Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Particulars of claim please :   Frustration of Contract and Unfair terms in relation to a request of the refund monies paid when no service provided for wedding event on 23/05/2020 as agreed or at any later date up to date of claim or thereafter. 1.       On 01/04/2019 we confirmed our booking for 23/05/2020 for 350 guests. Please refer to document titled “Wedding Reception Contract”.  There were no terms and conditions attached nor were they provided to us.  2.       We were pressured into make a full payment of £7,700 to secure the date for 23/05/2020, as the dates would not be guaranteed without a full payment.  Full payment was made on 02/04/2019. 3.       On 15/12/2019 we contacted the Events Manager who informed us that she was no longer employed by Goosedale Limited. 4.       We made a number of calls but none of these were returned.  We finally made contact with Mrs F on 13/01/2020 to explain that we understand our Events Manager has left and who would be the new Events Manager.  5.       An on-site appointment was made on 20/01/2020 at Goosedale, together with our wedding catering provider but this was double booked and we were seen by the admin officer who had limited information as our wedding plans. 6.       On 20/01/2020 after the on-site appointment the new Events Manager, Mr xxxx contacted us he would be the duty manager on the wedding day.  7.       On 21/01/2020 Mr xxxxx sent us the catering pack. 8.       On 29/02/2020 we had an on-site meeting with Mr Nick Singh at 10am. 9.       On 05/03/2020 Mr xxxxx sent us a summary of the on-site discussion. 10.   On 20/03/2020 we emailed Goosedale Limited requesting an update for alternative dates or refunds following Government Guidelines regarding COVID-19.  Mr xxxx responded that Goosedale Limited would be postponing events booked for April and May 2020.  Alternative dates were the only option and no refunds were available. 11.   We provided alternative dates none of which were available for Goosedale Limited. They confirmed they had no availability for July 2020 and August 2020 in any of their rooms within their venue.    12.   On 23/03/2020 we requested a full refund as the original wedding date for 23/05/2020 could not go ahead. Mr xxxx confirmed that Goosedale Limited would not be issuing full refunds and attached the Terms and Conditions.  This was the first time we had seen this document. Following his refusal to return the full refund, we offered Goosedale Limited to hold onto out deposit and return the rest of our money until the matter was resolved. 13.   In the absence of a response from Mr xxxx, we further emailed him on 26/03/2020 and requested an update. On 27/03/2020, Mr Nick Singh offered us 18/07/2020 for 350 guests which we agreed and received another booking confirmation on 30/03/2020. 14.   Due to rise in COVID-19 and the uncertainty with events going ahead in July 2020, on 17/04/2020 we secured an alternative date for 350 guests to take place on 08/10/2020 in line with the original booking. Unfortunately, we have not received a booking confirmation for this event. 15.   Wedding venues remained closed until 15/08/2020 and now allow for 30 sit-down guests only. 16.   Goosedale Limited have advised us that weekend bookings require a higher payment, however despite 08/10/2020 falling on a weekday, we were not offered a price reduction. 17.   No further communication was received from 17/04/2020 until an email on 03/09/2020, with a letter attached requested a further “£250 security bond for the event on 08/10/2020”. 18.   On 04/09/2020, we wrote to Goosedale Limited requesting a full refund.  A Letter before court action was issued giving Goosedale Limited 14 days to refund the money. 19.   They received the Letter before Court action on 6/09/2020 in which the request for a refund in full was made, this was sent by recorded delivery which was logged as Received by them and documented the facts to claim a full refund. 20.   We have received no communication to the Letter before Court action and have incurred costs up to that date, in trying to resolve the matter.  Goosedale Limited have remained silent on the matter and have no disregard about how this has affected us financially 21.   We have been subject to unfair practices under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as Goosedale Ltd have refused a refund “stating no refunds available under any circumstances”. 22.   The CMA issues guidelines on 28 August 2020 (attached) which confirmed that the Contract has become frustrated, and the Terms No Refund are not legal terms to be imposed on customers, who have to cancel due to the COVID. 23.   