Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I received the first signs of life from Shell Energy's "legal counsel" regarding the 1st claim and default judgement awarded against them.   I have attached a redacted copy of the letter where they indicate they look forward to receiveing a letter of confirmation.   I am confident I know why they have sent this request and more importantly how they intend to use any response.   I have prepared two options.   1. Ignore their letter (This is probably the best option).   2. Reply succinctly.     Shell Energy - Warrant of Control Response - Redacted.pdf
    • I found an old defence I used and tweaked a bit. Unfortunately I think I messed up in not asking for a statement in my cpr, while it wasnt referred to in the poc it does have the amount. There were no paragraphs and it looks like it was done on a phone or even an excel import??. I dont know if not requesting the cpr means I cant ask for proof of how they got the amount?   Is that enough about the lack of account details?, I mean my cabot ref is at the top of the page but 100% no aqua account number on here. That would surely come under having to prove    Please feel free to tweak etc. Wasnt sure how to word the s78 stuff as I didnt want to lie with it being not in default till weds.     Photo of poc is shown above to show how lacking it is in format in particular        Defence:   1.     The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. 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.   2.     It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with New Day LTD RE Aqua. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant.   3.     No account details are given in the particulars of claim linking the claim to the defendant.   4.     It is denied or I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or New Day LTD RE Aqua.   5.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14, and will shortly be in default of my section 78 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; (b) show and evidence the breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974 on which the Termination referred to relies upon. (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the 17th of November I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfill my CPR 31:14 request.   7. On the 16th of November I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of of 06/12/21 failed to comply.   8. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • Hi Dixon,   If you don't mind, I'm ignoring the CCJ for the moment.   I'm more interested in what you last said to the police about their failure to investigate the fraud against you commited by FTR Ltd and O'Hara.   If you don't want to post it on-thread, send it to me by PM.
    • ok not to put too finer point on the 'silly' mistake ( as in terms of you are a 'litigant in person' - joe public against the 'system') you made on your claim, there are guides on the same website about raising a claim and how to do it properly, but IMHO there should also be LiP leeway regarding this.   did you seek or read any help, as getting the correct entity to sue is quite important, the example you relate too would not be an issue, but suing a corporate entity is, they have lots of money and clever legal eagles.   i have no doubt that, by whatever way, should you rectify this error , you would be successful mind.   on another issue, have you written to apple uk retail offering to mutually settle this if they pay the price of the device or replace it and call it quits?   i will guess this is all you really wanted at the start and now at the end of the day.?   would you seriously lose out money wise if this were agreed?        
    • Parag Agrawal, Twitter's new CEO, is the latest of several Indian-Americans leading global tech firms.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

New Labour member’s legal challenge against NEC decision?


Biff1666
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1964 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 am sure plenty of members are aware of Labours National Executive Committees (NEC)decision

to bar all members who joined in the last 6 months (100,000 people approximately) from voting in the new leadership race?

That is unless you pay a £25.00 membership fee within the next two days?

 

The questions I would like to pose are,

 

a)Is it illegal to, retrospectively, change the constitution/rules to deny the’ new’ labour party members a chance to vote?

 

b) How much would it cost to mount a legal challenge against their decision?

 

c) Would the new Labour party members be willing to pay an extra couple of quid to finance the challenge ?( here is my £2)

 

d) Would anyone from CAG be able to assist in setting up a secure holding account etc etc if required?

 

Now whether it’s Mark Twain,

 

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.”

 

Or Ken Livingston’s twist on it (I think?)

 

“If voting made any difference they would ban it.”

 

Both quotes and the labour parties NEC decision give me grave concern in this world of “open and transparent democracy”.

 

Regards

Biff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the appropriate forum.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know a political party can change their rules in line with their constituition. The NEC would have gone through this legally, referring it to senior Lawyers. One thing Labour is not short of, is Lawyers who are willing to share their opinions.

 

As the new leadership contest has not officially started, the new rules can be applied to it, once it is triggered. A Judge is unlikely to want to look into whether a political party can change their rules.

 

The costs of a judicial review are quite high ( don't know but read it is about £100k min ) and i believe if you lose, the other side i.e the Labour party in this case, can claim their costs against the parties seeking the review.

 

I doubt that CAG would get involved in any political issue, unless it was focused on Consumer rights.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Cheers for input.

