Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • 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

Hankins Car Sales/lawgistics - 2010 Vauxhall Zafira 7 seater - court claim issued - not fit for purpose.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 334 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

The lawyer for lawgistics stated in their MCOL rejection that they wanted to go to court to be given the opportunity to 'cross examine' me.  Not sure what he will try to pin on me. 

 

In my mind my argument is that the coolant system is broken and that caused a catastrophic engine breakdown. 

 

The coolant system does not form part of the mot so they cant say it was working due to having an mot.  There was no checklist done on handover. 

 

They haven't shown anything that proves that the coolant fault was not present at time of purchase.  

 

I suspect their counter argument will be that I didnt check the coolant system so will say its due to poor maintenance.   

 

Given the fact their is no guidance from manufacturer or from any recognised trade bodies like rac or aa on how often to check coolant I would push back that expecting me to check the coolant every time i drive is unreasonable and would only be the case if they knew it had an issue.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DiscoCow said:

The lawyer for lawgistics stated in their MCOL rejection that they wanted to go to court to be given the opportunity to 'cross examine' me.  Not sure what he will try to pin on me. 

mcol rejection?

 

12 hours ago, DiscoCow said:

they wanted to go to court to be given the opportunity to 'cross examine' me.

 

does not happen like that... trying to frighten you.

 

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

It's simply a Case Management Conference hearing to determine allocation of the claim and select expert evidence is necessary.

Quite normal on complex 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

On 09/02/2023 at 11:42, DiscoCow said:

... They haven't shown anything that proves that the coolant fault was not present at time of purchase.  

 

I suspect their counter argument will be that I didnt check the coolant system so will say its due to poor maintenance.   

 

Given the fact their is no guidance from manufacturer or from any recognised trade bodies like rac or aa on how often to check coolant I would push back that expecting me to check the coolant every time i drive is unreasonable and would only be the case if they knew it had an issue.  

 

 

You might recall that I asked on your original thread how often you checked the coolant level.  You replied that the AA/RAC guidance was that it only needed to be checked twice a year, and that Vauxhall indicated that it didn't really need to be checked at all as it was a "closed system".  (See #8 - #11).  I also don't think you actually answered the question.  (You said something like "How often is 'regularly'?")

 

The reason I asked that was because my car's manufacturer recommends that it should be checked each time you fill up with fuel.  And just looking at general AA advice it suggests as follows:

 

"Most modern cars have a sealed cooling system so they shouldn’t need topping up. Unless, of course, they’ve sprung a leak.

Check your engine coolant every couple of weeks so you can spot any problems early. It could save you a lot of money and hassle."  [My emphasis in bold]

 

See How to check your engine coolant | The AA

 

Have you got any links to anything saying that you did not need to check the coolant level regularly?  If you have I think it strengthens your case a lot because it shows that the dealer's defence is wrong in blamining you for not checking it.

 

But if you should have checked it and didn't, it's a bit more difficult for you.  (Yes - if the car broke down in the first 6 months there is a presumption that it was faulty when you bought it, but that presumption is rebuttable.  If the car failure is consistent with you not checking the coolant level I think it becomes less clear cut for you and more a case of "he said, she said")

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manxman - yes I agree it will be a case of he said/she said.   If i say i checked the coolant and it was fine then that shows there was no issue at sale, if i say i didnt check it then they will say i was being negligent.  Ultimately I dont have much to lose at this point by seeing how the court case goes.  Its not as if they have made me a decent offer to stop proceedings that i would consider. 

 

RAC  says twice a year.   - https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/car-maintenance/how-to-check-your-coolant/#:~:text=You need to check your,drops below the guide marks.

 

Halfords state to check at the start of summer - https://www.halfords.com/motoring/how-to-guides/prevent-overheating.html

 

 

Vauxhall manufacturer book doesnt state anything as far as i can see.  https://www.vauxhall.co.uk/content/dam/vauxhall/Home/PDFs/owners/owners-manuals/zafira/zafira-owners-manual-january-2010.pdf

 

On page 90 it states to stop the car if light comes on and check coolant level immediately. No light came on but that will be hearsay (unless i can use the AA breakdown report having no mention of it as proof that it wasnt on.  You'd expect a roadside mechanic to notice that kind of thing but dont know).  Since there was no light then i didnt check coolant

 

Page 101 has another light about coolant level and to check the levels if this light comes on. Again no light so no check. 

 

Page 153 has a section about Vehicle Care which would be more relevant. This states to 'Check Coolant Antifreeze'.   However this is under the section 'The following must be done if the vehicle is stored for several months'

Page 154 has similar about putting car back in to operation after being off the road for extended period of time

PAge 156 has a section on Vehicle Care and the Collant system. This states: If the cooling system is cold, the coolant level should be just above the KALT/COLD mark. Top up if the level is low. 9 Warning Allow the engine to cool before opening the cap. Carefully open the cap, relieving the pressure slowly. Top up with antifreeze. If no antifreeze is available, use clean tap water or distilled water. Install the cap tightly. Have the antifreeze concentration checked and have the cause of the coolant loss remedied by a workshop.    There is no mention of regular checks here. 

