Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I will annotate the message I sent for the forum.  Sorry, didn't see this straight away...
    • I went back to the area, this photo is taken on entry. My vehicle was parked in the first space on the left.    Would you say there is sufficient signage ? It’s different to the street view as one sign is missing. The sign nearest to where I parked is 2.23m above ground! So even if the car had been reversed parked in front of it, I don’t think it could be seen. PCN PPM.pdf
    • Thank you. I expect that @dx100uk will be along soon to give advice. Meanwhile, I really wonder whether the default date – as being the starting point of the six years – something which has been decided in law. It has always seemed to me to be extremely unfair. According to the limitation act, the six year period begins from the date on which the cause of action accrued. This normally means that the breach of contract occurred. Section 6 of the limitation act says that in terms of loans, the cause of action begins on the date that the debt was "demanded". Over the past two years this has come to mean the date that the default notice was issued – but I have to say I don't find that very satisfactory. If you received demands for payment before then then I don't see why section 6 shouldn't refer to that date. Did you not receive any correspondence at all in 2017/2018? What was the value of the original loan – and how much you pay off? I see that there was some kind of instalment agreement. Tell us about that. See what my colleague @dx100uk says but anyway, if I were you I would send off an SAR immediately both to the claimant and also to the original creditor. It costs you nothing. There is no downside. Get in the post straightaway with some kind of utility bill establishing your identity. You can even include a copy of the claim form as well as proof of your identity
    • £749.69 court fee £70 legal fee £70 total £889.68 MyJar TM.pdf
    • Please read and complete the following posting your responses back here for further advice. Topic title amended.   .     .
  • 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

Me V Swift


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5488 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

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Have emailed the sols today to inform them of the court date and to ask when I will receive the combined bundle. In the last hearing the Judge ordered for the 2 bundles to be combined, and my info to be added to theirs. The court ordered the Judge must have at least half a day for reading the bundles.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi a quick update

 

Whilst I was away in beautiful Cornwall the Sols sent the bundle and a letter in response to my email, which is outlined below:

 

1. When will I receive the bundle?

2. Are you relying on the report mentioned in the witness statement?

3. Out of court settlement offer of £3K

 

The letter in response is as follows:

1. We trust you have now received the bundle

2. The witness statement stands, and they state there is no metion of a audit report in the statement (its actually called something else in there)

3. Client has offered a further £750 in full and final. My £3k has been refused. They will use the offer letter they have sent in court.

4. They are seeking £9k in costs

5. We have till 4pm Monday to accept or not.

 

I am unsure if there is a public gallery but will check the court tomorrow. Anyone is welcome to come and observe and hopefully gain an insight into the case and the outcome. If this is possible I will let you know.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys...just got their costs schedule.....£9900 plus they want a further £750 per hearing which we have had 2 inc tomorrows!! Have sent mine to them this afternoon, a good deal less than theirs lol

 

Will update thread as soon as i can tomorrow, thanks for your wishes xx

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bona.

It is the full hearing tomorrow...arghhhhhhhh!

 

My mortgage with them has been redeemed and I cannot see a mortgage indemnity clause in the contract, but thanks for the advice about getting them assessed, its much appreciated

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We go in at 10 and its a full day with a commercial judge QC. Feeling ok to this point. OH and me having a run through later on to practice it over. Not feeling overly confident but confident enough to see it through to the end.

I have one concern. They had to join bundles together so we all had just one. I have been through it to make sure its all there but would have felt better if it had remained as it was with each party having each bundle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go fo it Jackie, i would expect they will pay that out without too much of a hassle.

 

OK, story so far...another adjournment. This is for reasons I cannot go into at the minute. I am getting some advice before I say or do anything. Please do not think it is all going wrong, far from it in fact. The outcome of todays hearing has meant I will get a solid and fair hearing from the Judge, who was fantastic it has to be said.

