Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

dar£n v B's beyond the thunderdome [ok 6yrs]


dar£n
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6034 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 185
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That is true actually, I rang up and complained I hadn't received my statements, that same day they came through, and two days later another set - well it saved me some photocopier time when I get to my bundle! ha ha ha

 

I wonder if I sent one whole copy of my bundle to Barclays, and they added it to 'my file' if I could get the whole lot sent back to me in triplicate for a tenner!...lol

 

Peter

Sign my petition to the Prime Minister here:

PETITION

Thanks

Peter

 

!!!WON!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

GOOD NEWS!!!!!!

Statements arrived today!!!!!!!

 

BAD NEWS!!!!!

Only for one account

 

EVEN BADDERER NEWS!!!

Only six years.

 

OM..[edit]ing....G!!!!!

That is 5 packs of the same [edit]ing thing now!!

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, been indisposed for a few days, so trying to catch up on the news. it seems to be getting more and more of a problem just to get your statements these days, they seem to be pulling every delaying tactic in the book. stay with it Dar£n, i'm sure you'll win through in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daz

 

I have now been waiting since 28th Feb.. Numerous calls All the relevent letters etc.

 

I was told on my last call that Pre 98 (Have recieved all from 98 to 2007 apart from 1 quarter) is stored on Micofiche and that it doesn't fall under their data controllers remit. I will make one last call in the morning and then i'm off to the ICO for further advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken from the Information Commissioner

Barclays/Barclaycard state:

....went on to explain that this was because these older statements were only stored on microfiche which is not a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act so did not have to be provided as part of a SAR.

.

 

BUT

INF COMM says:

Following your complaint and others like it we contacted Barclaycard for a detailed explanation of its microfiche system, including how the information in it is stored and retrieved. It was not clear from the response whether or not the system was a relevant filing system; therefore Barclaycard invited me and a number of my colleagues to inspect it and see the system in operation.

 

Following our visit, we concluded that the microfiche system used by Barclaycard is a relevant filing system for the purposes of the Act. This means that in our view the information is personal data and should have been supplied as part of your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) within 40 days and for a maximum fee of £10. As a result, it is our view that it is likely Barclaycard has contravened the sixth data protection principle, as this requires data controllers to process personal data in accordance with data subjects' rights.

 

Ooops sorry Barclays that one aint gonna wash any more.

 

 

 

 

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Telephoned Customer relations who failed to put me through to Data Protection Dept.

Told me there was no-one available to answer my questions.

 

My complaint to Information Commissioner going out tomorrow [recorded delivery of course]

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This microfiche busines is just b******s! See the sticky at the top of this thread re: B/card. It's just a fob-off, and it's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

 

:mad: :mad:

 

(I know you've already shot it down Dar£n, but that sort of behaviour just gets right on my t**s!!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daz

 

I phoned ICO this morning regarding microfiche. The guy i spoke to tells me the commisioner visited Barclays site and informed them there and then that the microfiche system was a relevent storage system under the DPA. I have called Barclays and relayed word for word what the ICO said. Barclays response was we will get them out to you(lets wait and see). I told them that in the meantime i would be raising complaint with ICO which would be cancelled upon reciept of statements

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay sent this to test the water:

Good afternoon Mr Papaevripides

 

Re: A/c no's 123456789 & 987654321 sort code 11-22-33

Barclays Ref No.abcde123 (V.Cashman, Leicester)

 

Since 13th April I have been trying to get details of mt past bank statements through the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Data Protection Act 1998.

To date I have been faced with nothing but non compliance from Barclays.

I realise that Data Protection Issues are not your departments concern however,

 

Due to the total lack of respect that I have been shown since my request, I intend to take the matter further.

 

I have today sent my complaint off to the Information Commissioner, and following his reply I will be starting court proceedings against Barclays Bank in order to reclaim what is rightfully mine.

 

I would however like to put the proposal to the Litigation Dept to consider the following

 

I recently, successfully reclaimed the amount of "£2,108 for the period between 2001 and 2007

Therefore, assuming the same average of charges were applied for 1993 to 2001

Would estimate a claim for £2,810.

Now, I realise that you do not agree that the charges levied to my account amount to penalty clauses and are deemed unfair.

I do however recognise the fact that the sum at issue between us is relatively modest and as such, it is not cost effect for either party to take the matter to trial.

Also the fact that the District Judges are now fully aware of the abuse that Banks nationwide are blatantly carrying out with no intention of defending their actions inside a court room. I have caught the interest of the BBC and have the financial backing of the now well known web site, Consumer Advice Group (CAG) in order to fully defend my dispute inside the court room

Therefore in order to avoid the inevitable time and cost associated with pursuing the claim to trial I am willing to settle the claim upon repayment of the charges applied to my account, together with statutory interest and costs totalling £2,810.00

If you are willing to settle with this amount, the matter can be resolved and all action against Barclays Bank will be discontinued.

 

I look forward to your reply

 

Now realistically I dont expect any kind of response but yet again its another page in my bundle. They cant say I didnt try to negotiate can they??

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay sent this to test the water:

 

Now realistically I dont expect any kind of response but yet again its another page in my bundle. They cant say I didnt try to negotiate can they??

 

n 1 is this right darren..,levied to my account, amount to penalty clauses and are deemed unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the statement made in there, as well as the quote to use on them when settling is ACTUALLY taken from THEIR settlement letter, it has simply been turned around so it is directed from OUR side, this way they cant argue ANYTHING thats in there can they?

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good one Daz,

 

I have been of line for a while as I am having terrible trouble with internet providers AOL, I have a new computer and they are saying that their wirless routers etc are not compatable with windows vista so i cant go wireless, so i have now cancelled my contract with them and am searching for a new one, so i may be on and off for the next few days.

Good luck though, its so frustrating that they dont seem to listen to you I have no idea why bb are so bloomin ignorant.

 

Oh well talk soon. ps only 8 days till holiday yay !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

YAY! STATEMENTS!!!!!!

.>

>

>

hang on dont take the lid off the highlighter yet.......

 

Oh FFS

Yet another friggin bundle for the last 6years...OMG

 

Phoned Vera Cashman on 0845 609 0806 ext 4914.

Ooooh guess what shes not dealing with this claim any longer.

My new contact is Chris Day..and yep, you guessed it.....

 

He's not available at the moment.

 

I requested he calls me back within 15 mins [1100hrs].

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...