 

As a "consumer", I paid my subscrciption to a join an organisation with voting rights. After I joined, my voting rights were taken away from me unless I pay an increase in my subs to £25.00?

 

a)Did I enter into a contract and is there a breach of that contract? and,

b)What are my rights/options?

 

Regards

Biff

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not a consumer. You belong to a political party which has a constituition which is managed by the NEC. They can change the rules when they like, providing they follow their own constutuition rules. E.g they might have rules regarding whether they can change voting rights through a vote of the NEC or whether they need a vote of the whole membership.

 

As you might know the NEC decision by 18 votes to 14 to allow Corbyn on the ballot without 51 MP/MEP support, is going to be subject to a legal challenge. The challenge is to make Corbyn subject to the same rules as any others who seek to lead the party.

 

If you are unhappy about what is happening, then register a complaint with the Labour party chairman and if it relates to voting rights, then Labour might be subject to Electoral Commission rules. Quite often parties accept to bound by rules of how they should operate, so they meet democratic standards.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers and I already have registered a complaint!

 

I joined the Labour Party because I was invited, by two senior figures, a Mr Corbyn and by a Miss Eagle, who told me that "if I joined, I would have a vote in the leadership election"?

 

Regards

 

Biff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Labour party will split into two separate parties. Old Labour with Corbyn types and a new party who might join with the Lib Dems. I can't see how any left of centre party can compete with the Tories, because the Tories will raise about 4 times the amount of money to spend in elections and the constituences will be changed at a 2020 election with possibly 600 seats instead of the current 650.

 

While i like some of the economic ideas of McDonnell, he would never stand any chance given that the media hate him. And there are loads of pictures showing Corbyn and McDonnell meeting various dodgy people, that will be used by the media in a run up to an election, that would cause an election disaster for Labour. The Tories would win a landslide. For any left of centre party to stand a chance, they need a leader who appeals to most voters anywhere in the UK and a set of policies for the whole country. They need to get to this position way before any election, as they need to raise the election funds to compete with the Tories.

 

If the Labour parties NEC wants to change the rules, if the constituition allows this, then there is nothing stopping them. If you don't like the way the party is behaving, then campaign within the party or leave it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. I'm back here after 10 years, since CAG helped me reclaim my bank charges. Hope all is well :smile:

 

I'm wondering if anyone can help me with some advice. I recently joined the a well known political Party.:smile: I opted to pay by direct debit and at that time I was told my membership would mean I could vote in the forthcoming leadership elections. This was a fundamental reason for my joining.

 

Since joining the terms of my membership have been changed meaning I am now not allowed to vote without paying a further £25.

 

I am wondering what legal ramifications are of changing the terms of my membership without more than a few days notice.

 

I have paid the £25 as this is very important to me, but I want to go about reclaiming it as soon as possible!

 

Any help or advice gratefully recieved

 

Saj x

Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have thread running on this saj....I will merge your thread into the above so its more a collective thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that a political party can get into this mess. If they can't effectively run their own organisation, then they are nowhere near ready to be voted into government.

 

If the Trade Unions back Corbyn, they are signing up to Labour being out of power for at least 10 years and the Tories will legislate restricting rights of Trade Unions and workers. Why would the Trade Unions vote against the interests of their own members ? Does not make any sense to me.

 

As for issues about membership and having to pay £25, that is up to you to ask Labour for thier legal justification for this. I suspect that within their rules they can charge for various to cover their costs.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

Organisations like political parties are run according to their constitution. When you become a member of an organisation, you sign up to that constitution. The same principle applies whether we are talking about a political party or your local wine tasting club.

 

Any organisation can set rules about who is eligible to vote for the leader of that organisation in its constitution. When you joined the Labour party, I think you will be seen to agree to the constitution of the Labour party which is freely available online. Assuming that the Labour party's constitution does give the NEC the power to impose this restriction, I don't think you can complain.

 

Personally I think it is reasonable to write a rule which says you must be a member for a certain period before you are entitled to vote in elections. I don't think its fair that long-term members who have been dedicated to their party for years can get drowned out by people simply joining to vote in one election and then leave again. Lots of private societies have a similar rule.

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

Personally I think it is reasonable to write a rule which says you must be a member for a certain period before you are entitled to vote in elections.

I agree 100%. I don't agree with making it retrospective. Quite right to bring it in but 100% wrong to back date it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...