Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!? -
By Badtimes123 · Posted
Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!! but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate. -
that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx -
Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article -
By Badtimes123 · Posted
"We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. " He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
Bank Parking ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - wrong reg - Appeal failed - Belvedere Street Car Park, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG18 1JJ
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now