Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am trying to follow your advice in post 21 which suggests the kennels T&Cs are over ruled by the CRA As I understood it , even if the kennel felt they good reason to refuse the dog boarding, which would be a difficult point to argue , as I am unable to get the vet to confirm they said the dog “should “ be ok ,the most the kennel  would be entitled to would be reasonable admin expenses due to refusing to accept the dog . Then I read in you last post , which  to me seems a contradiction . Paragraph 3 suggests a Judge would favour the kennel and its stance ,then paragraph 4 says to deny a refund in unenforceable . Surely if to deny me a refund is unenforceable at common law , then a Judge would have to rule in my favour . So if I continue I need to be sure I am citing the correct sections of the CRA
    • To clear this up !This new ccj claim from cabot/Mortimer is  for  a bank i have no account with.And is obviously trying to make out my older debt is not statute barred.They think i will respond and start the six years all over again for a totally diferent debt. I have no debt with the bank they are claiming against me with. Do people not understand this?
    • The site has a drop down for different postal services, implying the exclusions are based on the service you use, yet when you select different services the exclusions appear to remain the same, and certainly in the case of Parcelforce do not tally with the cover included by Parcelforce.   My P2G account still shows the declaration I made.
    • Finally go  a little time to myself, so knocked the defence from your given examples. How does it look?   1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************    2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.   3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60 - The claimant claims the sum of £953.13   #####Defence######   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.   1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They have sent an alleged copy dated 28th Jan 2018 from my cpr31.14 request. this is the first time I have seen this letter.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)   4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.   5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.   6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim   7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.   If you think it's okay, I'll get it put in today.    Thank you for all your help on this. 
  • Our picks

Recommended Posts

Yes Fletch, the popular press are not the best source of accurate information, and they fuel, mobthink The Legal system is supposed to be above politics, but yet the two have become more entwined and there is not enough engagement from the readers of DE, Heil et al.


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 OTHER

 

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to be a constitutional lawyer at the moment - they faced being damed if they do and damned if they don't. I remember some very anti judges front pages not that long ago with personal details splashed across the DM's front pages - we all know being a woman/BME/gay means any opinions are invalid (no we don't but you know what I am getting at).

  • Like 1

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone imagine enough Mp's voting for a deal that splits the UK?

Johnson might claim that NI is still part of the UK that border down between us is just a mirage ..

- but I really can't see Parliament voting for that.

 

anyway, surely everyone sees that its just a ploy to 'get a deal' to go into transition and remove the option to revoke/referendum, then they can trash any deal and default out.

 

Its all smoke and mirrors.

Who remembers there being a deal before - then Rabb said 'NO that isn't what we agreed at all to his own deal - when it came down to legal text,

... after Dozy Davies walked out on his own negligence.

 

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read on the BBC that No10 insiders are saying that BJ will ask the other leaders to veto an extension - but it is generally agreed no deal will be bad for everyone not just the UK

 

Maybe something will be decided so I cam get on with work and not spend my time looking at the news 


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully a ditch will be a place of pilgrimage and historic national importance in the UK shortly ...

 

Off out with a shovel to pick a good spot and dig a trench by the side of the road about half way back from the local watering holes as an offering

 

... Pick a good spot where I might get caught short on the way back every Friday night


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

anyway, surely everyone sees that its just a ploy to 'get a deal' to go into transition and remove the option to revoke/referendum, then they can trash any deal and default out.

 

 

 

Don't forget ... the attorney general (Cox) who apparently advised 'misleading the Queen, Parliament and the British people as ' sounds good to me .. actually said they could ..

 

He doesn’t much like the idea of staying in the European customs union But said he would be willing to accept one if it would secure the goal of getting Britain out of the EU. 

 

BUT He followed with

“If we decided (meaningless distracting time suggestion) that we wanted to review our membership of any such customs union if we signed it – and I'm not saying we will – that's a matter for negotiation and discussion,”


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does this latest pronouncement from Juncker mean- is it more game playing or are we truly stuffed with my deal or no deal?


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know.

but I suspect its Mays deal with a UK/NI customs border in the sea and some mechanism where NI can back out of the EU alignment if there is a majority vote for it. aka no simple DUP veto/revoke.

 

.. which I believe the brexiters said was a no go when it was considered under May

including Mays 'no Britsh PM could consider it

 

Wonder of Johnson is going to claim 'its a deal' so I don't need to ask for an extension whether parliament votes for it or not?

