Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

PPL PRS/Pannone - claimform - unpaid auto rolled music performance licence for online Zumba Classes that closed months before rollover. *Claim Dismissed**


Beesnees
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 220 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

Particulars of claim for reference only.

1.The Claimants claim is for £105 in respect of an unpaid invoice rendered on the 01 February 2023, issued by the Claimant on behalf of it's members to cover the public performance of musical works at the Defendants premises (as per the terms of the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988) .

AND the Claimant claims the sum of £104.62

TOGETHER with interest pursuant to Section 69 of The County Courts Act 1984 from 01 February 2023 to 15th June 2023 at 8.00% per annum being £3.09

and further interest on a daily basis until the date of payment or request for Judgment at the rate stated for the principal sum the daily rate being £0.02p. 15th June 2023

Defence

The validity of the speculative invoice is denied. No copyright protected music has been played on my premises since the end of xxxx xxxx, when the claimant informed me that they were no longer able to issue licences for online fitness classes. The claimant was informed of the cessation of my fitness classes at least dozens of times via their collection agents, but my representations to them were completely and consistently ignored.

 

 

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not due until 4 tomorrow requires a bit of work...hold on.

 

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

Sorry, can't wait until tomorrow. Don't wanna take any chances. Intend to lodge by 15:30 today latest. Wasn't the advice above to keep it simple and vague?

Edited by Beesnees
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay well I would add...

 

1. 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.The validity of the speculative invoice is denied. No copyright protected music has been played on the premises since the end of xxxx xxxx, when the claimant informed me that they were no longer able to issue license's for online fitness classes.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence otherwise.

The claimant was informed of the cessation of my fitness classes at least dozens of times via their collection agents, but my representations to them were completely and consistently ignored.

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

4. 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.

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

The initial defence is stage 1 to see if they wish to proceed.....if they do then you will be submitting a further in depth statement as will they.

Lets see.

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

Are you not submitting on line through the MCOL portal ? 

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

yes mcol same as he DID AOS.

no you dont attach anything

thats for you WS LATER!!

 

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

Cant attach anything anyway...

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

urm...

you simply copy and paste the DEFENCE @Andyorch has edited

THATS ALL AT THIS STAGE>

 

dx

 

2 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Okay well I would add...

 

1. 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.The validity of the speculative invoice is denied. No copyright protected music has been played on the premises since the end of xxxx xxxx, when the claimant informed me that they were no longer able to issue license's for online fitness classes.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence otherwise.

The claimant was informed of the cessation of my fitness classes at least dozens of times via their collection agents, but my representations to them were completely and consistently ignored.

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

4. 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.

 

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

and now get reading up!!

a good few 10-20+ threads with claimform in the title

so you know whats next and after that etc etc dq180/mediation n157/allocation etc etc witness statements etc etc

how to react etc etc

dont do anything more without checking here FIRST.

 

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

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/money-claim-online-user-guide/money-claim-online-mcol-user-guide#mcol-support

To be sent by email 

With the Subject heading defence with claim number

Send to email address

Claim Responses

Claim Responses

Complete Online at:

www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/@justice.gov.uk

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

OK, the only contact email address I could find that seemed applicable was this one:

Send by email                   Email subject heading      Send to
General correspondence Claim number only [email protected]

Defence and counterclaim now submitted. Later than I intended, but then again, their site did give me a lot of grief over the last few days. And still within their deadline despite all that.

Special thx to Andy for his help. I'm sure you're aware I couldn't have done this without you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MCOL is only one way of responding to a claim. 
(AOS, DEFENCE, N180 ETC)
.
If you are having problems logging in, or would prefer not to use MCOL
you can fax, email or post your response to the Court instead. 

If you send your response by e mail 
please send it to [email protected]

ensure you quote “Claim number xxx xxx (type of response i'e AOS , Defence, N180)” in the subject field. 
.i hope you didnt counterclaim?

but only filed what @Andyorch gave 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

On 27/06/2023 at 13:01, dx100uk said:

stop wasting time on mass conspiracy theories else you'll screw up.

dx

opps that didn't sink in. daddy rage again.

a county court do not act as enforcement for 'the hurt feelings police force'

:whistle:

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

Nothing to do with conspiracy, hurt feelings or dad rage. Everything to do with extorting money with menaces. She is entitled to a refund for both 2021 and 2022, regardless of any other consideration. She would have let it go - but for their malicious claim and continuing pursuit of her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is still an unnecessary retaliatory action against their claim which complicates matters.

far better done under a new claim for the sums they were not entitled too after they lose this one .

it costs them more money and can include your claimants costs to a certain limit.

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

I don't dispute any of that dx100ukTruth be told, I seriously doubt I would have pursued a separate future claim once their spurious claim had been rebuffed. It was very much either a case of striking now while the iron was hot, or forgetting about it altogether. I haven't gone into detail, but there is a direct link between their claim and her counterclaim that we wanted to preserve. That link would have been compromised in a separate claim. 

I don't see it as retaliation. If anything, a future counterclaim looks far more retaliatory to me. They need to be made aware of the misery their tactics visit on their victims. If we win the claim, I see it as just recompense for the harm they have done to her. And if we lose - well, that will be my cost, not hers, and that's a risk I was prepared to take. 

Anyway, too late now. I managed to log onto my MCOL a/c after all. Ball now in their court - pun intended. We shall await further developments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be a counterclaim fee subject to the value of your Part 20 counter claim. I wished you would have included the CC in your draft defence as it must be laid out in a certain format to be CPR compliant.

True, the best way to claim is to counter claim at the expense of the claimants claim rather than a separate claim.

 

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

The fee has been paid - £80.

Sorry, but it's a separate question on the MCOL form, so didn't think it was relevant as far as the defence was concerned. If I made a mistake in the format, hopefully the court can exercise some latitude as far as strict compliance is concerned. As I said, I'm not the AG after all. 

May be too late now, but I can post it here for your 'post-mortem' comments/observations if you wish? And I'm gratified to note that (contra dx100uk) you agree with the timing of my c/claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...