Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • a 'witness' to it not arriving till the 15th is sadly immaterial too. regardless to the above anyway, the PCN remains valid. 
    • Hmm yes I see your point about proof of postage but nonetheless... "A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid,  must be delivered either (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales." My question there is really what might constitute proof? Since you say the issue of delivery is a common one I suppose that no satisfactory answer has been established or you would probably have told me.
    • I would stand your ground and go for the interest. Even if the interest is not awarded you will get the judgement and the worst that might happen is that you won't get your claim fee.  However, it is almost inevitable that you will get the interest.  It is correct that it is at the discretion of the judge but the discretion is almost always exercised in favour of the claimant in these cases.  I think you should stand your ground and don't give even the slightest penny away Another judgement against them on this issue would be very bad for them and they would be really stupid to risk it but if they did, it would cost them far more than the interest they are trying to save which they will most likely have to pay anyway
    • Yep, true to form, they are happy to just save a couple of quid... They invariably lose in court, so to them, that's a win. 😅
    • Your concern regarding the 14 days delivery is a common one. Not been on the forum that long, but I don't think the following thought has ever been challenged. My view is that they should have proof of when it was posted, not when they "issued", or printed it. Of course, they would never show any proof of postage, unless it went to court. Private parking companies are simply after money, and will just keep sending ever more threatening letters to intimidate you into paying up. It's not been mentioned yet, but DO NOT APPEAL! You could inadvertently give up useful legal protection and they will refuse any appeal, because they're just after the cash...  
  • 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

DG dirty tricks? ****WON****


lizvp
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6251 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

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

good morning lattie,

 

are you teasing me? just in case ur not, here goes...SoL= statute of limitations.

 

DG are arguing that we can only claim back 6 years from the date of issue of court proceedings as anything before that is statute barred. there are many many discussions going on about statute of limitations, but my understanding is that the SoL runs from when the deception/mistake was discovered, or in this case from when we sent the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) (this is why the template S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) has been recently changed).

 

however, i also thought that the statue ran forward not backwards? meaning that we have 6 years FROM the date we discover the deception/mistake in which to bring a case; and in any case that the SoL may not apply when a fiduciary as being taken to task by his customer/victim.

 

phoenix is waxing lyrical cos if the SoL is kicked into touch, we can claim back beyond birth :rolleyes: if we can prove deliberate injustice....well maybe not, but we can certainly claim back as far as we can prove charges.

 

cornwall is dull and grey..a bit like my brain this morning, so hope this makes sense etc?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope - not kidding - just never dealt with it and couldn't think what sol could stand for - info isn't new - just the words (i'm a simple soul really).

so, really only need it if the claims go back beyond the 6 years, right?

dull and grey here in hull too - just like me! - never mind my brain. it makes perfect sense, thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

:( hope i didnt sound patronizing lattie :( was the furthest thought from my mind....ive been researching the SoL so intensively over the last few days that i automatically assume everyone knows what im thinking about.

 

think i might be a tad too immersed in all this, my other half talls me that i have been muttering about the Supply of Goods act and promissory estopple in my sleep :smile:

 

afraid my imagination isnt good enough to picture you as dull or grey! rather more a shining beacon of information and insight

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:p lols @ nettie, i seem to recall that was my reaction too!! worry not tho, its a defence that the mortgage companies are using..yes, i just delivered court bundle for our claim against our ex mortgage company, in court in 2 weeks time! eeeek indeed!

was it aceades lattie? just reading his thread. only too pleased to help if i can, still a little bemused that i can help...its kinda splendid to be involved in such a modern revolution, kinda the ultimate in peaceful protest :)

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, as you are further along than he - he had an offer which they didn't want to pay o/d interest and 8% on it - he just rejected it - i think he'll get an updated offer shortly - but he wants to know what to do when their aq deadline (extended) isn't met. i think it's filing for judgment - but told him to wander over and take a look at yours.

it was someone else asking about the over 6 years, can't remember who just now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just a quick update while i wait to see if postie brings anything of interest this morning, before i give rachel a ring.

 

letter from DG at the weekend (without prejudice save as to costs) again offering the full amount, bar the £500 or so that they believe to be statute barred..i now have enough material on the subject to be fairly confident they dont have a leg to stand on. if anyone wants a good case on SoL, try this one Judgement - Nelson v. Rye

which states, among other things, that claims against a fiduciary are not expressly covered by the SoL and so are not limited by statute :D

 

the tone of the letter is quite intimidating, they start off by stating that the judge hasnt struck out the defence and the case is with the listings manager..they seem to be hinting that they have a sound case as it hasnt been struck out!! they are also using that old bully boy tactic, saying that they will use this letter in court to prove that they have made a reasonable offer and will be seeking costs...of course, they actually have to turn up in court to bring this argument, they then have to prove that it is a reasonable offer, and win; which all seems a bit unlikely somehow.

 

yesterday received the letter from the court as follows, allocation to small claims, hearing to take place 13th march and should take no longer than 1 minute, standard disclosure no later than 14 days before hearing.

so just a week to file court bundle, which doesnt bother me at all, hehe.

 

well, nothing from postie, so off to phone DG. and btw, im very honoured by bonus point for 1 min hearing:D

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just as a p.s. is everyone aware of this petition to the prime-minister to force banks to refund charges and to remove the 6 year time bar, forcing them to repay from 1980??!! it can be found here...

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Force the banks to repay unlawful bank charges and remove the six year time bar, forcing them to pay back everything from at least 1980.

  • Haha 1

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good petition - just signing up now. Interesting to note that the "petition creator" is not named - is it anyone from here?

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

hi guys, im afraid i dont know who started it, just found a link on a thread here somewhere..might be able to find it :confused:

phoenix, i had realised that we were pasty neighbours, but not that we are close enough to share a pasty shop! we a few miles from eden

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just signed the petition. It did name someone who'd started it on there when I signed it (Philip someone) forgot to check the name before I saw your posts.

 

This thread / This Forum / This Website has to be the ultimate people power /community website I've ever come across.

 

Reading the threads is fascinating. Reading the tricks/defences that the banks come up with to stall claims is heartening - they know the days of unlawful charging are numbered.

 

Reading LizVP's thread has given me a lot of encouragement. I've just sent my first letter demanding a refund to my bank (£6K+). I'd love a day in court but I hope in many ways an offer appears before then.

 

Good luck everyone who is nearing the end game.

Claim against First Direct - WON - 29th March 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harvest, either the banks will cave or "someone" will get a day in court doesn’t matter how up for it you are... if its you there will be blue bricks and I’m sure they are monitoring this site so it wont be anyone in the hierarchy here.... just a joe public who got (un) lucky... or not… there are some feisty people here who know what they are talking about... and at the end of the day if it falls the wrong way we will appeal and that will be using people of our choice not one person on their own.... and the banks will loose, they are just wasting their own money.

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Liz & Pete. Can't believe it's 2am. I've been so engrossed in all the threads on here I've forgotten to sleep!!

 

I will start a proper thread on progress as soon as there is any and post a link in here.

 

I can't believe how many people are actually making claims (a positive can't believe). Good luck to both of you with the final bits of your claims.

 

Best wishes

 

H

Claim against First Direct - WON - 29th March 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

phoenix, i had realised that we were pasty neighbours, but not that we are close enough to share a pasty shop! we a few miles from eden
Oooohhh...the Cornish element grows...Crusher lives down this way too...whereabouts are you?

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

Ahhh - I'm actually in St Austell, but Fowey always sounds nicer...

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...