Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update:   A couple of weeks further along, and the charge has now been cancelled. In that regard alone the outcome is acceptable.   In the interim ...  There have been additional demands from CPP/PE in the most glorious and laughable obfuscated prose/legalese I have pressured PALS I have chased past correspondence I have contacted other Execs I have involved my MP who has now acted I had primed the local newspaper who was planning a piece this week   However ...   - PALS didn't respond until I complained in person after almost 2 silent weeks; then promised to help and a couple of days after that advised that the Hosp had said thye had no authority over the Parking Co. I told them the hosp had told them wrong, explained why and pressed them to go back ... since when I have heard nothing despite chasing them. - UHCW Trust Estates & Facilities Dir. is yet to respond, though contact was *only* a week ago. - UHCW CEO/Chief Administrator has never acknowledged/replied-to any of my letters/chases. - UHCW CEO/Chief Admin reacted immediately to MP letter however by passing it and my correspondence to Estates and Facilities Dir to deal with, who in turn replied to MP with cancellation, who yesterday copied that to me for confirmation received this morning.   Passing thoughts ...   - People who could/should have been dealing with it for the injured party elected not to. - PALS has good intentions but is useless if they don't have a leaflet on it - will follow the Hosp line on everything else without questioning their words. - The Trust's Administration is not approach-friendly, in this instance stating "... car parking managed by a Private Finance Initiative Service Provider"  and that therefore  ".. Trust has no power ...  in the processes applied by CPP .." Oh, really?!  - Trust accepted CPP's word that the equip't was not faulty as claimed, not the rather more reliable word of a visitor having been put to considerable inconvenience at 5 a.m.and who went to some length with staff to deal with it instead of buggering off home. - CPP "have agreed (to cancel) as a gesture of good will." WHAT?! THEIR good will? THEY are willing to let MY failings pass and kindly make allowances? Couldn't be more self-delusionarily wrong!   Sadly, I can guarantee that what is actually important in all of this will not get any attention   - providing an alternative payment method for patients/visitors for when the equipment malfunctions ... at any time not just the wee-hours ...  and tell staff ...  and put notices up. - UHCW taking any notice of their culpability in CPP's unlawful breaching of GDPR in accessing keeper details now that it has been brought to their attention. Head In Sand.       All of this comes of course from pulling-up the drawbridge and deny, deny, deny. It is the knee-jerk response of almost all large organisations, but one for which there should be no place in a Hospital Trust that should strongly want to distance itself from uncaring attitudes and irresponsible practises.   Anyway ...   Anyone finding this because of a similar issue of their own, my strongest advice is to heed the advice given to you on this forum - it put me straight on to the right path and got rid of some nervous uncertainties which makes all the difference to peace of mind, something that CPP relies on to add pressure for those who aren't aware of what's what.   My thanks again to all who kindly helped.            
    • At the investigation yes, they are seeing if they can build a case.   Like the police interview you before deciding if you are going to be charged. Not everyone is charged as some people have done nothing wrong!   If you tell people what the investigation is about before they go in, a proportion will use that knowledge to prepare really good lies. That's why companies don't do it.   I would have a read up on the ACAS site of guidelines for both investigations and disciplinaries.    https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1874
    • So they've back-tracked on their original statement that his insurance has been voided. If it's not been voided and was in force at the time of the accident there is no role for MIB. MIB gets involved if a driver was uninsured at the time of the accident, but 1st Central are now telling you he was insured. In the response you have had from MIB that is what they say, he was not uninsured. Whoever it was who told you that the policy had been voided was, by the sound of it, telling you something that simply wasn't true.   I've never heard of 1st Central but from their website it's clear they are an insurance broker not the actual insurance company https://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/who-we-are  As a broker they are acting for their client, the driver, and have no duty to be impartial in considering whose fault it was.   So looks like you have no option now other than to start a small claims court action against the driver.
    • Pass all of these letters to mib when you start the claim. Eventually they will have to pay up.
    • Only that I will be updated this week.    So what your saying then is I should recieve a letter inviting me for a disciplinary hearing and attend a disciplinary. I thought the disciplinary was to give you the outcome of the investigation.     It seems a little odd that I have an investigation meeting I am asked question and given the chance to reply to the questions. It seemed odd that in this meeting I was shown evidence against me that I had not previously seen. Surely I should have been given the evidence first before being asked questions about it. It feels like they are building a case against me at the investigation meeting......
  • Our picks

