied it in your final version which you say is chopped up. Also, you have received a suggestion of a template from Cagger @jk2054 and although this is going to be confusing for you, I don't think you should bother to use it. It is far too formal. You are a litigant in person and you need the flexibility of fully informing but informal documents which is what we are providing you with. We are suggesting models which we have been using over many cases and they all succeed in some them have been, complemented by the judge for the effectiveness and their clarity. You are litigant in person and one of the things you need to do is you need to have the judge on your side and helping you if necessary and this means that you don't want to start acting or talking or writing as if you are some kind of lawyer – you aren't. Being a litigant personage a certain sort of leverage and you should exploit that. The templates that we are suggesting to you are still not the templates that a completely un-advised person would use but they are still thorough. Stick to them. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the site team here and avoid confusion by switching horses. So for the moment I would suggest that you stick to your original skeleton argument – which follows the format that we have been using on this forum. We do like to see the fully prepared bundle please. I think there should be a next step. Have you got hearing date? Have you got a date for filing your bundle? In fact I have just looked back and I see that your filing date is 8 July. That's fine
    • First of all – as has already been pointed out to you, this is not a defect in the usual way that we understand and so that means that you don't need to rely on your 30 day and six months rights to reject. You can get MOT test done and it turns out to be an MOT failure for any reason then you have the added weight that they have is sold you an unroadworthy vehicle. Who did the existing MOT? I have a sense that it was big motoring world themselves in which case this would give you even greater leverage that if you have an MOT fail and it seems fairly clear that the reason for the failure is something which existed for some time that that would also cast doubt over the MOT provided by big motoring world and this would be even more serious. In any event, the vehicle is not as described and I think that this is an immediate ground for cancelling the policy and even better than that I think it would be a good ground for resisting any deduction made for mileage used – although we will have to deal with as it comes. I have read on Facebook that big motoring world tend to insist on quite a big deduction per mile and I have a sense that they do this because they know they can get away with it because they know their customers are really just happy to get rid of the vehicle any cost. You have told us you've got to a position where they seem to have agreed that you have now drawn a blank and they are being obstructive. Maybe you can lay out a bullet point chronology of exactly what has happened so far – point by point. I don't think you've told us how much you pay for the vehicle and also we want to know a list of the other expenses to which you been put including insurance et cetera and if you cancel the insurance how much you are likely to lose. How long is it not been driven? Why is it not been driven by your son? Didn't you planned for the more expensive insurance premium before you bought it? I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you bought it and then was surprised at how expensive it was and are now finding a reason to return it. Please be completely level with us and tell us if this forms part of your reason for wanting to return it. We need to know everything – straight dealing – so we can help you in the best way possible. Otherwise we will have surprises sprung on us and we will all be embarrassed and you may lose. In fact I see that we don't know anything about the current all – make, model, mileage, or price paid which have already asked you about. Any reason that we don't have these very basic and obvious details without having to ask for them? You refer to the two new runflat tyres – why? Are these new ones which came with the car or these new ones which you had to buy and if so why did you have to buy them and how much they cost. It will be nice not to have to cross-examine your every detail. It will save a lot of time. Please have a look at this post carefully, discern the questions and address each one please.
  • 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

Correct use of "Implied Right of Access"?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3010 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 All,

 

First thing, is this notice now legal or does it need more work?

 

READ THIS NOTICE

Removal of ‘Implied Right of Access’ Notice:

Except: Family, Friends, Postal Services, Delivery Services and the Emergency Services - (limited to the time needed to deal with the reported emergency), a Bailiff with a valid Court Order Signed by a Judge including full printed name of Said Judge. (Note: A Bailiff has NO legal right to force access (nor is it implied by this notice) to a residential property, only by “Peaceful” enter by invite only)).

Any other person(s) and/or any companies not on the exceptions list above will be liable to Prosecution for Trespassing - definition: [Entering onto land without consent of the landowner/homeowner or Tenant] and be fined £1000.

Access MUST have been granted by prior appointment ONLY by the landowner/homeowner or Tenant of the Property.

