Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi there   thank you for the reply. No, it's not a silly question at all. I am convinced I didn't hit anything with my car. I was going very slowly and it was the guy standing next to his lorry in the road who punched and kicked my car as I went by. It's cause I saw him do it in the mirror.  I initially thought he did it because he thought I was passing him maybe too closely whilst he was messing around with his lorry ?  That's why I stopped and got out and asked what he thought he was doing hitting my car. He then just hurled abuse at me. Not making any accusations such 'you hit me' 'you hit my lorry' or you did this or that. He just swore and shouted at me. At which point I said I would be making a complaint to his company for his threatening behaviour and vandalism for punching my car. I went to my car , got my phone to take a photo of his number plate but then he came towards me again and I thought if he now hits me I am going to come second. I am a woman in her mid 50s travelling on her own and this guy looked like a Millwall football supporter (short, rotund, skin head) so I decided to leave this situation. I got back in my car closed the door and drove off before he could reach me.  I later checked my phone and noticed the photo was too blurred, as I turned and rushed back to my car too quickly before the camera could focus. So I thought it was pointless making a complaint as the guy couldn't be traced anyway, so I forgot all about it until yesterday. But this is all I can think of, it must have to do with this incident as it is in the same street.   
    • Please read the following thread very carefully. It is extremely relevant where you are suing Evri on the basis of a contract which you originally made with Packlink who are domiciled in Spain. A judgement has been obtained and we have applied for transcript and it will be put up on this thread as soon as we receive it probably about the end of July. In the meanwhile, read this thread, see what has been discovered about the Packlink/Evri/customer relationship and look at the witness statement very carefully. It's a long thread but don't give up. Once you have the transcript of the judgement, then I will do a more careful and explanatory post here   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459707-evri-lost-my-ebay-parcel-£844-court-claim-issued-judgment/
    • So if the breach occurred say Dec 2017 (first missed payment) and the default notice was issued Sept 2018 and the claim was issued 7th June 24 the claimant will of course be arguing it is within the limitation period (by 3 months)
    • Yep, I would  have brought up the other things like asking for their contract and receiving no response etc. but the mediation phone calls were rather short. Evri just said the contract was not with them (i said 1999 act response etc.) and the goodwill offer thing. Whole process took about 10 minutes in total. Seems like they don't even want to negotate in mediations anymore. "they're only given a certain amount that they can agree to in mediation per day" I mean its hard for me to say if thats the mediator paraphrasing or aa direct quote from evri I will look through that thread and share what I find, also for what its worth I also have everything I made for the previous claim WS and bundles etc. that I can tweak for this parcel, since it did go almost all the way to court and is a virtually identical case. that + this new stuff you shared above should be helpful to me
  • 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

Tom Brennan v NatWest - This is a must-read!!!


calvi36
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5944 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 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

precedents can't be set in small claims - sounds like maybe he's got it fast tracked - i think he's taking a big chance - will probably make him or break him. as for wider implications - think it's a wait and see - but i doubt it will flutter down - i think it may be case specific - they still won't come out with what the actual costs are. this is a billion pound business. it's their bread and butter - once again - those on the lowest end, least able to bear it paying the charges. - you won't see any big money peeps claiming charges - they don't get them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the guy is risking a lot - all for the consumer, good luck fella!!!

 

but re the bankrupcy problem (in the event of the claimant losing), what possible good could come of a judge awarding costs to a huge bank, thus ruining the life and career of a member of the public?

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main danger for him is that he's refused a settlement offer well in excess of the amount in charges. If he did lose, and Natwest requested that the judge apply the unreasonableness test, the court might not have much choice but to award costs against him. Having said that, and as the bloke said on the news website, it could be considered in the public interest so that may well prevent a huge costs order. I think ultimately its down to the judge - although lets hope the costs issue doesn't even come into it.;)

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

does anyone know how much he's going after? you said its under £5k breezy, but they've offered £4k and he's rejected it so I would imagine it has to be a lot more. Also he's said he could have to face costs so its probably not in the SCT.

 

wouldnt be surprised to see them settle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff, was just reading this story on BBC News and thought I'd pop on here to see what the general consensus was. Should those in the middle of a claim worry that if Friday's decision goes against Brennan, it may spell trouble for reclaiming?