 

I will update the thread as soon as I have checked whats happened today with my legal advisor.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK update ready

 

Went and was a prepared as i could be. Met the clerk of the Judge who was extrememly nice. Anyhow when his honour came in he was very straight forward. The defence has combined the bundles....which meant my skeleton argument was out of context.. and no page ref was accurate! Luckily I had noticed this before the hearing and had prepared a further argument and printed one for each party and his honour. He made no bones about telling both parties that litigation is not a game. He then turned his attention to me and asked why i thought the charges were a penalty. After starting the initial blurb he stopped me and said he had seen enough of "our old friends dunlop et al" and he had thoroughly read the case and felt these charges were not penalties. He said we had agreed to them and therefore they ewre not in terrorem. He said they had not been sent with a tarrif rather the contract had been signed with perfectly logical terms in them. HH asked me did i expect to pay reasonable charges for not paying my mortgage on time..yes i replied, that was exactly what i expected to pay, but these charges werre not reasonable i argued. Exactly HH said. HH then stated about the cost of this case, mentioning that if it was to continue it could run into thousands of pounds which did i realise i would have to pay if i lost. He then said that did the defence realise that if i won they would be footing their own costs. He went into great detail about this subject and Defence asked for it to be then placed into multi track where it belonged. HH then called a short adjournment for both sides to consider this. When he came back in both me and OH had decided to continue, al;ong the track of Defence breaching their own contract. There are a few reasons for this which has to remain confidential for a while (sorry). HH was relieved at this and we got the feeling he would have dismissed the claim on the basis of penalty charges. He said it was more the mortgage company had breached their own contract by charging unreasonable charges. He then turned to the Defence and asked where this analysis is. They told HH it was not relative to Swift Ad rather it was Swift 1st as it was sent to FSA when Swift 1st registered. I then said if i had been allowed inspection of this at the begginning this case may not have been here if it shows no profit is made. HH then mentioned the cost of some letters....and worked them out to be worth about £15 using 10% of an assistant solicitor (if that was the case). HH then asked the Defence to use best endevours to get this report to me, which they agreed, within 14 days. This report must remain confidential. If it is not HH said and i quote "there had best be a very good reason why not" The next 20 mins were spent organising the next date which is July.

Defence then asked the case to be transferred to multi track. I quoted relevant CPR and the facts from the previous hearing....to which HH then said it was to stay in fast track.

I have a few plans which must stay quiet for a few weeks, but as soon as i can let you know i will. I am extremely disapointed in the fact it was not concluded, however it could have been worse and been thrown out on the penalty basis. I have taken advice on this matter and it may have been a mistake for me to do this, but at the time i had no other option as I had to agree totally with the Judge. However mistake over, there is now a very good chance for this to go to a next step, which of course will be revealed in due course.

 

So top and bottom

 

1. Case now based on breach of contract on Defendants side

2. I will be claiming the difference between the cost charged and the actual reasonable cost for each single item

3. Its been adjourned for defence to send analysis, for me to read and digest then report my next step and for Defence to do a response to my next step.

4. The judge said it may be an idea for the next hearing not to actually happen, hinting at an out of court settlement for both sides.

 

I have to say it was an experience sitting in front of such a nice Judge, and really felt he was as helpful as he could have been....and extremely funny on top of his professionalism.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, was feeling a litle mad with self over the penalty charges part of the claim but now i have had time to sit and think i really believe this is the right way forward

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackie

 

The test of reseasonable is going to be done via the 2 parties stating what they think is a reasonable charge for the work completed for each activity, giving a reason and evidence if available (on my part). This will (on my part) take into account who has done the work, what their title was at the time, wages and the length of time working. A good example of this was given by the judge for both parties to use......if a letter is written from the solicitors it can be almost certainly assumed that it wont have been written by a solicitor. In fact it would have been completed, if at all, by an assistant solicitor. So a reasonable charge for a letter would be approx 10% of that persons hourly wage giving a figure of around £15.

 

So i am completing an analysis of what i feel is reasonable for a charge, after all there were breaches and we expect to pay a "reasonable" fee. It will be very interesting to see what reasons the Defence give for a charge of £100 for 1 letter!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Quick question...on all the charges i was then charged interest at the rate of 8.28%. Can I claim this as well as the statutory 8%?

 

My argument to this is by charging interest they have increased their profit or would this be dounle counting the interest??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jackie

 

Dont worry i totally understand what you are saying and I think I am just going to stick to the 8%.

It is a valid point that you raise about their borrowing rate against what they charge the borrower in respect. However there has been some interesting info given to me by another member, which must remain confidential for the time being. All will be revealed in time!!

If i can be of any use with your claims Jackie, please feel free to let me know, especially if it goes to court as I now have quite a lot of experience in this area lol

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi quick update

 

Jackie...only just seen this post. Hope it went well on the 28th and that the re-mortgage went through without any problems.

 

I am now waiting for Swift to write back to me with regards to the "reasonable" charges I sent them. Till then the court date is set for 5th July!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...