 

Page 194 also mentioned coolant but just about the concentration to be used. No mention of checking it

 

 

So i have driven the car in line with manufacturer guidelines.  I havent checked the coolant but the manufacturer doesnt state that this is a recommendation. RAC state twice a year.  I know that other sites state otherwise but I think this is enough for me to say that me not checking the coolant isn't overly negligent,  the manufacturer clearly doesnt expect this to be done. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andyorch said:

It's simply a Case Management Conference hearing to determine allocation of the claim and select expert evidence is necessary.

Quite normal on complex claims.

So you wouldnt expect this appointment to result in a final outcome? 

13 hours ago, dx100uk said:

mcol rejection?

 

 

dx

 

Sorry, got terms wrong.  It was in the bit where it asks if it can be decided without a hearing. They ticked No as they wanted to cross examine me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

So you wouldnt expect this appointment to result in a final outcome? 

 

No, its simply to iron out the details the judge requires to progress the claim.

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

@DiscoCow  -  you're right, I'm really surprised.

 

So RAC just advise you check "at least" twice a year, but don't suggest that you need to do so any more frequently than that, and Halfords only seem to suggest doing so at the start of the summer...

 

And the Vauxhall manual doesn't say anything at all about visually checking the coolant level, unless you first get a warning light or vehicle message telling you the level is low.  Presumably you're saying you didn't get a warning light or vehicle message alerting you to a low coolant level?

 

I'm amazed that the Vauxhall manual seems to rely solely on the warning light and vehicle message systems working properly and doesn't suggest a regular visual check as a backup in case the electrical systems aren't working properly.  By way of contrast at p155 they do advise you to manually check the engine oil regularly to prevent engine damage.  Why don't they advise the same regarding coolant?

 

So yeah - on the face of it, it looks like the manufacturer's manual doesn't advise you to check the coolant level unless you've got a warning light or vehicle message.

 

So you've driven it according to the manufacturer's instructions...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah thats all i could see in the book. I did a ctrl+f for 'coolant' and only got the results i already referenced and none of them mention regularly checking.  

 

I didn't get any warning lights or messages. I would assume that those would have shown in the history when the AA person plugged in to the car and it would have been obvious as the breakdown reason.  The only evidence i have that these lights didnt come is the lack of a diagnosis from AA.  Not ideal but better than just my word i guess. 

 

My fairly basic understanding of the CRA would suggest that the assumption lies in the coolant system being faulty at point of sale unless they can prove otherwise.  They would also have to show that the warning light system was working at point of sale as if the coolant system broke but no lights came on then that would be a fault as well. 

 

Who knows how it will end up. I'm more annoyed by how they have treated the process than anything else.   Basically ignoring my for 6 weeks then asking for another 4 weeks before claiming a mechanics report that i've not seen.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/02/2023 at 11:33, Andyorch said:

It's simply a Case Management Conference hearing to determine allocation of the claim and select expert evidence is necessary.

Quite normal on complex claims.

Do you (or anyone else) know if i need to/should prepare my case properly for this meeting or is it not going to go in to this detail? 

 

Edited by DiscoCow
change of word
Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't go into that much detail it's not a trial hearing, but you can prepare notes of anything that requires clarification.

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

Just finished in the court hearing.  Seller came directly without lawyer for some reason. Really old and could barely hear what was going on.  Frustrating. 

He is trying to rely on Mot being on the car when it was sold as proof of it being fit for purpose.  Judge shot that down and said it is a snapshot in time and doesn't mean anything. 

 

Said we will need to get an independent report confirming the condition of the vehicle.  Looked right at the defendant and said that unless that report specifically says that the bit that is broken now was definitely working when the car was sold then he will not win this case. 

 

So now to try arrange AA or RAC to inspect the vehicle and its 50/50 on costs but I can reclaim if I win.  Since he hasn't replied to emails for months I am not sure how it will work but hey how, here we go

 

Got until 8th March to get inspection booked and another month for the report to come back.  All docs to be lodged with court by 27th April. 

 

Going to be a saga! But I won't give up

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Have had this report through today.   

 

Court date is in June, I need to pay court fees in May, I need to submit my final evidence at end of the month.  

 

It says that I have driven the car when it was overheated causing further damage but also says that the vehicle is not fitted with a temperature warning gauge or temperature warning light. So how would i know if the car was overheating?  I refer back to the lack of any guidance in the manufacture book about checking coolant. 

 

My first thought is that it still doesnt state that the issue that caused the breakdown wasnt present at time of sale which is what the law assumes to be the case....but i am not sure

 

Any thoughts from anyone?

Hankins Report 290323.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume both you and the defendant jointly commissioned that report?  It's just that it identifies only the defendant as the client.

 

Who gave the "Instructions Received?  I might have expected one of them to be something like "Is there any evidence that the underlying cause of failure (loss of coolant) was or was not present when the vehicle was sold?" because that is what is at the root of the dispute - if I've remembered correctly...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The instruction from the judge at the last hearing was for a report to be arranged that would state what went wrong with the car and if this fault was present at the time of sale. 

