Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Evening, I've got a fairly simple question but I'll provide some context incase needed. I've pursued a company that has operations in england despite them having no official office anywhere. I've managed to find a site they operate from and the papers there have been defended so I know they operate there. They've filed a defence which is honestly the worst defence ever, and despite being required to provide their witness evidence, they have not and have completely ignored the courts and my request for copies of it. I'm therefore considering applying to strike out their defence on the grounds the defence was rubbish and that they haven't provided any evidence for the trial. However, it has a trial date set for end of june, and a civil application wouldn't get heard until a week before then, so hardly worth it. However, my local court is very good at dealing with paper applications (i.e ones that don't need hearings, and frankly I think they are literally like 1-2 days from when you submit it to when a Judge sees it. I'm wondering if I can apply to strikeout a defence without a hearing OR whether a hearing is required for a strikeout application.   Thanks
    • I have just opened another bank acc with lloyds (i have a few already) After doing some research they may have some relation to tsb or be apart of the same group will this cause me issue if my salary is paid into my lloyds account? Also, if the debts do go into default and nothing is paid then after 6 years it all goes away? As the DCAs cannot do anything? I do want to start paying in like 3/4 months or do you advise I leave it if it goes into default? again sorry for all the questions, i am just processing everything
    • one reply only  follow post 2 of letter of claim <<clickme link. dx
    • Sorry, I got confused  Yes, it states all three   Thanks, 
  • 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 5110 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 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well there was @ 120 of us peeps in the Merc Courts today in Leeds and whilst the Judge agreed the arguments made and made a special reference to mine and a few others, he honestly could not give anything other than an individual stay on all claimants - not a blanket!!! that's important.

 

His argument as I would have expected was sound and just and he gave a cut-off (without exception) that in Feb 2008 it will be lifted regardless of the decision made by Justice David Steele (Judge in the OFT Test Case).

 

That is significant! :D

 

Costs for the day is given to the parties. In my case it amounts to an extra £83.

 

My 2 Credit Card Claims were a joke (with diff providers) and they have 6 weeks from today to settle/provide a defence, but the JUdge does not want to see a another Case Management Hearing dealing with these. A Stay was applied for in the case of both but were quickly dropped!

 

All in all an exhausting, interesting day and one that will keep me in cigars through winter!

 

Roll on Feb 2008!! :cool::D hink of the interest that is continuing to mount on a daily basis.

 

Oh...... and the Barrister and Solicitors were tornoff a strip a little by the Judge and I was informed by one of the Claimants that when I was presenting my case to have the Stay removed, she blanched! (She was also dealing with me!)

I approached her later as she indicated settlement, but realised I was going the full hog and claiming costs to. She tried to intimidate me a little with the fact that no way would I get costs, to which I replied, "of course I will...... have you actually read my POC as you will see that even as you have demonstrated at sneakily trying to put monies into my account, which the Judge frowned upon and ripped into her, it also asks for a legal declaration that the level of levied charges imposed was unlawful and unenforceable. In other words, settle the monetary side and the claim still carries on darling!" I also told her to smile a little, she didn't which is a shame, because she was quite attractive........ methinks it's either PMT or she needs a holiday!

 

So that's it in a nutshell peeps, I will post the full orders and resoning as and when I am a party to it from the Court.

 

No worries.......... :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

LOL you old tart, tell em where you were sitting!!!! and if you go to sleep now, you wont sleep tonight

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was sat where the Barristers normally sit! ;):D

 

It was only because it was standing room only :o

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

Yup....... now I'm raring to go as I have to be up at the crack of a Sparrows fart!

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

  • 2 months later...

Gosh....seems like an absolute age since I last posted on here.

 

Anyway, little development this morning. I received a letter from Ashursts stating they have served a notice of Change of Solicitor with the Courts.

 

Si, in effect then, Abbey are stopping the handling of claims and transferring them to Ashurts. (Are they the in-house solicitors anyway?)

 

I wonder why the change and wonder why now......ideas anyone? 8)

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 as i understand it, Inga, et al have all repaired back to the mothership and i suppose they can't be bothered to go and pick up the post - unless of course anyone thinks that this might be due to something else?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm dont reallyk now, could be that they are now working on other stuff until the test case, unless that is what they are working on

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope that's standard for Solicitors or practices with a number of "Partners". LLP stands for Limited Liability Partnership. :cool:

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

PMSL.................I have my moments :p

 

Do you realise that since the stay was imposed on this claim I have "earnt" another £1000+ in Contractual Interest............ oh please dont lift it yet Ass Hurts! :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

Or as another wag in the CAG forums so subtly put it.............. KERCHING!! LOL ;)

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

  • 6 months later...

2 days to go and the slumbering beast stirs......................:lol:

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............ any news yet from the Press or the Courts?

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

  • 4 months later...

So how long is the Justice Andrew Smith going to take for his hols?

 

Whilst the interest has been mounting on a ridiculous scale, just when will the historical T&C's judgement going to be made ......... 2008 or 2009? :-?

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...

So we now have the second Judgement go our way.

 

The Banks in the coming weeks will be applying for permission to Appeal. However, IMHO, it won't be granted and therefore game over for the Banks.

 

All that is really left is for the OFT to publish officially their findings on the unfairness of the Bank Charges.

 

All that this will do whilst the stays remain frozen until the above 2 events are concluded, is that interest continues to accrue!

 

Either way, because now it is fairly well proven that the charges were UNLAWFUL you can get the full amount claimed back plus interest.

 

It doesn't matter what the OFT sets as an acceptable charge, it can only be applied from the current or future date.

 

At the very least, the Banks will have to disclose their ACTUAL costs if they want to lessen the eventual payout. This they won't do, period!

 

So for everyone out there, sit tight, submit your claims and rest assured in the coming few months all will be on the table!

 

Views expressed in this post are purely mine and mine alone. I do not speak for all on CAG and am not a moderator. However, all I am intending to do is give a little stability to a rumour fest of supposition. STOP IT! :p

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...