Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • while politicians trough at subsidised bars and canteens, claim thousaands in expenses while letting out their properties and tories vote to leave UK children hungry That ALL needs to stop
    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
  • 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

Due in court on Friday, advice greatly appreciated.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6252 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

This may be a bit late but.....

 

I have been having a dispute with British Gas over an amount I owe them from a dormant account. That I owe them money is not in dispute but while the account was active I repeatedly requested that they check the meter as bills were coming in at over £200/ month. I was told that it would sort itself out over the year etc...(i.e. essentially fobbed off).

 

When they issued a summons I sent them an SAR in an effort to get notes on my account whereby I had previously disputed the amount as they claimed they never had any calls from me.

 

The SAR expired on 13th December 2006 and I have still not recieved any information. The court is aware that my defence essentially hinges on this information which now seems unlikely to arrive.

 

BG have requested that the hearing be heard in their absence so I will have no chance to question as to why this info was not forthcoming on Friday.

 

I have submitted my document bundle to the courts but these mainly revolve around the DPA and their non-compliance, I only have circumstantial evidence that BG have a problem with their billing system using reports available from energywatch.

 

As an aside, I also felt pressured and made them a settlement offer in full last week payable over a period of 2 months. They have not responded to this at all.

 

What are my options/chances, (if any)?

Smile:-The Ethical Bank:- Settled July 2006

HSBC:- Pre-lim sent 09/10/2006

LBA sent:-26/10/2006

Court papers issued:- 13/11/2006

Citifinancial/DLC:- Ongoing since 21st August. Now part of an OFT investigation into Debt Collection Practices.

I am only a Doctor of Love NOT Law. Don't blame me if me advice goes belly up!

:D (I will try to help all the same)

 

If i've helped, use the scales at the top to tell me how great I am!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is worth pursuing. Did you report their breech of DPA to the information commisioner ? . Let us know how you get on and although I dont know much on the court process let me know if you need any info on the utility side if things. The SAR from what you have said would of been really helpfull.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply Ozzy.

 

No, I haven't reported them, in fact part of my settlement offer was to not report them on the proviso that they remove any reference to the account from any third parties.

 

The SAR is effectively my only defence but they seem unwilling/unable to supply it. The question is, will the court take this into account when reviewing the claim or will they just tell me my defence is rather weak, (which it currently is).

Smile:-The Ethical Bank:- Settled July 2006

HSBC:- Pre-lim sent 09/10/2006

LBA sent:-26/10/2006

Court papers issued:- 13/11/2006

Citifinancial/DLC:- Ongoing since 21st August. Now part of an OFT investigation into Debt Collection Practices.

I am only a Doctor of Love NOT Law. Don't blame me if me advice goes belly up!

:D (I will try to help all the same)

 

If i've helped, use the scales at the top to tell me how great I am!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they will take it into account as they have not supplied you with the relevent information that they legally had to give you that would of ovbiously strengthened your case, but this is just my opinion based on logic.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as you can present what facts you do have logically, and stress the point that you have been unable to compile exact evidence due to BG's contravention of the DPA in not supplying you with the information that you are legally entitled to, I think they will still listen. I'd present BG's contravention as disrespectful to the court in particular, and the legal system in general...

-----

Click the scales if I've been useful! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

DEFINITELY go to court and defend it. It will actually look better for you that they haven't shown up whereas you are prepared to go.

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Firstly, sorry for the lack of an update. I recently 'upgraded' my PC myself and consequently it didn't work for a week. :rolleyes:

 

The Thursday before the hearing I called BG's solicitors. I asked that as there was no reply to my offer of settlement was I to assume we were still going to court?

 

They said they'd recieved no offer of settlement.

 

Odd, thought I, as it was attached to my doc bundle which they already said they'd recieved, besides, I could show them when it was delivered and who signed for it.

 

There were slight sounds of panic from the other end of the phone as the, (admittedly helpful), lady asked questions of various people...alas, they didn't manage to turn it up and asked if I would email it while I was on the phone. I did, (after making a slight, (i.e. half), ammendment to the amount offered in settlement).

 

She went off to read it and came back accepting that without the info I would have a hard time defending their claim but equally, they would have a hard time defending not providing me with the info.

 

We agreed that I wouldn't pursue the matter with the ICO, that they would remove the default and that I would pay the amount offered, leaving no trace of this account anywhere on my history.

 

The next day I recieved the signed consent order, rang them, paid, filed the order and now the default has gone. In short, it was win-win.

 

Thanks you all for your advice. That I owed them money was never in dispute, it was the amount I challenged. I think both parties have come out of this well and I appreciate the confidence y'all gave me me when I was unsure of the strength of my DPA argument.

 

Thanks again.

Smile:-The Ethical Bank:- Settled July 2006

HSBC:- Pre-lim sent 09/10/2006

LBA sent:-26/10/2006

Court papers issued:- 13/11/2006

Citifinancial/DLC:- Ongoing since 21st August. Now part of an OFT investigation into Debt Collection Practices.

I am only a Doctor of Love NOT Law. Don't blame me if me advice goes belly up!

:D (I will try to help all the same)

 

If i've helped, use the scales at the top to tell me how great I am!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's also interesting is that on 11th April I said that I suspected there was an issue with their billing system.

 

Low and behold, two weeks later there's a media frenzy about 22,000 BG customers who've been billed wrong because of problems with their billing system.

 

I might do the lottery this week.

Smile:-The Ethical Bank:- Settled July 2006

HSBC:- Pre-lim sent 09/10/2006

LBA sent:-26/10/2006

Court papers issued:- 13/11/2006

Citifinancial/DLC:- Ongoing since 21st August. Now part of an OFT investigation into Debt Collection Practices.

I am only a Doctor of Love NOT Law. Don't blame me if me advice goes belly up!

:D (I will try to help all the same)

 

If i've helped, use the scales at the top to tell me how great I am!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...