 

They said it was to be an AA or RAC report and the cost was to be split between both parties.

 

  As the garage have had the car for the last 6 months and they are 50 miles from me it made more sense in my head for them to arrange the visit and send me the report once done. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.

 

1.  On the instructions given to them (whoever instructed them) they don't appear to have been asked explicitly to answer the actual question you say the court wanted answering:

 

16 hours ago, DiscoCow said:

The instruction from the judge at the last hearing was for a report to be arranged that would state what went wrong with the car and if this fault was present at the time of sale...

 

 

2.  However, in conclusion (C3) they do say that "there is a possibility that the selling agent may have had some responsibility" for the engine failure, but they also qualify that by saying that you have made the engine worse by driving it while the coolant level was low.

 

3.  So the report is fairly inconclusive(?) really in respect of the point you would have liked it to have shown - ie was the fault present when you bought it?

 

4.  You could argue that as the failure occurred within 6 months of purchase, then under s19(14) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) the fault must be presumed to have been present at sale - unless either (a) the seller can establish that the fault wasn't present at sale or (b) it would be "... incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract".  See s19(15).

 

The report doesn't actually establish that the fault wasn't present when you bought it, but it doesn't establish that it was present either.  It might be slightly in your favour, but I think a court could go either way.  [Edit:  Some people will go so far as to say that if the seller cannot prove that the fault wasn't present when you bought it, then the court must presume that it was present.  See earlier post #5  by @dx100uk]

 

Whether the presumption under s19(14) that any fault within 6 months must have been present at purchase would be "... incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract", I simply don't know.

 

5.  Regarding whether your continuing to drive the car exacerbated the problem - even if the underlying fault was present when you bought it - you know I've raised that issue with you before.  However, you've correctly pointed out that the vehicle's manual gives no warning about regularly checking coolant levels, unless the warning light comes on, and you say the warning light never came on - so tell the court it never came on.  If the AA breakdown report backs that up, great.  (Have you any other evidence that might suggest the warning light wasn't working in the first place?  Does the engineer's report cover it?  I can't remember).

 

If you just followed the instructions given in the manufacturer's manual you would have had no reason to suspect there was a coolant problem and no reason to stop driving, however... a court might still consider that a reasonable driver would have checked the coolant level "regularly" and that you were at fault if you didn't do so.

 

I'm not certain you have a better chance than 50/50, but see what other posters think.  If you have some evidence to explain why the coolant level warning light never came on (eg it's broken) I think that would help you.  But if you didn't visually check the coolant level "regularly" I think that might count against you.

 

===================================================================

 

Just to clarify - normally the seller would be entitled to one opportunity either to repair or to replace the vehicle.  Am I correct in understanding that you have requested a repair but they have refused, hence you suing them?

 

Be aware that when a consumer exercises their final right to reject within 6 months of purchase (see point 4 above), they are usually entitled to a full refund.  But in the case of motor vehicles the seller can make a deduction from that refund to account for the use you've had of the vehicle.  While you could still use it.

 

Good luck.

 

As I said - see what posters think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really kind of you to respond in such a detailed way. 

I need to type up and send off all my evidence in next day or so and this has been very helpful

 

Do you (or anyone else) know, when submitting my evidence ahead of the trial, am I also submitting my arguments and the story of the claim? Or is that done on the day? 

 

Not sure if I should be sending in just the documents or sending my full argument in writing... If that makes sense 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DiscoCow said:

Do you (or anyone else) know, when submitting my evidence ahead of the trial, am I also submitting my arguments and the story of the claim? Or is that done on the day? 

 

Not sure if I should be sending in just the documents or sending my full argument in writing... If that makes sense 

 

Are you enabled to send messages to individual posters?  If you are you could try asking @honeybee13 if they could get Andy or somebody who understands the Civil Procedure Rules better than me to post some advice for you here.

 

(I'd do it myself but I don't have that facility as I think the forum considers me a bit subversive... )

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the fee date, but what date have you to exchange witness statements by, as that is your next task.

 

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

1 hour ago, DiscoCow said:

 

 

Do you (or anyone else) know, when submitting my evidence ahead of the trial, am I also submitting my arguments and the story of the claim? Or is that done on the day? 

 

Not sure if I should be sending in just the documents or sending my full argument in writing... If that makes sense 

Yes this is the final submission in support of your claim any doc you refer to within the statement must be marked as exhibit and attached with an index.

 

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

Thanks Andy, 

 

So at this point final evidence and witness statements are due by 27th April.  

So I just send a pile of documents marked as exhibit a, b, c etc and then an index of them all?

 

Or do I send a letter like 'I am bringing a claim against the defendant under CRA due to xyz...' and then reference my documents thought that statement? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you compile a witness statements with numbered exhibits (documents you intend to rely upon.

 

type in witness statement in our search.

 

for want of ref the sub forum you are in has 100's of them follow the same layout.

paginated, paragraphed etc.

dx

  • Like 1

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...