townend81

£750 limit question

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4576 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello people

 

I know i've read this before but i can't find it anywhere now.

 

When filing for court (like i'm doing now). Does the total amount have to be under £750? e.g: Charges + 8% interest + court fees = £750

 

Or is it: Charges = $750 + 8% + court fees?

 

Thanks for any help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably you are talking about a Scottish claim? If yes, then the total claimable under Small Claims is £750 and that excludes interest and court fees.

 

However, you may be able to use MCOL and take advantage of the £5000 small claims limit as long as you have an address you can use for service of documents in either England or Wales.


iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks hagenuk.

 

Yes it's a scottish claim. tbh i've only just found the Scottish section. I wondered why very few people were replying to my thread in the normal BoS section. Might be an idea to get you to move it actually if you don't mind. Although i've just found out i don't know how to link it. Thanks for your reply though. It was just what i needed to know.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there townend, I've recently made the mistake of going for £750 worth of charges + 8% interest + expenses but was quickly put right by the clerk who said i could include the interest but as long as the two added together came in under £750. Hope this helps and good luck.

 

davg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah cheers davg. That was close. Back to amend the spreadsheet. Thank You. That must have been a nightmare when you handed your stuff in and found you had to go and change it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry davg, can't understand why they told you that. Claim is £750 of charges + 8% interest + £39 fee. Received nearly £920 back from BOS to settle my first claim. Clerk of court must have made a mistake.

What hagenuk said was right.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Townend1

Have just read your post and was wondering if your claim is for more than £750 of charges you could use summery cause which allows you to claim £1500,i have just been paid out on my second summery claim and going for 3rd i also live in scotland.It costs you another £16 or so but it is worth it, this is for a sherrif officer to serve it this may sound complicated to you but it isn't if i can do it anyone can.If i can be of any help to you just ask,you will get your money back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi willmurr. Funny you should say that about summary cause. I was sitting trawling the website last night while sorting my spreadsheets and found loads of info on summary cause and realized the it's not exactly a great risk to go for it because not only are they not going to send a lawyer to the court to defend more than £750 but less than £1500 (which my claim is), and even if they did, they're not exactly going to start revealing they're cost for sending automated letters because i'll have won then anyway along with the entire country! Thats if this case even goes to court in the first case. I also found out about getting a sheriff officer to serve and have their phone numbers in front of me right now!

 

Thanks everyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to mislead you townend if thats the case, the clerk who i spoke to was adamant that i was the first person to try and do the claim by adding the interest on top of £750 worth of charges. To be honest she didn't seem to clued up so Mhairi your probably right about this. There has been conflicting arguements on this for a while now, maybe one of the mods can put everyone right.

 

davg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That might be an idea. Don't worry davg. I did go and amend my spreadsheets but to the effect of adding all of the charges together! Why not, try and go for it all in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that through reading several posts i haved formed an opinion of adding interest to POC. This is as follows

Where peeps have had claim of £750 (charges) and added text to the words of claiming judicial interest at 8% etc etc etc the banks have more than often offered settlement of the claim itself (charges only) and indeed have put in writing that the interest is only added at the judges discretion, yes you could say to hell with that and hold out for it but the way i see it better is to make your claim up to £750 or as near to it including the interest (contractual as i got or judicial) then they will have paid your interest as well and you dont need to wait any longer, cute eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...