We have tried to be reasonable under the Circumstances including working with the Venue to rearrange dates right up to August 2020 however it has become clear that, the venue can not provide the service we have paid for since 23 May 2020, and they have unreasonably held on to our funds, without providing any service under the Contract. 24.   We have no additional contracts with the Venue and they have imposed terms which deny a refund, despite informing them in the Letter before action that we  request a refund of the full amount, this now includes interest from the day the Service was not provided up to the date of Trial, as we have been reasonable throughout the conduct of this matter. 25.   We have now had to face additional charges and costs which we will ask the Court to award at the Hearing, we can confirm that we have attempted to resolve this matter amicably since March 2020, but have been met with a blank excuse to deny a refund. 26.   The current Government guidelines highlight that wedding ceremonies allows for up to 30 guests at a sit-down wedding reception which came into effect from 15/08/2020. As detailed above, our current contract and payment has been for 350 people. Goosedale Limited are not in a position to provide this service. Legislation : We have made Goosdale aware of the legislation we will be relying on below, again we have waited for a response and this has not been forthcoming. GOV.UK – Competition & Markets Authority Guidance – Statement on coronavirus (COVID-19), consumer contracts, cancellations and refunds dated 28/08/2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cma-to-investigate-concerns-about-cancellation-policies-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic/the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic-consumer-contracts-cancellation-and-refunds The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Unfair Terms https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/contents/made The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2014 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/made
    • can you pop all those into one multipage PDF please so we can Zoom and not have to take all day to download single page files. read upload carefully  
    • Includes eligibility, appeals, tax credits and Universal Credit View the full article
    • POC   1.The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced “ref number” and opened effective from 27/08/2016. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to the Defendant.   2' The Defendant failed to comply with a default notice served pursuant to s87, . CCA and by 05/08/2019  a default was recorded.   3.As at -/-09/2019 the Defendant owed “Bank of SCOTLAND” the sum of 3897281.   4.By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant effective -/09/2019 and made regular upon the Claimant serving a Notice of Assignment the Defendant shortly thereafter.   5.And the Claimant claims- 1. 397281 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Court Act (1984) at a rate of 8 % per Annum from -/09/2019 to -/08/2020 of 26171 And thereafter at a daily rate of 82 to date of judgment or sooner payment. Date 28/08/2010   Try this: from my files...   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.   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. Paragraphs 1 & 3 are denied .The Claimant claims £3897281 is owed under a regulated agreement with HBOS on 27/08/2016. I do not recall the precise details or agreement.    3. On receipt of the claim form, the Defendant sent on date XXXXXX a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement to the Claimant and on date XXXXX a CPR 31:14 request to their solicitors. To Date both remain in default of my requests and have failed to reply.   4. Paragraph 2 is Denied. I have never received a Section 87 Default Notice form either the Original Creditor nor the Claimant dated 05/08/2019    5. It is therefore denied 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 and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice  (c) 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. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.    7. 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 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.    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.
    • Hi folks, it's been a while but I'm back as I thought I would be. I didn't know where to post this as my original thread is now closed so sorry if I'm in the wrong place 🐵   BW Legal are at it again and after me. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/profile/393677-ncp-hater/content/ Here's the latest episode. This looks a bit more official. do I need to appeal to "them!!!!" 🤬 ????   Judge and jury ggrrr  !!   Many thanks  !!!
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC - Hire Car - me named - no stopping - Southend Airport


