-
-
Tweets
-
-
Posts
-
By sparkeyrjp · Posted
I Know I will get flamed for this , but for once time only I am with MET . The so called “graffiti” is there to help people , Parent and child bays , Disabled bays , and electric charge point bays are all there for a reason , just suppose you had an electric car and it was in need of charging ,had children in the car and need extra space to get them out ,had a disabled passenger who needs extra space . how would you feel if the bay was obstructed . I have no doubt the experts here will guide you to having the parking charge cancelled . But morally ……….. -
By BankFodder · Posted
I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that. -
I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's 3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2. -
Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one 1) the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2) The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3) The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4) Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year, being £xxxx c)Costs Defence: The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all. 5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © 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; 6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request. 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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. 9. 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.
-
i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
-
-
Our picks
-
Be a kid this Chistmas
BankFodder posted a topic in Bear Garden,
Be a kid this Chistmas. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419309-be-a-kid-this-chistmas/-
- 1 reply
-
-
Caledonian Moving and Storage - Disappearance of Belongings @CaledonianMove
StormWarning posted a topic in General Consumer Issues,
Caledonian Moving and Storage - Disappearance of Belongings. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/418604-caledonian-moving-and-storage-theft-of-belongings/-
- 11 replies
-
-
Mobile users can now switch providers with one simple text
Andyorch posted a topic in Telecoms - mobile or fixed,
Mobile users can now switch providers with one simple text. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417284-mobile-users-can-now-switch-providers-with-one-simple-text/-
- 4 replies
Picked By
Andyorch, -
-
@curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK refused to honour purchase
Irt8787 posted a topic in Currys/Dixons,
Currys refused to honour purchase. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417157-currys-refused-to-honour-purchase/-
- 103 replies
-
-
Cabot/Hassall CCJ - Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Sainsbury card - chasing payment i stopped
By
SpeedyCBR1100, in General Debt Issues
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
