Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • 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

French v. Abbey (3) - Into the breach once more my friends!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5158 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

And to compound it all, I received a letter this morning from shAbbey rejecting one of my earlier offers!

 

Dear Sir

28th June 2007

Without Prejudice

Thank you for your offer of settlement in the sum of £6968 plus £10.60 from the date of your offer until resolution.

Your offer makes no account for the transactions that have in fact occured on your account. There must be some charge for those transactions.

Should you wish to reconsider your position and put forward a more commercially palatable offer to Abbey National PLC, we will be more than happy to consider the same.

Firstly my thoughts.

 

"Without Prejudice" - this is in reply to my first offer that was made and was not marked "Without Prejudice" as I wanted to include it in my bundle. Therefore their letter does not afford the priviledge!

 

Secondly, their claim that my offer makes no account of the their right to charge me something for my admitted breaches. Of course and it has never been denied. But until they give me figures and / or disclose their true costs how can we attach a figure? After all it is their responsibility to do so and we are not forensic accountants!! So what I offered them (even though I in real terms only lowered my claim by £30-£40 gave a generous offer as to @ £1.20 per item as restitution.

 

That offer has since expired but during that offer phase I replaced it with a more "commercially palatable" one which dropped @£300 off my claim. That has also since expired and my final offer which is for the FULL amount now expires on Friday 13th July 2007. This figure for settlement minus all my costs (which will be applied/negotiated for as it is also part of my claim stands at £7107.35

 

So if they had only accepted my second offer before I put in my final offer upon it's 2 week expiry date, would have saved shAbbey @ £800-£900

 

COMMERCIALLY PALATABLE? :rolleyes: F$£%wits!

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ooo ooooo 9 more days to go till the end of my latest offer period!

 

Oh such joy....... the Banks must really enjoy giving away money! :rolleyes:

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit difficult texting you the details.... and besides you were on holiday! :rolleyes:

 

So there you go.... normal service now resumed eh Lula.....?

 

Actually you haven't missed much anyway!

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i arrived back at 6am, knackered and have only just remembered where i hid the lappy incase of burglars and am trying to catch up

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wotcha trouble :p

 

So you didn't take your lappy on Hollies eh? Bet you wish you had now?

 

Anyway.... nothing here either, however on another case I have with HSBC VISA I now have a Case Management Hearing date of the 29th August 2007. (It's only for £200?!!!!) Costs from their unreasonable behaviour will eclipse this :D

 

I guess the Abbey one will be on the same day and I'll get the confirmation of that one this week 8)

 

Guess Inga's on strike!?

 

Have you got 4 white bits?

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well confirmation arrived this morning and I am shameless in admitting I had a brown trouser moment! (or it could be that I'm a little unwell at the moment :oops: )

 

Anyway shAbbey claim now officially transferred to Leeds Mercantile Courts, Case Management Hearing date set to 29th August 2007 and I received the CMI sheet as well.

 

A frantic search on this site for guidance and the bowels relaxed. I shall post my completed CMI sheet up here when completed but it doesn't have to be submitted till the very latest 7 days before hearing. (I think I will do it a little sooner as the costs issues could take it for an extra £500!)

 

WHY DO THE COURTS MAKE IT SO FRICKIN COMPLEX AND LABORIOUS? JEEESH! :twisted:

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, do they REALLY want to meet YOU in the Mercantile Court? Methinks not Penfold, money quite soon, dinner is on you ;)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

$$£"* &^F$"(!) +="£^& *******!" buzzards!

 

I will gladly buy you dinner at a swish resturant if I good guarantee they'd settle before the beginning of August!

 

I promise..........

 

Ho hum...................back to the foul mouthed ranting at the wall and stunned little old ladies walking down my street! Quite what they have to do with this is beyond me but I feel better for it :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

nooooo not a swish restaurant, Fatty Arbuckles will do, and lots of cocktails :-)

 

LOL @ foul mouthed ranting, welcome to my world, how is your cold?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frickin lousy!

 

But I'm a bloke so the symptoms and moaning is on a par with a life threatening situation with a dose of bubonic plague and Black Death thrown in for good measure! :(

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me about it........ dribbling copious amounts of ectoplasm and brains..... not good :-|

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you wouldnt understand, being a mere woman you could never really feel just how awful manflu is lol

 

*ICY goes to hide under the table lol

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

S'ok........ Lula's having a blonde moment. :p

 

Runs very quickly away......................................................

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh you are back then!

 

Anyway, funnily enough, my hair did go very much lighter in all that sun ;)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, decided on a more subtle (?) approach to my claim. So I sent this CPR 18 request :D

 

CLAIM NUMBER: ££££££££

In the LEEDS HIGH COURT, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION (MERCANTILE COURT)

 

Between:

 

PENFOLD

Claimant

 

-And-

 

 

ABBEY NATIONAL PLC

Defendant

_______________________

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND

CLARIFICATION UNDER CPR PART 18

___________________________

 

DATE OF SERVICE: 13th July 2007

 

This request for information under CPR part 18 is served after allocation to the Leeds Mercantile Courts from the Harrogate County Courts. (Claim number changed from $$$$$$$$).

I believe that the court would consider this request as appropriate in the context of clarifying matters to which your defence directly refers. In the event you ignore or do not comply fully with this request a formal application may be submitted to the court for an order under part 18.

 

1. Please provide copies of the terms and conditions governing the account in question and which are referred to in Paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of the defence. The terms and conditions required are those that formed the contract between the Claimant and Defendant covering the entire period from when contract was first entered into until the present day, including amendments or alterations where appropriate.

 

2. In relation to each and every breach by the Claimant which resulted in a charge being levied as confirmed by the Defendant in its Defence, please provide full details (with all relevant supporting documentation) of any letters, telephone calls, or incidents of manual intervention into the account in respect of each and every charge claimed by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim.

 

3. If the Defendant employs or operates any system, either automated or manually operated or otherwise, which is used to assess, audit, track or refine the costs or "administrative expenses" of dealing with current accounts incidents - in particular any delinquency incidents, such as refusal or otherwise of direct debits, referral of cheques for any reason, refusing or permitting any formally agreed overdraft limit to be exceeded or any other delinquency event, such a systems existence is required to be confirmed and named and full details given.

 

4. In respect of the Defendants reference to the "administrative expenses" to which the charges are averred to be proportionate, as referred to in paragraph 9 of its defence, please provide full details (with all relevant supporting documentation) of the justifiably objective principles upon which all such costs or expenses are calculated and result in the specific level of each charge levied by the bank in respect of each of the breaches which resulted in the charges now claimed by the Claimant.

 

 

A full response to each and every point of this request should be served within 14 days, by 28th July 2007.

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...