Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Barclays PPI reclaiming as executor of Will - Issued Claimform - Defendants application for Summary Judgment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1466 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

I dont think you should...continue with the current..the amount can always be adjusted.

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 - 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

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

hi! I'm back again.

 

I've had a court phone meditation and the bank was only interested in me dropping my claim

no issue to resolve

not even a reasonable goodwill gesture.

 

They said if I don't drop my claim it would cost me a lot of money.

I told the mediation officer

" I'm claiming for 4 PPI policies not 1 policy that they seem to think I'm claiming". 

 

the bank is playing dumb and don't seem to be acknowledging  the other 3.

 

When I filed a MCOL claim I only gave very brief detail and quoted a ref number A7480588

 

this was a mortgage claim number but was also used to bring up the other 3  PPI policies on their computer system

 

this number was quoted on some of their letter headings when writing to me about all 4 policies.

 

The solicitor is going to strike out my claim as it is not particularised and other issues. A lot of inaccurate information has been said, 

 

I first put a claim for PPI by post on behalf of next of kin  in Nov 18 and got a undated with no ref number fob of letter recorded delivery with the death certificate and PPI policy details in Dec 18.

 

When not hearing anything after  3 months I phoned the PPI department  in March 19 and they had no record of it I think they were lying.

 

They told me to go to my local branch and file a PPi complaint there.

We duly did and gave the bank manager details and various forms of ID.

 

The next of kin still banks with the same bank and still has the same account number where the deceased was paying for the loans into this account number. but obviously his name has been dropped from the account  why they keep wanting all this ID is crazy,

 

in the end after keep getting letters and phoning up telling them we haven't got the type of ID'S they want and keep going up the bank with other forms of ID that the PPI team said would be OK.

 

My 82 old mother had to apply for a driving licence for the first time that's the reason for the delay.

 

After all this and getting the driving licence endorsed by a solicitor they went quiet again.

 

when waiting for ages we phoned to find out what was going on and they said they were paying out for 1 policy and closed the others down.

 

when I question why" they said had you not received any letters" I said no then the guy said ok we will open them back up again and you will hear from us in 14 days.

 

The 14 days past 21 days passed and I had enough and took out a court claim.

 

 

 

docs 1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to PPI Forum please continue to post here.

 

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 OTHER

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Barclays PPI reclaiming as executor of Will - Issued Claimform - do if need probate?
  • 1 month later...

I'm claiming for missold PPI and got a telephone conference hearing Monday 23rd .

I've posted previously about this claim on this forum.

 

Its a summary judgement hearing it destined for the small claims track as im claiming 8000 pound subject to %20 tax so it will be 6000 plus.

 

It hasn't been allocated to a track because of the summary judgement application by the bank 

 

The bank has filed a cost order to the court of nearly  £5000 

 

Any advice please

cost ppi clam.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 threads merged please keep to one thread

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic moved to Financial Legal Issues Forums in view of the application.

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 - 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

Have you been served a copy of their N244 application and any witness statement in support of the application ?

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 - 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

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Barclays PPI reclaiming as executor of Will - Issued Claimform - Defendants application for Summary Judgment

Well scan redact and upload here ...along with their statement...please :biggrin:

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 - 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'm afraid I've had to hide your posts. I can read the scribbled out names very easily, probably other details as well. Please redact it properly with a program like MS Paint if you can, so this stays anonymous and repost.

 

HB
 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ill try and have another go later In the mean time I bank with Barclays online and had a automated email from them saying " we are here to help" there trying to claim over £4000 in court costs from me on my claim for  missold PPI  and send me this email  lol.

 

I'm writing today as I know that coronavirus is a source of concern for many people right now - and I wanted to let you know we're here to help.

 

Whether you would like additional support with managing your money, or have faced disruption to finances or travel plans, we can work with you to look at ways to make things easier, including:

  • Mortgage Payments: Repayment holidays on residential mortgages for up to 90 days
  • Accessing Savings: Removing penalty charges to access fixed savings accounts early
  • Paying Fees: Stopping late payment and cash advance fees for the next 90 days for credit cards.

 

For more information on this and managing your finances during this period, you can find our latest advice by visiting our homepage and clicking ‘Coronavirus help’ - there you'll find links to all the content referenced in this email on pages that will be updated daily.

