Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
    • i was merely pointing out if the OP did put in an N244 it required a bundle. as for what they need to do now.... it might be an idea to post a link to your thread then the OP can read it and understand where your guidance is coming from and the ongoing process he will have to follow... dx
    • The notes entered into circulation yesterday and are proving popular with collectors, who will be hoping to snap up examples with low serial numbers.View the full article
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • Happy to have a bet with you Jugg    3 seats won you donate £100 0 seats won I donate £100 2 seats won you donate £50 I donate £25 1 seat won you donate £25 I donate £50   that way site wins 😀
  • 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

HSCB intend to defend (^QZ26702) - Settled -


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6595 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

Yes I agree! I had the same letter I havent signed yet ? but i am going too sign and take the money and run.

Confidentiality my arse!!!!

 

Louize, excuse the brief hijack, but:

 

MALCOLMGILL, if you're saying you will agree to confidentiality and then not shut up, that is not a wise move! If you sign and agree to confidentiality, it's LEGALLY binding! If you are found to break the agreement, they can sue YOU for return of the money they've paid you and lots more besides. My advice: Sign and shut up, or don't sign and shout it from the rooftops!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was agreeing with your reasonably Point! But I haven’t signed anything legally binding yet? Meaning until you do surely you can say what you like with out being sued? So I can shout it from the rooftops before I sign up and shut up.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done mate. Its good to see that persistance pays off
So true, so true, so true...and I am not able to say more at this point :)

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One last thing in relation to this, the ex gratia amount referred to by the legal team has appeared in my partners account as "a refund of charges"....

So which is it HSBC???

 

:-)

Click links below to view threads:

 

Halifax £763 REFUNDED

Halifax Visa £125 REFUNDED

Amex Blue Card - £323 REFUNDED

HSBC - OFFER ACCEPTED & REFUNDED

Littlewoods - Removal of Default Notice - REFUSED

Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, it is probably not worth arguing over the wording. They want you to think they are doing you a favour...they can call it what they like so long as they pay it back...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

? Im not concerned about wording, just informing what they put on the account contradicts their letter.

Click links below to view threads:

 

Halifax £763 REFUNDED

Halifax Visa £125 REFUNDED

Amex Blue Card - £323 REFUNDED

HSBC - OFFER ACCEPTED & REFUNDED

Littlewoods - Removal of Default Notice - REFUSED

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would do now:

 

Transfer the money elsewhere. Then send another letter saying that you accept in full and final settlement, blah blah blah, and you will consider the confidentiality issue - it being a separate issue to the offer - if they offer you a £5000 (example only - put in what you like) fee. Otherwise you do not accept their confidentiality clause.

 

You MUST reply though; as not replying may be construed as acceptance of any and all terms they specify in their letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you from experience that you will get the money regardless of whether or not you sign the confidentiality thing at the bottom.

 

My advice, and again from experience, tell them to stick it.

First Direct, £4031 Recovered

Halifax, £953 Recovered

MBNA Credit Card, £120 Recovered

American Express, £160 Recovered

Coming Soon......

Blackpool Council, £190 in unlawful parking tickets

Carstoppers. £50 from the cowboy clampers

Link to post
Share on other sites

This matter is now settled. Their offer has been accepted and the agreement signed. I am taking NO FURTHER ACTION in relation to the HSBC issue.

 

I just wanted to say, as an aside to the ex gratia payment, that they have called it on the statement a "refund of charges" - which I thought I would share with the forum and nothing more

 

Thanks

Click links below to view threads:

 

Halifax £763 REFUNDED

Halifax Visa £125 REFUNDED

Amex Blue Card - £323 REFUNDED

HSBC - OFFER ACCEPTED & REFUNDED

Littlewoods - Removal of Default Notice - REFUSED

Link to post
Share on other sites

that they have called it on the statement a "refund of charges"
Yes, that is always funny. However, you have won - well done. :)

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 2019-03-08.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Click links below to view threads:

 

Halifax £763 REFUNDED

Halifax Visa £125 REFUNDED

Amex Blue Card - £323 REFUNDED

HSBC - OFFER ACCEPTED & REFUNDED

Littlewoods - Removal of Default Notice - REFUSED

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6595 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...