Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • As per the heading, received a parking charge for failure to display a blue badge in a disabled bay on a retail park.  I am a blue badge holder, disabled/wheelchair user with a Motability vehicle. I received the charge as 'notice to keeper' I was not the driver. I don't have a valid driving license so use a carer. The notice arrived a week after the alleged incident. It states that as the 'driver' failed to pay the charge in full  hence, it is now the keepers responsibility ( the notice was dated 2 days after the alleged infringement and as no notice to driver was on the vehicle, I don't know how they expect the driver to be able to either pay or dispute the charge if they are not aware of it) Anyway, really looking for help how to reply. I cannot remember if the badge was correctly displayed or not. Photos taken of car miss a bit where I store my badge if not displayed so it would be possible to see a badge even if not 'correctly displayed" . It was a bit of a sh**ty day weather wise, gusty and raining  (as seen on the photos which reminded me of the actual day) so it is possible that badge blew to the floor as the driver was helping me out of the car into wheelchair. There is no windscreen photo showing that a PCN to "Driver" was stuck on the window either. The car park is free. There are no Parking Signs at all near the disabled bays that one could read to adhere to any terms and conditions. The whole row of disabled bays - of which are there many only state badge holders ( does not stipulate Blue Badge Holders) The notice states that the parking company is a member of the BPA and Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The BPA, section 19.1 State that at least one parking sign should be near the disabled bays, in a position that can be easily  read by by a disabled person without leaving their car in order to decide to be bound by such terms. We returned to look for signage on the retail park and could not find one sign that was near the bays. The only sign we could find was high up on a pole but not near the bays. Someone had to get out of the car and stand on tip toes to be able to take a photo of a sign. I would be grateful if someone could help or point me in the right direction. It is now  15 days since the alleged incident and 7 days since I received the notice.
    • also just to clarify is it required that I physically post to both the county court and Evri? I read in another thread you can just email Evri a copy since they will just rescan whatever you post anyway (if they even read it)
    • I'm going to add some context here, it may or may not be different to mine, but it provides a hint around what you can expect from Overdales. My thread to read  TLDR  Lowell / Overdales lied about sending letters (I keep all mine), Admitted the default notice was faulty and made up their own, saying that's all fine, (Fake letters sent to 'prove ' it), Sent documentation that is illegible, not on letterheaded paper.  They will lie, try and make things up, try and send you offers to settle, play good cop, bad cop, all in the name of intimidating you into paying up, don't fall for it!  
    • Hi Dx,   I really have tried to fill the this in and paste the answers as I appreciate the advice    but it’s confusing as asks for e1 box and e2 box to answer I don’t have that    what I received from the court is    Form 02 Form 03 Form 05 Form 07 for if I wish to defend  also initial writ  Thanks 
    • The Tories seem to be confused at the moment, UB. Leaving aside the point about their record for now, Atkins completely ignored protocol by interrupting the Labour minister while he was speaking. I'm sure if a Labour MP had done that to a Tory minister there would have been uproar. I hadn't realised that Christopher Chope is a deputy Speaker now - I had go and and look that up.
  • 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
      • 162 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

Mutt vs CitiCards


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6193 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

I need some help with my claim against Citi Cards. Started a claim against Citi some months ago with the standard prelim and LBA. Received the usual reply telling me to get lost. However just before I filed my N1 at my local court I received a cheque for the difference of the amount of charges that I had asked to be refunded .Citi were claiming to be refunding the difference from the £25.00 charges levied originally to their revised figure of £12.00. All standard stuff.

Replied to Brian Smith advising that the offer was accepted as part settlement only and that I would still be pursuing Citi for the remainder including contractual interest. Heard nothing more so filed my N1 claim at the local court. Received defence from Citi dated 18th Dec. To my horror when reading through the papers it was stated in p8. that they had made an ex gratia payment for £208 and not for £200 as pleaded. After checking my poc on the N1 I realised that they were right.

After checking my N1 I discovered another error in that I had claimed that the account was opened on or around 2nd March 2003 and closed on or around 2nd Jan 2004. However after going through my stats again and my schedule of charges ,I am claiming for charges made in Feb 2003 with the account being opened in Dec 2002.

The question is this do I now need to file to alter my N1 poc or is it to late. If it is to late do I cancel the claim and start again or do I wait until I receive the AQ and carry on. I have checked and double checked that everything was spot on until the payment received screwed things up. One last point in p10. Citi claim that I am not entitled to claim for the refund of the £10,00 SAR fee as this is a fee prescribed by statute and is not recoverable. New one on me. Would appreciate any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Know she's probably busy, but gizmo111 can probably answer that question.

 

I went the MCOL route so not completely sure. If memory serves me right you can ammend the details of your claim though think there is a fee involved.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mutt,

 

I think probably the best thing to do because it is Citi is to submit an N244 with amended POC. Unfortunately this will cost you £35 and is not recoverable.

 

You can find one here and fill in online http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForms.do;jsessionid=FC0C4364A9FD7CFF9C663439CEB1B60E

 

If you need any further help just shout.