 

If you need to access your banking services and are unable to get to a branch, or need to stay at home, there are also a wide range of ways that we can help you there too. I've outlined a number of those below which hopefully you'll find useful.

 

I appreciate that the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment will cause worry. At Barclays we are committed to being responsive to your needs as the situation evolves, and we will continue to be in touch with information and updates.

In the meantime - with best wishes.

Matt Hammerstein
CEO Barclays UK

 

The bank are saying I'm timed barred amongst other things.

I've put sect 32 of the limitation act on my witness statement.

 

I've got the original agreement form for 1 of the loans and the NO box was ticked and the PPI was added without consent.

 

What specific part of the limitation act comes into play here, is it fraud, concealment or mistake?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the defendant's statement I wanted to see...and a copy of their N244.

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 - 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

It may be prudent to also draft a skeleton argument along with your statement...using bullet points so you have easy reference......just for your own use as your too late now to file/ serve a skeleton argument now.

 

With regards to limitations Act.....interesting case....

 

section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (the 1980 Act) applied to postpone the commencement of the limitation period, on the ground that if the claim was made out under section 423 it would involve a breach of duty.

The recent case of Hill v Spread Trustee Company Limited [2006] EWCA Civ 542 confirmed that the 1980 Act applied to claims under section 423 of the 1986 Act. This judgment leaves room for creditors to argue that the limitation period for such claims should be postponed by operation of section 32(2) of the 1980 Act.
 
Useful links...
 
 

 

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 - 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

You served what ...witness statement or Skeleton Argument ?  I see the defendant has done both .

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 - 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

The final redress they offered to the next of kin was in January 2020 and they wanted probate why did they not ask for this on the first redress cheque they sent?

 

I now have probate and got it in Feb  2020.

there is no way I could of settled in time for the court case if I was to accept it.

 

Also it was me who made the court claim and all the redress have been made to the next of kin the bank has ignored me.

and all I was getting was bullying letter of their solicitors to drop the claim.

 

Also why did they defend the claim in its entity when I initiated the court claim and then offer redress, should they have not admitted to part of the claim?

 

it was just a witness/statement of case I sent.

 

I only made it brief because it was a summary hearing and not a full trial.

it was just to dismiss the motion

 

Also here lies another problem if the next of kin accepted the redress it would of been in her name. So if I discontinued the claim I would of been liable for costs as the court claim is in my name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Discontinuance and liability of costs only applies to Fast Track (Over 10K claims)

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 - 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

It hasn't been allocated to a track so correct me if I'm wrong I would be liable.

 

This is a sneaking trick by the banks solicitors, that's part of the reason for summary judgement getting it to court before allocation. they have a cost order of over £4000

 

Any reasonable judge would of sent it to a allocation hearing and looked at the summary judgement at the same time

Edited by hello12345
Link to post
Share on other sites

CPR 38.6 (1) denotes that 'unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which the defendant, against whom the claimant discontinued, incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant'.

 

Interesting article.....

 

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/dispute-resolution-recovering-costs-before-allocation-/54383.article

 

Your other option would have been to add a party (next of Kin) but you only came here for advice yesterday and your hearing is Monday

 

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 - 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

Do you mean add  next of kin on a discontinuance form.

 

I got a letter on Thurs 19th march for a telephone hearing I gave my number to their solicitors on Friday.

 

I don't know what happens now will they call me on Monday ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory I should win as at least one of the PPI's was added without consent but in law I don't know.

 The small claims is misleading and needs to be changed, as you naturally think the costs are limited but this not always the case

Edited by hello12345
Link to post
Share on other sites

No...to add her as a claimant... or substitute claimant....but your out of time now to do that.

Yes if the hearing is by telephone then they will contact you......I see you have read the following with everything up in the air at the moment.

 

 

 

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 - 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

Correct....it was just with you stating...

 

Quote

Also here lies another problem if the next of kin accepted the redress it would of been in her name. So if I discontinued the claim I would of been liable for costs as the court claim is in my name.

 

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 - 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

ok sorry for the confusion  Any tips for Monday?

 

Surely if the bank has admitted 3 were missold and offered redress to the next of kin then why do need to argue it in court the reasons for mis-selling? I can use their reasons why it was mis-sold

 

Its the limitation act I need to get sorted, what part would you suggest I use would it be the Mistake part of sect 32? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...