Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Russia’s economy has been cut off from the global financial system - but it is still growing. Why?View the full article
    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. 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 the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: 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. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has 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 said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. 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 Claimant 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 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. 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. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Need advice about an injury-at-work case that is going south


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1884 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

My partner is a carer. She has been sent to work for a lady who wasn't equipped with the correct device to keep her upright. She fell on my partner and my partner suffered a back injury leading to incontinence, pain and time off work.

 

We took the case with xxx LLP, who wrote a letter to the employer and got a response, offering 4000 pounds as final settlement.

xxx advised us to reject that offer, saying, over the phone, that we can always fall back on the 4000, but they believe we can get much more.

 

Since then, my partner has been to Royal Berkshire Hospital, where the doctor said he doesn't see any injury and any pain she might have is a result of earlier injury. Her incontinence might be an infection (totally rubbish).

 

Now it feels like the case might fall through, as the doctors do not want to confirm her injury and we see the 4000 pounds as a better-than-nothing solution.

However, when we WROTE to xxx, they said the offer is off the table and we can't fall back to those 4000 pounds.

 

1. She will be seeing a doctor from xxx privately to assess her but I reckon a judge might be more interested in an NHS doctor rather than a doctor from an interested party?

 

2. What can we do in regards to xxx making us think we could get at least 4000 pounds and now they are implying we can come out empty handed?

 

3. Any other advice regarding the situation in general will be appreciated

 

I will just add that the reason my partner was injured is that she grabbed the falling lady and saved her from rolling down the stairs.

And that my partner is truly injured. It took her 2 weeks to admit that she's incontinent because of the shame.

Edited by honeybee13
Name of law firm removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

what does your contract with xxx say? Are you able to withdraw from it and what happens if you do?

Edited by honeybee13
Law firm name removed

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok. So, currently no medical evidence

 

 

What training did she get?

 

 

What risk assessment was in place?

 

 

Did she get sick pay?

 

 

Is she back at work?

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner is a carer. She has been sent to work for a lady who wasn't equipped with the correct device to keep her upright. She fell on my partner and my partner suffered a back injury leading to incontinence, pain and time off work.

 

We took the case with xxx LLP, who wrote a letter to the employer and got a response, offering 4000 pounds as final settlement.

xxx advised us to reject that offer, saying, over the phone, that we can always fall back on the 4000, but they believe we can get much more.

 

Since then, my partner has been to Royal Berkshire Hospital, where the doctor said he doesn't see any injury and any pain she might have is a result of earlier injury. Her incontinence might be an infection (totally rubbish).

 

Now it feels like the case might fall through, as the doctors do not want to confirm her injury and we see the 4000 pounds as a better-than-nothing solution.

However, when we WROTE to xxx, they said the offer is off the table and we can't fall back to those 4000 pounds.

 

1. She will be seeing a doctor from xxx privately to assess her but I reckon a judge might be more interested in an NHS doctor rather than a doctor from an interested party?

 

2. What can we do in regards to xxx making us think we could get at least 4000 pounds and now they are implying we can come out empty handed?

 

3. Any other advice regarding the situation in general will be appreciated

 

I will just add that the reason my partner was injured is that she grabbed the falling lady and saved her from rolling down the stairs.

And that my partner is truly injured. It took her 2 weeks to admit that she's incontinent because of the shame.

 

 

1) The Court will place more weight on a medico-legal report from a medical expert instructed by your solicitor.

 

2) Was the off made by way of "Part 36"? As for the advice given, we'd need to see the advice you got from your solicitor.

 

3) Call your solicitor and ask them everything you've asked here. They're you're solicitors and I imagine you're paying them at least 25% of your settlement so use the qualified legal professionals you're paying for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. She's a senior carer with all the qualifications and certificates. She is trained to operate all moving and handling equipment

 

2. She has actually proactively assessed the risk and informed: the care company, occupation therapist, the head nurse and the family - in writing, that the woman is not equipped to walk on her own in the current setting. She has a written statement from other carers who said they will not work for that lady because she's at risk of collapsing any moment.