Recommended Posts

Yeah I deliberately put that in to be specific as to the letter from Pressdram as opposed to the letter from Arkell to private eye demanding a retraction

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Arkell v Pressdram reference is weakened by being inside the text. It should be the last sentence of the letter, as was the relevant content in that case!

Thanks EB, yeah that makes a lot of sense what you're saying. They're basically playing a numbers game, for the 1 person who bothers to find out their legal position etc and the ability to fight them,

There has recently been a case on the Parking Forum that will be woeful to the likes of Simon.  Contained within is something useful to you regarding what is parking, and stopping to picck up or drop

the quote of Arkell v Pressdram has been used thousands of times in the last 50 years, it is well known so why on earth do you think it needs explaining in such a way as to lose its effect altogether?

 

When we draft somehting we choose our words carefuly even though it doesnt look that way

 

terms such as unicorn food tax are now common parlance, the parking co's will ahve received many letters referring to their unlawful charges as such and they undersatnd the source material is here. That is what we want, we want them to know that the sender has read up on things and is now fully aware of their unlawful and sometimes criminal ways and isnt afraid to take them on. By changing a well knwon quote you show that you knowledge on such matters is limited and they will then be more likely to chance their arms than not.

 

there is a saying that goes it is better to keep silent and to be thought a fool than to open you mouth and prove it.

 

i also believ that you should smile in adversity as that way no one knows what you are really thinking. My army unarmed combat instructor used to demonstrate the technique becasue by getting the opposition to smile in response gives you the perfect opportunity to then beat the cr*p out of them whilst they are off their guard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple knows his rubbish POC and cut & paste WS have no legs if a nasty enough letter telling him he is a knave and charlatan onto a kicking in court he might well move on to a more compliant victim.

 

Wonder if a letter written in nadsat would confuse him?

 

 

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 OTHERS

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok EB thanks for the comment. Having never had to fight anything legally before, I wasn't aware of A v P and it's common historical usage etc. I did invite comment on my letter before posting it, but didn't receive a reply on the day so went ahead and posted it anyway.

 

Sorry brassnecked, what's "nadsat"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The language used in A Clockwork Orange Even better would be Unwinese. a particular form of gobbledegook spoken by the Late prof Stanley Unwin.

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 OTHERS

 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I posted my shirty letter to simple on 29/5 with proof of postage. It's been 5 weeks now, do you think he got the message? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give them time-amoebas are a little short on brain power to work sarcasm out. I wrote a letter similar to yours to Parking Eye and they wrote back to confirm they had received my appeal! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

like thier court claims, it is a matter of gambling odds. They know their claims are duff but generally the peopel htey chase arent as clued up as those who read  various forums so they will get a number of easy wins and hope that by using the shotgun approach to litigation  they hit more than they miss.

 

It would be sensible of them to stop suing people who are prepared to taken them on and have a good reason to expect to beat them so whetehr they sue or not will depend on a number of factors and that will include previous results and especially widely circulated cases like the Lewes one. they will be waiting to see who drags that up before they issue too many claims where it will play a major part like the airport no stopping cases.

 

They have dozens that are held up in the quagmire at the moment so wont want to be spending money of they are onto a dead cert loser. they have 6 years to try thier luck so may sit on it until a case elsewhere gives them hope. They also lobbied parliament and were told to get lost, they may try that route again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks EB, yeah that makes a lot of sense what you're saying. They're basically playing a numbers game, for the 1 person who bothers to find out their legal position etc and the ability to fight them, there'll be 10 who simply pay up because they're frightened off by their bullshit etc.

 

I'll go to the end of the line on basic principal of not giving in to these ruthless vultures preying on the general public and their lack of knowledge etc.

 

Thanks a lot folks

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Give them time-amoebas are a little short on brain power to work sarcasm out. I wrote a letter similar to yours to Parking Eye and they wrote back to confirm they had received my appeal! 

Ha ha doesn't surprise me at all, these PPC idiots are simple routine cut-and-paste merchants, and like I said to EB just playing the numbers game because obviously with most folks, sadly, thats enough to keep them going. If everyone took this approach, they'd be out to grass pretty quickly, all of em!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

you are right but they issued 8.4 million tickets last year so nearly a billion quid at stake.

They are trying to get the law changed to create a keeper liability in all cases (inc Scotland, where the law damns them anyway but they still send out tickets) and other things but parliament wants a proper appeals scheme that is independent of the trade associatiosn and also wants minimum stanadards that would put all of the parking co's out of business  as they are at present so dont expect things to be on the statute books in a hurry.

 

Like Huawei, they have politicians in their pockets who will jump up and squeal if their vested interests get threatened too much.

Edited by ericsbrother
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...