Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • at the time, if both owners signed a voluntary charge it can not be a restriction k.  but it looks like one? as above ..... if you re mortgage with the same lender is doesn't need paying if you re mortgage with a new lender then most probably you will have to settle it.
    • The move comes after Tesla reported a sharp fall in its deliveries in the first three months of 2024.View the full article
    • please dont post up unredated court docs!! done now... it looks like: you paid for then cancelled a PC from mac group ltd however the PC still got delivered but not to you. you got issued a court claim but totally ignored it. DCBL HCEO Bailiffs attempted to enforce the CCJ...they failed..you had moved. The Claimant was Granted Permission by the Court to Serve A Statutory Demand and latterly did so. you had attempted to set aside the Original CCJ but failed to attend it's hearing and it got struck out you subsequently have have received a statutory demand for the CCJ sum. you applied to set that aside there was a hearing on 18th Apr which you did not attend. ...............   not quite sure but i think thats the story. ............. same as your other thread.. stop worrying about the house.. you ought to deal with this at some point as if the claimant does go for and manage to you BK. it might not be good. have a think about things , it might pay you to look toward putting an N245 variation to the court and offer a very low £PCM to the court, esp if you have little to no income etc like on benefits/pensioner etc...you might even get it all done for free as there is a small charge for the N245 process.        
    • you've applied to have it set aside and then you've not complied with the Judge's order for your set aside. You'll need to apply to have that order stayed on the ground you were a LIP and didn't understand it. Make it clear you now understand it and you ask that an order be made in the interim to stop all enforcement and any other action.
    • I will provide an update once I receive any further letters regarding application for SJ, and will post up any redacted version.
  • 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

The sub-postmasters scandal


Recommended Posts

Hollinrake says Post Office Horizon inquiry has shown evidence of 'not only incompetence, but malevolence'

 

In the real world its obnoxiously likely that the actual guilty will almost certainly get away with it, with the costs born by the UK taxpayer.  'Common' murderers, liars and thieves must be really envious.

Edited by tobyjugg2

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw in the Guardian live feed that a Tory minister who was standing in for someone else said he asked to see Paula Vennells. He wanted to understand the situation better; she refused to meet him without her lawyer.

That tells us something, this isn't normal.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bates wrote to Davey on five occasions in request to meet him to discuss the matter 
Despite the ongoing prosecutions Davey refused 
As for Starmer he was DPP at the time and could have taken over the prosecutions or reviewed why so many subpostmasters had gone rogue at the same time 
He did neither 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how many other ministers did AB write to? I think Davey is being used as a distraction?

Are you sure the DPP can just take over prosecutions from an institution that's done its own for 300 years?

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That question was covered by the inquiry's own expert counsel. It can only be done if the defendant asks the DPP to take over the prosecution from the PO, but of course none of the victims were ever told that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Starmers department dealt with just 11 didn't they? and 3 of those acquitted?

Starmer as head would only be directly involved with significant high profile cases or issue that raised red flags - why would less than a dozen individual cases with evidence supplied and falsely confirmed by PO staff raise flags?

Mind you - no one recently, MPs or otherwise could claim that - especially the current ministers etc involved eh?

 

Bit desperate to cloud the issue/attempt to redirect blame with smoke and mirrors as usual eh @theoldrouge The straws you clutch at dont really make much smoke or very good mirrors (except on yourself) though do they?

 

What is interesting is the arguments against a wide ranging overturning of the convictions which although some of the arguments include some relevant points - also seem little more smoke and mirrors or lack of thought.

Given the now widely known 'issues with the validity of the horizon reports and the honesty of the PO representatives - it seems quite clear to me (as already stated) that all the convictions are at the very best unsafe - and the PO can always raise charges through more normal processes if they believe they have anything genuine to support a case that any of these people were actually dishonest.

and i think one or two (very very few possible has been stated)  possibly real crims getting off lightly (temporarily) is a very small price to pay for the benefit to hundreds and hundreds of innocent victims who have suffered FAR to long

 

 

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's tonight's Graun editorial on the SPMs.

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

Editorial: Compensation for innocent victims of the Post Office scandal must be accompanied by a ruthless process of holding their tormentors to account

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is Jo Hamilton on Twitter, to Sunak and Zahawi.

'You still haven't paid to GLO group and the fact that you think throwing £75k at people will help, just shows how completely out of touch you are. Wouldn't even cover the interest on what has been stolen from them by POL'

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Witherow in the Times is doing a lot of work on this.

'Important point when writing about Horizon scandal:
 
There are 4,000+ victims - not 'hundreds':
** 983 overturned convictions
** 2,750 HSS (lost money, weren't prosecuted)
** c. 500 more in #MrBatesVsThePostOffice group (exc OC)
** 100+ more came forward post-ITV.
 
Total = 4,333
 
ETA: Tax guru Dan Neidle says the PO don't know how many people were affected.
 
Also that some SPMs were pressured into signing draconian non-disclosure agreements [NDAs] with little or no legal advice. He thinks they should be released from the NDA obligations so they're free to speak.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

This is Jo Hamilton on Twitter, to Sunak and Zahawi.

'You still haven't paid to GLO group and the fact that you think throwing £75k at people will help, just shows how completely out of touch you are. Wouldn't even cover the interest on what has been stolen from them by POL'

I'm still not clear if the £75k is an interim payment or full & final.  Hollinrake said it was an 'upfront' payment so it could mean either. Either way it's a pittance in comparison to the £600k others are supposed to be getting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The public inquiry today has Stephen Bradshaw, PO investigator.

From the Guardian 'Bradshaw has been described as having a “heavy footprint” in the scandal after being involved in the criminal investigation of nine post office operators.'

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've seen the 75K is an immediate upfront payment for those that sign up to accept the 600k offer

- still some contradiction on whether those that go for the full assessment (potentially more money) get the 75k up front  but a few I've seen certainly seem to have detailed that as being the case.

and all is taxpayer funded as far as I am aware so far.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

they have to sign a document stating they didnt commit the offense, so I dont think thats correct @cjcregg. It might have been tied by some to the 'automatic overturning of their convictions - which I understand has majority support across parties despite any issues like separation of politics and courts .. which is already an issue given the majority were apparently prosecuted by the PO

There was something about any real crims not applying if they didnt want too? Although I cant think why someone who was dishonest  wouldn't.

Also strange to see headlines about Fujitsu getting a bill - apart from some of their staff being involved in supporting the criminal cases against innocent staff - as the ones I've seen undoubtedly were aware of the issues. - aka perjury?

 

 

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Wyn Williams has just told Bradshaw that he's allowed to refuse to answer a question if he thinks it could incriminate him, or words to that effect. He has lawyers in court who will be allowed to advise him today.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what CJ means about Bradshaw. They seem to be tying him up in knots and the answers seem to indicate that he was only following orders and that a lot of his WS asserting fair investigations was written by Cartwright King who acted for POL.

And he isn't technical so he seems to be implying he didn't understand Horizon.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

they have to sign a document stating they didnt commit the offense, so I dont think thats correct @cjcregg.

 

 

The 555 aren't required to sign a statement to say they they didn't commit an offense, because no one is suggesting they did. The statement only applies to those who have been convicted and will be subject to the blanket exoneration. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and only a handful of them were convicted as they weren't eligible for any settlement money arising from the GLO. The GLO was a civil claim and so couldn't have any effect on those with criminal convictions. 

 

 

 

Edited by cjcregg
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...