I believe there may be some form of agreement from the official people (OT, care company...) that the equipment is not suitable but I am not sure of this documentation.

 

3. She did not receive statutory sick pay. As a matter of fact, the care company were very quick to deduct 200 pounds for uniform, which we got back by threatening with ACAS

 

4. She is only able to do light work such as baby-sitting. And she does that 2 days per week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. She has actually proactively assessed the risk and informed: the care company, occupation therapist, the head nurse and the family - in writing, that the woman is not equipped to walk on her own in the current setting. She has a written statement from other carers who said they will not work for that lady because she's at risk of collapsing any moment.

I believe there may be some form of agreement from the official people (OT, care company...) that the equipment is not suitable but I am not sure of this documentation.

 

 

Your difficuty is that despite being fully trained, and having undertaken the risk assessment herself, she has then proceeded to do the work. This puts her on very shaky ground.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

 

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

 

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

 

 

It was a verbal promise, did you record it?

 

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. I hope our legal help can get this covered somehow.

 

Speaking of that legal help, any way to get some traction regarding their earlier verbal promise that we can get those 4000 guaranteed, or more?

 

I very much doubt it was a "promise."

 

Did you not get anything in writing from your solicitor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok maybe they didn't say "we promise" but, while my partner isn't seasoned in legal practice, I believe that she understood correctly some form of explicit verbal assurance that the "4000" offer is live, not off the table.

 

We got a lot in writing but not that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see a strong case; so I woud probably go along with the solicitor's doctor, and see if they can make a case. I wouldn't count on much coming from it, though.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was prob a offer to settle as cheaper than cost of defending or involving insurance.

They prob feel they are not at fault but was cheapest way out.

Now, after refusing offer, they have likely informed insurance company and insurance company will fight it now.

 

I would agree. They may come back at a later stage, but the offer could go up - or down. There is never any way of predicting this.

 

On the issue of the NHS doctor - all medical opinion would receive equal weight in a court, assuming it came from someone qualified to deliver it. But what you would not be able to do, if the solicitor now got their own medical advice, would be to hide the opinion of the NHS medical practitioners. That would always form part of the evidence; and, in fact, depending on circumstances, the opposing side may already have copies, as litigation requires disclosure of such things.

 

But on a very basic point, an offer is an offer. Not a guarantee. And the lawyers advice is advice - you make the decision. The chances of demonstrating that this is the fault of the lawyer is negligible- and that is assuming that you had evidence, and that it was ironclad. I'd lay bets that it wasn't the latter, as lawyers seldom speak in certainties. They'll have said something conditional in the conversation - you just won't have heard it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi again, there's some progress: The other doctor that the lawyers told her to visit actually agrees that the injury is significant for a claim.

The lawyers still said it's still not favourable, if we have a 50/50 distribution about this.

 

The lawyers have given us some advice that I find weird and I think only you could help me understand (lawyers did not elaborate for us).

Basically, they said that we should now make a "interim claim" of 1000 pounds from the insurer. This means we claim 1000 pounds now but reserve the right to claim more once we get more evidence.

 

My question is (I am trying to understand the motives of each party): why would an insurer agree to an interim claim? If the the insured party is in the right, then the insurer is not motivated to accept any claim. If the insurer feels the claim has a chance, they would look to settle.

But why would anyone agree to pay some money now, without settling the claim finally?

 

Perhaps paying an interim claim makes the insured party appear more favourably at the court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you just confirm if liability for the accident is admitted by the other side's insurer?

 

The interim payment request could for for a couple of reasons. Either the Claimant needs further medical investigations or examinations etc and the money is to tide them over for now.

 

Or it's a tactic from the solicitors to get more costs if the interim payment is contested or paid late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, the insurer admitted liability.

I will re-check with the solicitors about their costs. I am pretty sure we agreed on a fixed percentage (25%) of the total settlement.

 

 

No, I meant the costs they get from the other side. Not the costs from their client.

 

It's not an unusual course of action to be honest. Pretty standard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This should open the topic

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...