Note: CCTV is in use on this PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Thank you.

 

Second, if you have this notice up can this be used as a defence against the "amended in 2014" Dangerous Dogs Act", which states "Except Trespasses", meaning your Dog will not be taken away as the "Implied Right of Access" Notice (excluding people named on the Exceptions) are now trespasses.

 

Thanks for any input and help.

 

Paul Barnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its fine for people who do not have a right in law to attend, unfortunately Enforcements Agents do, under section 14 of schedule 12 of the tribunals courts and enforcment act. so it will not be of any use there they will just ignore it.

 

It was rumored to be effective before the change in the law but even then there is case law which shows it was not effective.

 

What it will do is give the EA the impression that you are a debt dodger, which is not advisable, but that bit is just my opinion.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this Better:

 

Removal of ‘Implied Right of Access’ Notice:

Except: Family, Friends, Postal Services, Delivery Services and the Emergency Services - (limited to the time needed to deal with the reported emergency), Enforcements agents operating under section 14 of schedule 12 of the tribunals courts and enforcement act (Note: A Enforcement agent has NO legal right to force access (nor is it implied by this notice) to a residential property, only by “Peaceful” entry by invite only)).

Any other person(s) and/or any companies not on the exceptions list above will be liable to Prosecution for Trespassing - definition: [Entering onto land without consent of the landowner/homeowner or Tenant] and be fined £1000.

Access MUST have been granted by prior appointment ONLY by the landowner/homeowner or Tenant of the Property.

Note: CCTV is in use on this PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Thank you.

 

--

 

Thanks for the input of the first part of my questions, I will point out that I have no debts at all, this post is merely for my own personal continuation of educating myself.

 

Paul Barnes

Edited by Paul Barnes
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry misread you post I will have another look

 

Incidentally there is a very good article about this by Paul Caddy it is not yet available on line i believe, perhaps we can get permission to post it.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would leave the stuff about bailiffs out altogether if you do not need it.

 

Just a simple withdrawal notice .stating that all callers depending an an implied rights to enter this property hereby have that right withdrawn as per the appropriate common law.

 

edit YOu could add a list saying this applies to cold callers debt collectors etc.etc. and put at the end, this list is not exclusive, if there is any doubt please call for authorisation. Something like that.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for reply.

 

Any thoughts on this part?

 

Second, if you have this notice up can this be used as a defence against the "amended in 2014" Dangerous Dogs Act", which states "Except Trespasses", meaning your Dog will not be taken away as the "Implied Right of Access" Notice (excluding people named on the Exceptions) are now trespasses.

 

Paul Barnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I m sorry but I am not familiar with this act, Is there anything within it that states that any particular person may enter a premisses ? If so then this would not be an implied right and therefore cannot be withdrawn

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

paul

not sure of your reference, do you mean re (no) permission. has it been decided in court. but not really at first. anyone on notice will have to have the chance to leave the property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

paul why do you need it please

its pretty mickey mouse freemen of the land rubbish

 

 

who do you think is coming to your door?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can forget the bit about prosecution, only the state can prosecute someone. You can't for a civil wrong.

 

As above, typical FOTL rubbish.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Implied Right of Access is a law within Common law, which is the main law that governs our land (England), so can not be in any way rubbish. Law is law....

 

Note, I am here to further educate myself by asking people that I believe have the correct knowledge of this field, I also agree that many sites misrepresent common law (bailiffs for example and IRoA), causing a great deal of problems for people that are just wanting the correct answers, but listen to the wrong people.

 

I just want clarification from people that are in the know, of the laws, acts I was enquiring about, also after reading posts in this forum I personally respect the opinions of most people with in this community, which is the reason for posting here and not other forums.

 

Paul Barnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paul.

 

Might I ask where you found this notice and why you think you need it please?

