Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good points, TJ. I still think there are holes in the story.   OH [tennis fan] thinks Djokovic could have problems getting into the States for the US open if he doesn't get vaxxed.
    • There is little point asking questions if, when given a direction such as that by FTMDave above, you decide that instead of reading a thread from post #39, you read from #63 and think that it will give you answers.   This Forum is self help, so it is incumbent on you to do just that .
    • “The following has now been clarified as a category for which you may be eligible for a temporary medical exemption: Recent PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (after 31 July 2021) where a vaccination can be deferred until six months after the infection,” TA said in a letter to players and their teams.   The same document also made it clear that any applications for a medical exemption needed to be sent “no later than Friday 10 December 2021” — six days before Djokovic tested positive — meaning a positive Covid test would have come too late for TA’s exemption guidelines. Djokovic missed exemption cut-off by six days   Let alone that he quite clearly seemed to juggle the actual date of knowledge of his alleged infection to allow him to masklessly mix with youngsters and others     Anyway all other issues aside, lets ask the first question first: He applied for his visa without  required exemptions at the time, and without any intention whatsoever of being vaccinatated (not that he had time) - why? and how did he think he was going to be allowed access?   Notes: * I don't know, but Its probably a simple tick box of 'do you meet requirements and can you supply evidence' on the original application * There was clearly some issues with this known as the Aus tennis association said they had confirmed a prior infection (within stated limits/requirements) could or did allow an exemption (technicality - also included statement that infection exemption meant vaccination could be deferred form 6 months - not refused)    
    • Indeed I thought the court case concentrated more on technicalities and possible flaws in the reasoning rather than whether Djokovic met the conditions. Maybe not a legal reason, but he doesn't seem to worry about keeping to the rules about self-isolating and seems to have been economical with the truth over travel in the two weeks before the tournament.   As you say, there are doubts about the test and someone has also asked what he planned to do in the event he didn't manage to test positive a couple of weeks before he travelled.
    • There is a confusion of terminology here. When it comes to documents granting tenancies they are either described as "tenancy agreements" or "leases". However, though the former is generally used to describe an instrument granting a tenancy for three years or less and the latter to describe an instrument made by deed granting a tenancy for more than three years, they are not "terms of art", that is words or phrases with set meanings. The word "lease", though perhaps primarily used to refer to a document. also refers to an interest in land so that "lease" and "tenancy" mean the same thing, that is a leasehold interest.   Any purported grant of a tenancy for a term exceeding three years is void as provided by section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925:   All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.   By way of clarification:   Section 205(1)(ii) says:   “Conveyance” includes a mortgage, charge, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, release and every other assurance of property or of an interest therein by any instrument, except a will   Section 52(2) says:   This section does not apply to [...] leases or tenancies or other assurances not required by law to be made in writing   That is clarified by section 54(2) which says:   Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall affect the creation by parol of leases taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years (whether or not the lessee is given power to extend the term) at the best rent which can be reasonably obtained without taking a fine   (For your information I post as Lawcruncher on LLZ)  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

Anonymouse vs Cahoot


anonymouse
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5423 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

Hi All

 

After sending my Prelim letter to Cahoot two weeks ago I got the standard response so today e-mailed them my LBA, giving them 28 days to respond (I'm going away over Xmas).

 

Anyways, I got a second e-mail back pretty much immediately saying the following:

Dear Anonymouse,

 

Thank you for your email dated 6th December 2006.

 

I can confirm that cahoot's position remains unchanged from my email dated 6th December and we are unable to consider the refund that you have requested.

 

if you wish to continue with your complaint you will now be required to write to Abbey's Stage 2 complaints team. This department is an autonomous body within Abbey who will review your complaint on an independent basis. If you decide to write to them please state that cahoot has issued its final response in relation to this matter and please quote my name so that the relevant paperwork can be quickly obtained.

 

Stage 2 Complaints

Abbey

PO Box 911

Central Milton Keynes

MK9 1AD

 

Stage 2 Complaints will review the details of your case and carry out its own investigation. In the unlikely event that you are still dissatisfied you can write to the Financial Services Ombudsman at the address below.

 

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London

E14 9SR

 

Should you choose to seek legal redress, neither cahoot nor Abbey, will be held responsible for the fees you incur.

 

If you have any further queries or wish to discuss anything in greater depth, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Please be assured I have carried out a full investigation for you and I hope you feel I have offered a fair response to all of the issues you've raised. I will keep your file open for the next 8 weeks and if I don't hear from you within that time, I will assume that everything is resolved and will close your file. If you remain dissatisfied though you can find details of how to take your complaint further at legal T&Ts . The complaints policy also explains your ultimate right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Andrew Starling,

cahoot, Service Relationship Manager

 

I presume I can ignore their "Stage 2 Complaints Team" and now go on to the next stage? And am I right in thinking they've just waived their 28 days notice and I can file an MCOL today?

 

And finally... Should I mail Mr Starling once I file the MCOL with all the details?

 

Thanks all :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Up to you really - I personally waited the whole 14 days after the LBA so that when I go to court I can tell the judge that before bringing action I had given them 28 days to try and sort it out. Frustrating playing the waiting game I know (because they won't pay out) - which is why not everybody does wait.

 

And no - I wouldn't bother informing Mr Starling

 

Whatever you do, good luck and keep us informed

 

Lager Lou

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I wouldnt send the baliffs in just yet, they are going to request a set aside do you know who their legal team are? a quick look on this forum should tell you, when you find it ring them and just say what your name is and that you are ringing about case ref XXXXX and see what they say, they my admit that they forgot to file a defence and ask if you would be prepared to consent to a set aside and as much as it is a pain in the backside, the judge will allow it.

 

If they offer settlement then wooo hooooo

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

hi anonymouse

 

any developments with your claim?

for FAQs & Step By Step

click here

for Templates Library

click here

for Court Bundle

click here

________________

 

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Halifax C C

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Cahoot CC

here

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB (again)

here

 

________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!

 

Mailed customer services and said "Oi! Give me my money!".

 

Well not quite, but something like that. Anyways, this got forwarded to the legal team, and I got a mail from Inga stating that they had no details of my case and could I mail the claim and judgement to her.

 

Did this, chased a couple of times and was told a cheque was in the post. Got home last night and there was a cheque for the full amount waiting on the doorstep. Well impressed :D Will donate once it clears!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I assume this is now a "settled in full thread"?

for FAQs & Step By Step

click here

for Templates Library

click here

for Court Bundle

click here

________________

 

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Halifax C C

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Cahoot CC

here

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB (again)

here

 

________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...