Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you very much for your letter in regard to the above mentioned shipment.  Due to the high volume of parcels coursing through the courier network each day, undergoing continuous processing and handling, certain packages may experience delays or even can get lost in the course of this journey. Please note that due to the time that has passed, this shipment has been declared as lost.  I have today processed the claim and made offers to the value of £75 as a goodwill gesture without prejudice. I do acknowledge that you have mentioned in your letter that the value was higher, however, you did not take out any protection to that amount. The protection for this shipment was £20 and we will not be increasing our goodwill offer any further.    Please log into your account online in order to accept our offer. Once accepted, our accounts department will process the claim accordingly. The claim payment will be processed and received within 7 working days.                                  In addition, a refund of the carriage fee will be processed as a separate payment and will be received within 3 working days.  If I can further assist, please feel free to contact me.   I have also just noticed that yesterday afternoon they sent me an email stating that "after my request" they have refunded the cost of shipping. I did not request the refund so will mention that in my letter as well.
    • Hi I had to leave Dubai back in 2011, during the financial crisis. And only now have I received a letter from IDRWW. Is this anything to worry about about as I have 2 years left until it’s been 15 years(statute barred in Dubai). Worried as just got a mortgage 2 years ago. Could they force me in to bankruptcy? Red lots of different threads on here. And unsure what true and what isn’t. 
    • Not that TOR will see this now he's thrown in the hand grenade. Rayner has plenty of female supporters on X, for a start. As for the council and HMRC, fair enough and I thought Rayner was already in touch with them. That's where it should be dealt with, not the police force. @tobyjugg2 Daniel Finkelstein thinks the same as you about tax. The Fiver theory. How the Fiver Theory explains this election campaign ARCHIVE.PH archived 28 May 2024 17:36:51 UTC  
    • Often with the Likes of Lowells/ Overdales that 'proof' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   Think about it like a game of poker, they want to intimidate you into folding and giving up as soon as possible, and just get you to pay up and roll over, that is their business model, make you think your cards are rubbish. What they don't expect, and their business isn't set up for it, is for a defendant to find this place and to learn that they have an amazing set of cards to play. Overdales don't have an infinite number of lawyers, paralegals etc, and the time / money to spend on expensive court cases, that they are highly likely to lose, hence how hard they will try to get you to roll over.  Even to the extent of faking documents, which they need to do because the debts that they purchased were so cheap, in the first place. Nevertheless it works in most cases, most people chicken out, when they are so close to winning, and a holding defence is like slowly showing Overdales your first card, and a marker of intention that this could get tricky for them. In fact it may be,  although by no means guaranteed that it won't even go any further than that.  Even if it does, what they send you back will almost certainly have more holes than Swiss Cheese, and if with the help you receive here, you can identify those weaknesses and get the whole thing tossed in the bin.
    • So Rayner who is don’t forget still being investigated by the local council and HMRC  is now begging to save her seat Not a WOMAN in sight in this video other than Rayner  Farage is utterly correct this country’s values are non existent in her seat   Rayner Pleads With Muslim Voters as Pressure From Galloway Grows – Guido Fawkes ORDER-ORDER.COM Guido has obtained a leaked tape from inside a meeting between Angela Rayner and Muslim voters in Ashton-under-Lyne...  
  • 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

Here we go - off to court


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6275 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

Hi All

 

I've just bitten the bullet an filed with MCOL.

I hope I've got this all right

1) sent subject access

2) got lists of transaction

3) gave 14 day notice on intent

-received partial offer

4) rejected partial offer

-received notice barclays doesn't want to play ball

5) filed with MCOL for £1,400ish

 

Right now I could really do with someone to say "so far so good", as i've jsut paid the £120 fee, and feeling a little nervous as a result!

 

Cheers All- and I'll keep you posted how things progress!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

I've just bitten the bullet an filed with MCOL.

I hope I've got this all right

1) sent subject access

2) got lists of transaction

3) gave 14 day notice on intent

-received partial offer

4) rejected partial offer

-received notice barclays doesn't want to play ball

5) filed with MCOL for £1,400ish

 

Right now I could really do with someone to say "so far so good", as i've jsut paid the £120 fee, and feeling a little nervous as a result!

 

Cheers All- and I'll keep you posted how things progress!

 

SO FAR SO GOOD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Another quick question:

 

I understand that it takes so many days for the claim to be classed as 'served', and then the bank has 14days to respond from that date.

 

Do they respond via MCOL, or to me?

 

Thanks for your help

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Daveymac

You will revieve a letter from MCOL any day now. This letter is called 'Notice of Issue". On that letter will be the date at which the Claim will be deemed served. They have 14 days from this in which to acknowledge, and 28 days in which to put in a defence.

The MCOL website will show you when they have acknowledged and also send you a letter confirming.

Won** Barclays claim-in FULL

1 week before court date

26th March 2007

Won ** Natwest claim-in FULL

After LBA

12th July 2007

...starting Alliance & Leicester claim

24th September 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Callum

Thanks for the added info...

Tomorrow is the last day for them to acknowledge. I take it that they do that through MCOL rather than direct to me.

So what would happen if they don't acknowledge? I have to admit, I'm checking the website about every hour at the moment.

 

Cheers, Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of cases are acknowledged on the last day. This will show up on the MCOL website and you will also be informed by post. I'd wait a couple more days and then if still not acknowledged then post back.

Won** Barclays claim-in FULL

1 week before court date

26th March 2007

Won ** Natwest claim-in FULL

After LBA

12th July 2007

...starting Alliance & Leicester claim

24th September 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Today I received a bundle of papers:

1)notice of transfer of proceeding:

2)letter from hmcs informing me of fee and transfer

3) AQ - form N149

4)Barclays defence - usaul word for word defence I've seen in everyones' threads.

 

Anyhoo - two questions I'd really appreciate some help on:

1) I have to pay court fees to MCOL and to my local court?

2) I am a little stuck on what to enter into section G of the AQ. I have read the 'guide to allocation questionnaires" and ended up a little dazed and confused. Should I go with the following:

 

I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have paid them without argument.

 

However, the continuing problem is (in common with the 100s of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

 

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order standard disclosure. I understand that it is in the courts discretion to do so. I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation.

Any help on this would be mucho appreciated!

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

you could enter this for section g,

"I am respectfully requesting that my claim be allocated to the small claims track. This issue

is not a complicated one; it is an issue of fact and not of law. The issue is only whether the money levied by the Defendant in respect of its customer’s contractual breaches exceed their actual costs incurred. I am happy to pay their actual costs and I am surprised the Defendant did not counterclaim for these, because I would have reduced my claim without argument. However, the continuing problem is (in common with the hundreds of other cases currently being brought by other bank customers) that the banks refuse to reveal the details of their penalty-charging regime. As the banks have a fiduciary duty towards their customers, they have a duty to deal straightforwardly and in utmost good faith.

Accordingly, I would respectfully ask that the court in this case, not withstanding allocation to the small claims track, order :

i) Summary Judgement as the Defendants defence did not answer the particulars of claim and consisted of no grounds for defence;

OR

ii) Standard Disclosure.

I believe this would bring a rapid end to this litigation."

 

hope this helps (i pinched it off another thread that was posted today)

Claire

:pI'VE CLAIMED MY BARCLAYS CHARGES BACK.:p

£5125.60

Im no expert everything i write is what i learnt from my own experience and reading through other threads. Click my scales if you wish to!:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...