 

Good Luck

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gizmo,

 

Thanks for the reply. Can I fill in N244 online even though I handed my NI into the court. Also is there any time limit to make the amendment ie before AQ and what about the comments in their defence that I am unable to reclaim the £10.00 SAR fee because it is prescribed by statute.

Again I would appreciate your help on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You fill the N244 in on line and print 3 copies of it and post (not like MCOL where you submit online).

Some people have reclaimed the £10, but Citi are correct in that they can charge £10 as a stat fee. As this is Citi I personally wouldn't pursue it as they look for every little thing to pick holes in.

 

Good Luck

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to have gone fairly quite for Brian & Co. considering the massive interest against this lot not long ago. Does anyone know of any court dates yet and is there any appeal date set for LTWFB. Also Citi are claiming to have won two cases in N Ireland is that true.

 

Any info anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to have gone fairly quite for Brian & Co. considering the massive interest against this lot not long ago. Does anyone know of any court dates yet and is there any appeal date set for LTWFB. Also Citi are claiming to have won two cases in N Ireland is that true.

 

Any info anyone.

 

Hi Mutt,

 

Citi haven't actually won anything - The judge in LTWFB agreed to the £12 as the evidence was bought into hearing at last moment. AFAIK he hasn't a date yet for appeal. Are they quoting a name on the 2nd case and when did they inform you of this.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning gizmo 111,

 

In a letter received from David Travis 18th December 2006 he states that there have been two recent actions in Northern Ireland where the cases were brought seperately by a husband and wife and were those of Kissick v CitiFinancial Europe plc.

 

He goes on to say the same old stuff about the OFT report being used in court before advising that the applications by the Claimants were dismissed.

 

He goes on to say that in my claim he would rely on the Courts decision in the Kissick cases and defend his client on that basis.

 

Load of tosh. I knew about LTWFB but not about his wife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about all of the other City cases, I thought that a definite date has been given to hear a number of cases in the Mercantile Court.

 

Another thing that seems strange is the fact that City have used the OFT formula to arrive at an actual cost to them for each breach of £12.88. However because they are such a generous bunch they will only charge £12.00 which in my calculations means incurring a loss of 88p on each charge.

As I say if their actual costs (and these have been sworn under oath in front of a judge) are slightly over the £12.00 mark then why would they be worried if the OFT were to look at anything over £12.00. Surely if these costs were arrived at using the OFT formula they could have used the evidence to defend the claims against them long before now instead of resorting to the outrageous delaying tactics that they have been allowed to get away with.

 

Any comments

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning gizmo 111,

 

In a letter received from David Travis 18th December 2006 he states that there have been two recent actions in Northern Ireland where the cases were brought seperately by a husband and wife and were those of Kissick v CitiFinancial Europe plc.

 

He goes on to say the same old stuff about the OFT report being used in court before advising that the applications by the Claimants were dismissed.

 

He goes on to say that in my claim he would rely on the Courts decision in the Kissick cases and defend his client on that basis.

 

Load of tosh. I knew about LTWFB but not about his wife.

 

our cases were heard concurrently.I have heard no date for an appeal hearing,but I intend to start chasing things up this week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
What about all of the other City cases, I thought that a definite date has been given to hear a number of cases in the Mercantile Court.

 

Another thing that seems strange is the fact that City have used the OFT formula to arrive at an actual cost to them for each breach of £12.88. However because they are such a generous bunch they will only charge £12.00 which in my calculations means incurring a loss of 88p on each charge.

As I say if their actual costs (and these have been sworn under oath in front of a judge) are slightly over the £12.00 mark then why would they be worried if the OFT were to look at anything over £12.00. Surely if these costs were arrived at using the OFT formula they could have used the evidence to defend the claims against them long before now instead of resorting to the outrageous delaying tactics that they have been allowed to get away with.

 

Any comments

 

FROM A SHAREHOLDERS POINT OF VIEW I WONDER if there is any "angle about not acting in the interests of there shareholders" ie deliberately "trading at a loss" is some kind of offence ????

 

as usual it is for others to decide not me ! sorry just realised their shares will be listed in the US and not GB but for for others the question may remain

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi All,

 

Starting to prepare my court bundle and I could do with a list of all the successes against Citi. Could do with case numbers, amounts and which court.

 

I am claiming CCI and it would help if there is anyone who has already won this and has received payment.

 

My bundle has to be in by next week so early replies would be appreciated.

 

Feel free to PM me if nessessary.

 

Thanks

 

Mutt

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a list of a few Citi successes, strange that these are also normally claims on which Citi have defaulted on orders for a breakdown of costs.

 

Your probably better placed to raise Citi's non-compliance with orders for a breakdown of costs - rather than succesful cases, as each case will likely be judged on it's own individual merits in the eyes of a court.

 

CCI, your probably best to read up on other successful claimants for CCI against other institutions. You'll have to establish a good case for claiming this - might well be that the defendants continually non-compliance to reveal their actual costs when orderred, and different pre-estimate exhibits (which both can't be right) will be a start. Anything that's concise and magnifies the suspicion on their figures will help.

 

Don't think many people have done CCI claims so far against them as it complicates an already hard process..... albeit hopefully my notes helped you out.

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...