Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Journo Russell Scott has been looking at people who sold PPE to the Johnson government. https://twitter.com/RussellScott1/status/1780686322908487787  
    • It is important that you do the reading about this subject in the sub- forum. It's not complicated but you need to be in control and I don't think you are. For instance, much of the information you need and also the case transcripts that you're looking for are in the fixed topics at the top of this sub- forum but clearly you didn't know that. You will gain in confidence if you do the reading. Particularly as it now looks as if the mediation has not worked because EVRi have stayed you up and so you may now be going to trial. You need to understand thoroughly what you are doing. We will help you and you will find our support is unstinting but you have to do your part. Please spend a lot of time reading the stories on the sub- forum especially the pinned posts at the top of the sub- forum and then start preparing your court bundle. We have instructions here for everything
    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
  • 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

SimplyBe catalogue-Stalling tactics?


The Unfairy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6225 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

I sent my S.A.R letter a few weeks ago. In it I gave the account number, name and address details etc etc. Basically everything that any bank/company would need, I heard nothing but suddenly on Friday got the following letter:

 

Dear Mrs. unfairy

 

Subject Access Enquiry

 

Thank you for the letter dated 11 March which we are treating as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

(Well I used the letter from here where it says it is in big letters, so well done them so far!)

 

We require you to complete the attached questionnaire and proof of id to enable us to comply with you7r request and statutory obligations plaed upon us concerning secu7re access to data. We acknowledge reeipt of your heque for £10, which is the fee payable for this service. Please note the application annot be processed until the form is receivedf.

 

Yours sincerely

 

I. AM. Goingtocauseadelay

@Any cost.

 

?

Does this seem like a stalling tactic to anyone else?

 

In the questionnaire it also states. We will endeavour to respond promptly and in any event within 40days of the latest of the following:

* Your cheque clearing

*Our reeipt of this request

*Our receipt of any further information from you which is required to enable us to comply with your request.

 

Would I be within my rights to say that they had all the information at the time of the original letter and that I see this as just a delaying tactic. That I am enclosing this questionnaire but I have the right to take the 40 days from my original request as I gave them the account number and all the info that they could possibly need then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

unfortunatley they are within their rights (under the Data Protection Act) to confirm your identity as they would be commiting an offence under the Data Protection Act if they sent your data to someone else without checking the identity. having said that you are right in that it is a delaying tactic but one they are legally allowed. the 40 days start from when they have the questionaire so its in your interest to return it ASAP

 

i hope this helps

 

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...