Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mold growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behavior as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
    • The part in question was bought direct from Hotpoint (to replace a burnt door interlock and melted wiring). I'm unsure of the original retailer the machine was bought from, we're talking 5 years+ ago, but I can find out if absolutely necessary. It's one of the models that was listed on the recall list, but Hotpoint have stated for many years it wasn't an affected unit when given the serial number - I expect this is why they offered a FoC engineer visit because I sent them pictures of the (new ) burned door interlock.
  • 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
      • 160 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

GuidoT v Natwest **Settled**


GuidoT
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6180 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

Oi!

 

Lynsey at Cobbetts!

 

Guido is a righteous man, so give him his money!!

 

(Hope that helps, Guido)

:D

Westy

Westy

 

 

 

If you like my post, click the scales!!

 

Nov 1 2006 Preliminary letter

21 Feb 2007 - cheque arrived for charges+DEBIT interest +Statutory Interest! Hurray!

Read all about it: natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest

DONATE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO KEEP THE SITE GOING.

 

What can you claim? Vampiress has a good idea:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/69877-what-can-you-claim.html

Anything I say is just a suggestion. I'm a bigmouth, not a lawyer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you Westy - I think you need to try a bit harder, use your charm on the lady.

 

Received the Notice of Acknowledgement of Service today and they Intend to Defend all of the Claim. It is Cobbetts acting.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received what would have been a full offer before filing the N1, i.e. the charges only - no interest or court fee.

 

On the same day I also receive a copy of the Acknowledgement of Service from Cobetts saying they are going to defend the matter in full.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the offer letter they say that if I do not accept the offer, then they may consider changing my account and giving me a 'simple account' account only.

 

Is this an empty threat?

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, but don't worry too much.

 

Do you have a parachute a/c in place? If not, now's the time to get one.

 

Best wishes and adios

Westy

 

 

 

If you like my post, click the scales!!

 

Nov 1 2006 Preliminary letter

21 Feb 2007 - cheque arrived for charges+DEBIT interest +Statutory Interest! Hurray!

Read all about it: natwesttookmymoney - v- NatWest

DONATE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO KEEP THE SITE GOING.

 

What can you claim? Vampiress has a good idea:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/69877-what-can-you-claim.html

Anything I say is just a suggestion. I'm a bigmouth, not a lawyer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1000th post.

 

I have received a defence, is there anything to be concerned about or is it standard, I was expecting the Part 18 nonsense, but that part seems to be missing. Anyways here it is:

 

'Defence

 

1. This Defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the Particulars of Claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the Claim is not properly particularised then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

2. Without prejudice to the non-admission set out in the foregoing paragraph, if and to the extent that the Claimant proves the allegation that the Defendant debited charges to the Claimant's bank account, insofar as such charges were debited on a date or dates more than six years prior to the issue of this claim, any remedy in respect of the same, whether damages, restitution or otherwise, is barred by the operation of the Limitation Act 1980 and/or the doctrine of laches and the Defendant will apply to strike out this aspect of the claim and/or for summary judgment.

 

3. On allocation the Defendant invites the Court to direct that there be a case managment conference in order for the Court to consider the making of appropriate orders to give the Claimant the opportunity to properly particularise his claim.

 

4. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the claimants bank account.

 

5. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair contract terms act 1977 ("UCTA 1977") and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (the regulations), and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify:

 

5.1. (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ("UCTA 1977"); (b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ("the Regulations"); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

 

5.2. the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and/or the regulations

 

Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the Defendant cannot plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 5 above. The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

 

6. In relation to the case of the Claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of SGSA section 15 the Defendant pleads as follows:

 

6.1. The Claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the claimant and the defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

 

6.2. Further, the claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon the claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

6.3. In the circumstance no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the Defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15.

 

6.4. In the circumstances (save as appears below) the Defendant is unable to plead to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to his allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 6.1 - 6.3 above are addressed.

 

6.5. It is the case of the Defendant that the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration of the service would be determined by the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the Claimant and the Defendant.

 

7. Save a hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant on the claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

Statement of Truth'

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Josamolly, thank you again for the Reply to the Defence by PM.

 

I thought it is unusual to issue a Reply in small claims - I know I have not been allocated yet, but this claim is likely to be in small claims - £4K.

 

Is the Reply essential and does the issue of it speed up the settlement process?

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if its essential but i faxed over to Cobbets last week my AQ, the reply to the defence, the Draft Orders and another copy of my spreadsheet.. I had an offer the next day by recorded delivery...

 

Today i have filed my AQ as they had put conditions on my acceptance which i wasn't prepared to accept...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

GuidoT

Good luck.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Received Cobbetts AQ today, in section G they have stated:

 

'The Claimant has not shown that he has reasonable grounds for bringing the Claim and despite the Defendant requesting the Claimant remedy the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has failed to do so. Case management directions cannot be proposed until the Claimant fully particularises his Claim. In light of this, the Defendant may amend its Defence or apply to strike out.'

 

I have not issued the reply that Josamolly kindly PMed me yet.

 

Is this section G part normal?

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely normal cobblers from cobblers.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/11644-allocation-questionnaires-guide-completion.html. Have you sent cobblers and the courts your charges spreadsheet . If so just sit back and enjoy. The court will issue directions. On the home straight now.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brill then onwards and upwards now.:)

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sent this letter to the Bank with a copy to Cobetts (the offer is for £10 less than I am claiming):

 

 

'I am disappointed that you have failed to settle my claim as above and I am affording yourselves one final opportunity to resolve the matter to avoid incurring further costs.

 

The present position is that I have filed a claim, that was deemed served on the 16 February 2007 (copy enclosed) you have filed a defence, allocation questionnaires have been filed and we are presently awaiting directions from the court.

 

You have filed a defence in the knowledge that you will settle the matter in full prior to the hearing. This tactic which is an abuse of the court process. I attach an example list of claims that you have settled in such a manner. If you were the Claimant you would be considered a vexatious litigant.

 

My claim stands at £x (including court fees and interest to the 12 February 2007) to that sum a daily rate of interest from the 13 February 2007 applies of £0.xp per day and the Allocation Questionnaire fee of £100.00 should be added. Therefore, the total sum claimed presently stands at £x, i.e. £x + ((72 days x £0.xp) + £100.00).

 

If you continue pointlessly defending the matter you will incur further costs, viz:

  • Your own legal costs, i.e. Cobetts LLP’s
  • Further interest that accrues
  • My costs. I realise the recovery of costs is restricted as this claim is likely to be allocated to the small claims track, but on the basis of your unreasonable conduct of dragging out litigation before conceding liability I will claim the same. Authority for this can be found in Mahmood v Watson

I am prepared to fully and finally settle the matter for £x, providing your deposit that sum in my bank account within 14 days from the date of this letter. If that sum is paid, I will of course discontinue my claim.'

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received a cheque for full sum less some pre 6 years charges of £250.00 today. Not sure if my letter in the immediately preceding post acted as a catalyst.

 

Not worth the time, I am going to take the just under £4K cheque.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CONGRATULATIONS Guidot!! I'd do exactly the same myself.............. enjoy the cash! xx :p

Can't find what you're looking for? Please have a look at Michael Browne's

A-Z Guide

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

I do not answer queries via PM. If you send me a PM, please include a link to your thread - any advice I am able to offer will be on your thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...