 

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnsons' deal apparently also agrees to the money settlement and removes a lot of the future relationship endeavours (like rights and regs alignment)

 

 

Its unlikely to be Johnsons deal or no deal

 

The EU is extremely unlikely to refuse an extension to hold a confirmatory referendum, or a general election. It seems it will resist any woolly extensions just dragging out the bull.

 

I think they are quite clearly saying 'we've had enough - sort yourself out or just P* off

 

Despite what the Brexit Bullpooers say

The EU is democratic and will always allow the people a say

The EU is NOT desperate to keep us in

The EU does not NEED us

 

 

I hear that a second referendum vote might have been on the cards - apart from Corbyns resistance

 

 

 

Wheres that picture of May and Corbyn - needs to be Corbyn propping up Johnson now.

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just outline how the EU is democratic so we all are happy TJ


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 OTHER

 

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The council of ministers is made up of democratically elected ministers from the member states.

The European Parliament is made up of  democratically elected representatives of each member state and are proportional to that state's size.

 

These are the people who make, pass and agree any legislation so yes it is democratic 

https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/decision-making/procedures_en

 

In fact the EU is probably more democratic than our outdated FPTP system 

 

 

  • Like 2

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very clear and concise fletch. Impressive.

 

 

No outdated Henry VIII powers to abuse either ..

 

What are Henry VIII powers?

‘Henry VIII powers’ allow the (UK) government to change an act of parliament, or even to repeal it, after it has been passed and without the need to go through parliament a second time.

 

The clauses take their name from the 1539 Statute of Proclamations, which allowed Henry VIII to rule by royal proclamation, ie by decree.

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waste of a link - no preview to attract attention

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and why from the horses mouth

 

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with Johnsons' 'deal:

* Actually imposing the worst case scenario extreme end backstop .. of Mays 'only in the case of all else failing backstop'

(you know - the bit Johnson and the ERG absolutely and utterly declared as Vassalage, the break up of the union, unthinkable, an abomination etc etc)

 

* Agreeing to pay the EU the settlement

(So much for giving up negotiating tools/weapons as claimed by Johnson and the ERG)

 

* Removing even the 'aspirations of a level playing field with EU rights and regs from even the none-binding political declaration

(The Bonfire of workers, food and environmental right and regulations)

 

 

1. How is this in any way a better deal than Mays

2. How can anyone who voted against Mays deal vote for this

3 How can any MP who gives a damn about their voters rights, health and well-being vote for this.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shame the scrutiny on Brexit Deal Vote today in the Commons was not set up for the UK people to see when the referendum was announced by Mr Cameron.

 

All what we've seen in the last few weeks could have been aired three years ago, and now left to last minute tactics.

Edited by determindator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they all forget, is that the Withdrawal Agreement is just that, it puts in place how we interact during the transition whilst the FTA or whatever is negotiated,  that in theory is until December 2020, its the start of a process not the endpoint.  There is still danger of No Deal if they chuck this one out Benn Act notwithstanding.


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 OTHER

 

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is ALWAYS the danger of a no deal

especially given Johnson being quite happy to prorogue lie and cheat to cause a default

 

.. and that also spreads into any transition (or not) where Johnson and the ERG would do their utmost to foil any agreement with the EU

 

.. as any real agreement with the EU would prevent the rights and regs bonfire they want and need to get their American corporate pals profiting from the UKs planned deregulation.

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we should actually never forget is that the referendum result (in simple agreement/contract terms) was void within a few hours of the result ..

 

.. When the leave campaign started back-peddling/denying/reneging on pretty much all their campaign pledges and promises.

.. which has continued over the three years with pretty much all the pledges completely and utterly broken.

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the same people who are saying MPs don't need to see the economic impact assessments or the full text of what's proposed before voting on the deal?

 

'I'm Boris, just trust me.'

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather trust the No 10 cat than Boris.


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 OTHER

 

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Benn has said that the Withdrawal Bill allows for a no deal Brexit at the end of next year.

 

 


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Deal is always there lurking in the background.  Any Withdrawal Agreement is only the guidelines for the Transition Period ending on 31st December 2020 whilst negotiations for the final deal take place during that period. Unless an extension is requested by June 2020, the period cannot be extended, so |No Deal is still in the mix.  As a Final Agreement could take years, the timespan is too short. EEA/EFTA best way if we are leaving.


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 OTHER

 

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only because they for some reason they left the date of the transitional period as December 2020, which is complete nonsense.  It will take longer than that to agree a deal with the EU as well as all the other nations that have a direct relationship with the EU.

 

I don't understand why he's crying about the possibility of a no deal, but not highlighting the fact part of the withdrawal agreement is complete BS, and nonsensical.  But maybe I'm being naive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...