 

HB

 

Hi,

 

This notice is located on many sites that talk about common law in different forms, however the one I posted was sent directly from corresponds with a Solicitor in Nov 2015, although the more I look at the wording, I tented to find "implied licence" is more appropriate for trespass point of view (again I'm learning all the time so maybe completely wrong). I also agree that this is a civil matter and would need to be dealt with in civil court (trespass).

 

The reasons for all this is to stop, 7+ per day cold callers (over years) and to protect my Dogs from the barbaric changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act (amendments 2014). Again don't get me wrong, I respect the right of postals services, delivery services and the police etc entering my land without fear of being attacked by my dogs (2 German Shepard's). But as the DDA now stands anyone walking passed that fears for their safety (even though the Dogs are not being aggressive) can use the DDA again me and have my Dogs removed / destroyed. My Dogs are chipped, chained and secured but this means nothing to the DDA now.

 

Hope that helps clarify my reason for these enquires / postings.

 

Paul Barnes

Link to post
Share on other sites

well as long as you've no dog warning notices showing

you are quite safe from the dda.

 

 

if you put up 'warnings' of any kind

it actually works the otherway around.

 

 

as you have already acknowledged there is a potential problem should people enter your land.

 

 

best idea is to do nothing.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

 

We are not having a go here at you and we respect that you have turned to us for advice and experience.

 

However, the deal is quite a raw one with these notices. Quite simply they dont work.

I want to hear the full story before we continue to advise and there is a good reason for this.

 

We need to see if we can help you in a different way. As for the dangerous dogs act, are you threatening to have a dog taken away?

My understanding of this is that only a court can order it and it would need to be done by a specialist. Police would need to get involved and all sorts.

 

At that point, Police, Judges and appointed specialists then have full rights to attend the property and collect said dangerous dog / s.

The notice is FOTL stuff which is frowned on here, and with good reason. I recently saw 2 people who attempted to use a Strawman argument in court to avoid paying council tax that was in arrears.

The hearing lasted 5 minutes and a liability order was set out for the full amount. The users even attempted to use these notices for the bailiffs and they just laughed at him.

 

Why do you want to use these notices so much? Let me understand so we can help you. Remember - CAG is for anonymous advice. We can change your UN if you are worried about people recognising who you are (On an opinion based piece of advice, quite clearly, your username states who you are)

Link to post
Share on other sites

But as the DDA now stands anyone walking passed that fears for their safety (even though the Dogs are not being aggressive)

can use the DDA again me and have my Dogs removed / destroyed

Rubbish. Although a dog does not have to bite to be deemed aggressive or dangerously out of control

there does have to be a real and reasonable fear of being attacked.

 

 

I have a vocal and boisterous GSD who is capable of frightening the bejesus out of most people.

Callers may well feel quite anxious at the sound of him barking from behind a closed door or gate

but this doesn't translate into any sort of reasonable fear of imminent attack under the act.

 

well as long as you've no dog warning notices showing

you are quite safe from the dda

I've been advised otherwise and have a notice on the back gate saying 'dogs running loose, please use front door'.

The dog isn't always outside but if he were and a stranger entered they could claim a real fear of being attacked.

That's where the act can be unfair on the dog but that notice should cover.

 

 

Any notice which gives the impression of an aggressive dog ain't smart so 'beware of..'

or 'my dog can make it to the gate in 3 seconds, can you?'

would invite trouble.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Implied Right of Access is a law within Common law, which is the main law that governs our land (England), so can not be in any way rubbish. Law is law....

 

Paul Barnes

 

Just thought I would comment on this. Whilst it is true that common law is the ancient system of law, it is incorrect to say that it is the main lawn law and it has superior standing to parliamentary law(statute).

 

Statute can overwrite common law and does so frequently.

This is a mistake that many forums which support the FoTL make when they present the common law arguments.

 

Despite what some may say, legislative law is far more prevalent in this country than common law due to the latter being codified or overwritten over the years.

 

Parliamentary supremacy is not so called lightly.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something about the bills being a legal fiction because they are addressed to their straw man persona or did not contract for it, although it may be the other way around, never understood it .

Funny how they do not acknowledge the law but are quite happy to use it when they need it.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...