Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • 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

Webbs Catering V Nationwide


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2106 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

That's what the problem is with this country lack of free speech or the inability to speak freely but if thats how your running things now who am I to argue, seems my basic rights are now been muted.

 

This may be a free Country, (which is debatable, actually) but this isn't a free speech forum - there are rules here to protect our members and the site, so please comply with them, or posts will be moderated accordingly. If you want a free speech forum, I'd highly suggest you look elsewhere, as you can't just say what you want here.

 

Back to my beef, orginally the banks were reluctant to divulge what constituted the heavy penalties and by not passing on the info the charges were unlawful, then the banks have argued the one and only area that was not fully transparent and that was the UTCCR 1999 and this is what the courts have ruled in their favour.

 

I don't know how to say this without causing offence, but you clearly have not done your homework, here. Coming to a forum and spouting information that is incorrect is out of order - some newbie may read this and think what they are seeing is incorrect. Trust me, I know how complicated this can be, but forget everything that you've been "told" about this Judgment and actually read the Judgment yourself to understand it. If you don't understand it, ask questions, but don't make statements that are inaccurate and potentially misleading to others that don't have the full facts.

 

Questions about penalties can be put to one side - the early Judgments stated that Bank Charges are not penalties and the OFT didn't see fit to appeal that section of the Judgment. It's not case closed, as this precedent could be over written, in time, but that shouldn't be our concern right now, unless we have someone with a lot of time and money on their hands to bring a claim on that basis and appeal it to a sufficiently superior Court to have the precedent overturned.

 

Further more, the Courts have not ruled anything that can be judged to allow the Banks to charge these amounts, nor have they said they are fair. What the Supreme Court did say was that the OFT cannot assess the charges for fairness on the basis of the claim that was brought - they suggested that the OFT consider regulation 5 UTCCR, but that is no easy forte to establish and successfully argue. (Which is probably why the OFT is retreating on the whole issue)

 

But still remains is if the penalties are a true reflection of your losses then you can charge that penalty....I think, why has this gone to UTCCR. Its like beer ties investigated by the OFT, beer ties are not unlawful but the prices that are charged. What are we arguing??

 

Dealt with penalties above.

 

I can't see the relation to beer ties, as there is plenty of competition around in the beer industry to one extent or the other - there is certainly more competition in that industry than there is in the Banking sector relating to Current Accounts. Try negotiating terms and conditions of a Current Account to a more beneficial position for you, as a consumer, and I suspect you will get a one-finger salute from your branch and will find yourself without a current account on that basis. It simply doesn't happen.

 

I know some of this may be difficult to get your head around, but going off half-cocked on a discussion or when bringing a claim isn't the best way to go. As CAG is a self help forum, reading the background to the campaign would really help you, IMHO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Can I re-open this one? I cannot recall having heard from the Courts regarding the stay or if its been kicked out but its been about 8 years since the last time i done anything with this case

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Going to chance my arm and go after the charges they applied to my mortgage back between 1991 to 2003, this was before we changed to Santander so they are no longer our mortgage lenders. I'm not holding out much success with this company:-x

 

 

Back in 1991 we were badly mis-sold a mortgage with a five year fixed rate of 12.9% and informed that rate would remain at the level after the term ended. How they lied to use soon after the recession hit the mortgage rates dropped to 5%, this crippled us to breaking point.:-x:-x:-x

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found the documents and claim numbers concerning this case, it would appear on the 10th June 2008 the claim was stayed, I sent out the appeal letter on 10/2/2009 to have the Stay lifted on the grounds of hardship which was kindly put together by Martin3030, to date I have no recollection of any correspondance from the court or Natwest. What is my best course of action or my options now?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I had a reply email from Bristol Courts:

 

 

Dear Webbscatering,

Thank your for your recent email.

Unfortunately it is down to the parties in these circumstances to obtain the outcome of the Appeal Test Case and then update the court accordingly.

Kind regards.

Jeannette Perry

Civil Division

Bristol Civil & Family Justice Centre

2 Redcliff Street

Bristol

BS1 6GR

can anyone give me a suggestion on what I should do next, thanks

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing its stayed so not really sure there is anything you can do now with the old claim far too late its outside 6yrs.

 

why not start a new reclaim and see what they do?

is this within 12yrs since they were levied?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing its stayed so not really sure there is anything you can do now with the old claim far too late its outside 6yrs.

 

why not start a new reclaim and see what they do?

is this within 12yrs since they were levied?

 

 

these charges were levied between 2003 to 2008, can we still claim?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd thoughts reading around penalty charges even on a mortgage are only 6yrs

no harm in trying mind

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't send an LBA yet.

send the claim in with a covering letter and your spready

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...