Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'd say concern about the landfill operator is absolutely necessary. I think the word they could mean is 'embarrassing'.
    • Just to cover yourself, you should write them a letter in response telling them that you are rejecting their offer. That they know full well that their insurance is an attempt to limit or exclude liability contrary to section 57 Consumer rights act and is a secondary contract contrary to section 72.  By the way was the offer made without prejudice or in confidence or anything? Maybe you could post up their offer here please
    • "Dear HR, I refer to my correspondence of *date* in which I challenged xxx, copy attached. Clearly this was a grievance, and yet does not seem to have been heard under the grievance procedure. I am exceptionally dismayed that this 'review'. which never took place, seems to be being used as a criteria in redundancy selection proceedings. As this is time critical, please advise asap."            
    • Just to update, received a revised offer of £75 from P2G after they got my LOC last Friday. They stated that because it was not insured this would be their final offer. Looks like we are going to court.
    • and speaking of cover-ups .. from the environment agency with collusion/negligence  from the ICO   Environment Agency chief admits regulator buries freedom of information requests Speaking at the UK River Summit, Philip Duffy said officials do not want to reveal the true ‘embarrassing’ environmental picture ICO - waffle Environment Agency chief admits regulator buries freedom of information requests | Environment Agency | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Speaking at the UK River Summit, Philip Duffy said officials do not want to reveal the true ‘embarrassing’ environmental picture   Environment Agency ‘hiding’ report into Lancashire landfill making locals ill Exclusive The agency has refused to share details of how a landfill operator is breaching its permit because it could 'potentially cause unnecessary concern'    Environment Agency ‘hiding’ report into Lancashire landfill making locals ill INEWS.CO.UK The agency has refused to share details of how a landfill operator is breaching its permit because it could 'potentially cause unnecessary...  
  • 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

bp v abbey x2


bp
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6125 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

  • 2 months later...

hi all, i've not said anything for a while, bit too much going on at home.

 

Update: finally put claim in and Abbey had to respond by the 6th Aug. They acknowledged with he intention to defend on the 26th July, i've jut had an email from my favourite person at Abbey our lovely Inga to say that just in case i didn't know, abbey are applying for a stay of all cases, i've asked my court and they have said that my case is still ongoing. Is there a generic response to the courts when the banks ask for a stay? has a stay of all cases been agreed?

 

any advice would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Michael, just found the link. Sorry i was just being lazy!

 

On a lighter note, right under Inga's email was "Ashurst, winner of law firm of the year 2007" God! i wonder what they had to do to get that? fob as many people as poss? offer lower amounts to claimants thereby still saving their clients money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to be a bit cheeky and asked her if this new strategy of avoiding paying out money also applied to abbey suspending all future charges from its customers accounts? lets see if she replies to that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well she's a busy woman1 this is her reply

The whole purpose of the commencement of the Test Case is to clarify the law in this area. Abbey will continue to post updates on its websites to keep customers informed on progress of the Test case.

I feel like sending a message asking why if this issue needs clarification, why has abbey applied thse charges and why does still apply them while the issue is going to court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Quick update, i received the usual letter, Abbey will be asking for a stay of my case, they've acknowledged my case twice! and today, i got a copy of their defence. This defence is different from the other one back in April. Does anyone know if a copy of their new defence is posted on this site somewhere?

 

4.3 if the defendant honoured the payment instruction in question, the Defendant thereby accepted the claimant's offer.

 

4.4 Accordingly, the claimant became bound to pay interest and charges in relation to that loan at the stipulated rate.

 

4.5 That liability does not at common law, constitute a penalty charge.

 

 

 

 

So these are longer Breaches of contracts but loans? Anyone recognises this? Is this the new standard defence?

 

Thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BP long time no speak, yes it represents a change, BUT it is in response to Abbeys changes of terms and conditions, and if you have seen them then you will know that they are penalty charges by a different name, they have just changed what they call it and (so they say) how they apply it. unfortunately even Abbey cant backdate their own terms and conditions, so it really means jack IMHO, nontheless, i think that GaryH might like a look at it

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Lula hun thanks very much.

 

I guess i'll just have to send the usual strike outs but include a copy of their prev defence. first thing, need to find out if they have asked the court for a stay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough I got exactly the same defence through yesterday for my o/h's claim.

unfortunately even Abbey cant backdate their own terms and conditions

Exactly. They've defended based on terms which weren't even thought of at the time the charges were taken, let alone in existance. Its a completely invalid defence. I'm going for summary judgment on mine - I.e an application that the defence should be struck out and judgment granted without a full hearing becouse the defence has no real prospect of success.

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

Yup, 'fraid so!

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...