The Pigeon vs RBoS

03/04/07 - Prelim letter sent requesting £765

12/04/07 - Acknowledgement of letter - "We are considering your claim".

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/63021-pigeon-rbos-started-19-a.html#post724228

Link to post
Share on other sites

does anyone know how much he's going after? you said its under £5k breezy, but they've offered £4k and he's rejected it so I would imagine it has to be a lot more. Also he's said he could have to face costs so its probably not in the SC

I think the charges are 2.5k, and the damages are likely to be unspecified I would have thought.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should those in the middle of a claim worry that if Friday's decision goes against Brennan, it may spell trouble for reclaiming?

No - any sort of precident would be along way off.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone fancy a trip to london next friday? i'd love to go see how this turns out. this man is a superstar already in my eyes, good on him brave soldier!!

If i've been helpful in any way....then tip my scales over there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on him, I wish him all the luck in the world!!!

REFUNDED

Hubbys - HSBC £4,165 paid 18/8 after MCOL issued :)

HSBC - £651 paid 18/8 after MCOL issued :)

HSBC - £147 Prel 7/8, LBA 21/8, MCOL 6/9 £241

Hubby Halifax - Prel 29/7 £215, LBA 21/8, Offer rec. £110 22/8, MCOL 6/9 £298

Abbey - £2758 - Prel 26/6, LBA 10/7 - MCOL 26/7 £3,391, offer 25/8 £1,755.94, paid £3567.32 after Case manag hearing

Barclays - £675 Prel7/8, LBA 21/8, offer received £300 MCOL 6/9 £998 - Paid £1,012 before going to Court

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in the fact that he's rejected the charges refund - being a barrister and all that, up until now I haven't known for sure whether the banks have a legal right to force upon you a payment of elements of a claim with no admission of liability, leaving things like CI, claims that fall outside 6 years and damages outstanding - but it seems this could be proof that it will be seen as perfectly feasible by a court to have rejected a part payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judgements in County Courts do not set a precedent and are not binding on any other courts, not even other County Courts.

 

Only High Court and above bind themselves and lower courts.

 

Whatever the outcome, this is unlikely to make much difference, certainly not in the short to medium term.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to hear Marc live on BBC 4. It's interesting that nat west have 'forced' their £ 4000 settlement offer into his account and are closing his account next week. They

must be desparate.

 

This guy is showing tunnel vision commitment. He's a hero already

Link to post
Share on other sites

does anyone know how much he's going after? you said its under £5k breezy, but they've offered £4k and he's rejected it so I would imagine it has to be a lot more. Also he's said he could have to face costs so its probably not in the SCT.

 

wouldnt be surprised to see them settle

 

Hi Bong,

 

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the total amount he is trying to claim unless anyone can enlighten us. Even though he rejected the £4,000, I read it to be he was more interested in the principle of forcing the bank to declare the charges rather than the amount.

 

In the BBC article it refers to 'substantial level of damages' in relation to 'exemplary damages' so I'm wondering what 'substantial' would be in monetary terms. Also, as he is going to CC this Friday, if the judge grants permission, would it be the cost element or the tack he is using that would determine which court it goes to next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how Natwest and it's senior barristers will try to defend this?

 

Maybe they will use the OFT extended investigation to postpone things (if that's possible).

 

These are clever people, I'm sure they will have a trick or two up their sleeve.

 

Guess we will all find out next week.

 

I wish Mr Brennan well.

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lucky does not come into it. fact does i think its about time someone with a bit of bottle stands up in court and fights for the rights of everyone who ever has had charges removed from accounts if the law of our fantastic nation understands one mans fight for justice on the real cost of bank charges the law should make banks tell us the real cost of charges. brennan i take my hat off to you everyone in the uk will be willing you all the way to justice when i say everyone i mean us as customers of the rip off bank system got my champagne on ice.however if the legal system within our great nation goes with the banks it would show how the courts have let us all down i can only see one outcome out of all of this.

have your glasses ready and drink a toast to mr brennan. as delboy would say. who dares wins

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NATTIE

My gut feeling says the issue is really to do with the issue of compensation and not the costs involved. I am sure if this was an area which you could have gone down that it would have been done before. Wait and see i guess

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...