Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It would be helpful if the entire final version appeared in one document . Also I am going to go back and delete the draft unamended versions in order to recover a bit of space  
    • Sure, although i'd like to think other people would read the thread to access the final version uploaded yesterday and recognise that there was feedback post-upload for only a new paragraph 47 to be added. Anyway, attached is the redacted updated final version of the WS / Court bundle with the new paragraph. Final WS and Court Bundle redacted.pdf
    • OK.  All of us here have made mistakes in legal dispute - the important thing is to learn from the mistakes and get it right the next time.  So for future reference - 1.  Not a good idea to ignore a Letter of Claim.  The PPCs are on the look out for people who don't reply, as they think there is a good chance that the person won't reply to the claim form either, gifting them an easy default win. 2.  Not a good idea to fail to send a CPR request.  As they usually don't reply this gives you a chance to wallop them in your WS for not producing the correct legal permissions. 3.  Not a good idea to play your cards so early in your defence.  They will know how you mean to defend and will prepare accordingly to rubbish your arguments. Anyway, spilt milk and all that ... So what arguments do you plan to put in your WS?  You can't say "a bloke told me I could park there" as your opponent will just ridicule you for believing a load of baloney and not bothering to read the car park signage. I see you have questioned their right to bring claims under their own name (defence point 1) which is a start - but unfortunately you can't show them up for refusing to show their contract with the landowner following a CPR request. Who is this mysterious owner of the car park then who gave the permission and can they be involved? Your arguments about POFA (4) will fail as you've outed yourself as being the driver in your defence (3). You question their signage (17, 20).  Good.  Have you got photos of the rubbish signage? I'm afraid you don't seem to have real defence arguments that will stand up in court. dx is right - let's see the original PCN and any correspondence with UKPC.  
    • Thank you HB, I’ll speak to them. 
    • You need to speak to the student welfare people. They aren't the people who decide if you stay or not, they should be there for students. HB
  • 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

Equita


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6006 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

I have recently received correspondence from these with a breakdown of their charges. I have written back informing them that I will be claiming these charges back, however,I did not stipulate the amount just stated 'full monies'.

Do I know send them a LBA or should I break it down for them in a preliminary letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes agreed.

If they reply to the prelim within the 14 days you can of course get the Lba straight out...assuming that they reply with a negative response.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The charges I am claiming are broken down as such:

Parking fine 95.00

initial letter 12.00

bailiff fees 126.00

VAT 24.76

card fees 4.26

 

Payments received 105.00

 

Evidently this would have covered the initial parking ticket, however , they have sent the debt back to the council.

Do I proceed with an MCOL for the payments I made or do I ask for a SAR so that this is broken down and I can see where the bailiffs attended and thus their justification for the fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bailiffs must provide you with a breakdown of costs and also a statement of showing the ammounts added to your account so yes by all means send them the S.A.R.

 

The Council will have set figures as to how much a bailiff can charge per visit and they will only be able to try a couple of times before having to return the debt to the council.

 

If the costs the bailiff has added and the ammount the council says they can charge don't match then send them the prelim.

 

Sometimes it can be good to copy all letters to the council just keeps them on there toes.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...