Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

District Judge Cooke. On a mission?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6173 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

I rely on my legal counsel to advise me, this issue was never flagged to me. Now that it has, I'm awaiting advice on a solution.

 

Funny, I remember pointing this out to you (as did plenty of others) a few months back. Still i suppose it took a qualified legal professional for the message to have any effect. Oh the irony.

  • Haha 1

Mindzai & Lucid vs Lloyds TSB

 

Mindzai's Account - Partial settlement offer rejected

Joint Account - Partial settlement offer rejected

_________________________

Spreadsheet for compound contractual interest and statutory (s69) interest:

Download v1.9 [Tested with Excel 97-2007 and OpenOffice 2]

PLEASE NOTE: You should fully research contractual interest before you use that functionality of this spreadsheet. If in any doubt please use it to calculate 8% interest under s69 County Courts Act 1984.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Funny, I remember pointing this out to you (as did plenty of others) a few months back. Still i suppose it took a qualified legal professional for the message to have any effect. Oh the irony.

 

Err no, you were talking about champerty & maintenance, which we're not being accused of.

 

Anyway, there is a simple way around the problem. Just thought that it would be of interest to people.

 

Its also worth noting, looking at all the correspondence we have had from the court, it has always been judge Cooke that has dealt with our claims. Seems odd for him to make this order now don't you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it podgyday was acting on behalf of a client?

 

Or does that mean that no one can start any court proceedings, other than a solicitor?

 

The bit that interested me was the Judges comment, I believe "The banks are chargeing for a service and they can charge what they like and if they make a profit, so be." or words to that effect!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed this legislation recently. The one problem I have is with this part of the legislation being quoted.

 

act as a solicitor, or as such issue any writ or process, or commence, prosecute or defend any action, suit or other proceeding, in his own name or in the name of any other person, in any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction

The problem I have with this legislation is that being interprepted in the manner that it is on this forum would mean that it was unlawful for a person to act on their own behalf and coduct litigation. Therefore, it may be the case that this statutory provision is only relevant when a person "acts as a solicitor" AND issues writs. Another factor is that the interpretation of the word "issue" which may not be equivalent to "prepare".

 

With regard to RobertXC's comments... I don't believe that the issue of this company and its employee's legal ability is relevant to the judges ruling.

Advice, information, data, opinions, etc of JustWon, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

If I don't respond please don't think I am ignoring you as, due to other commitments, I have little time to spend on the board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was forunate enough to be able to air my views on the subject on Radio 4 this morning. For anyone interested, it's about 15 minutes in: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today0_20070517.ram

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, there is a simple way around the problem. Just thought that it would be of interest to people.

Podgydad,

I assume you have been putting your company details on the N1 form for return correspondence have you? As it does say on there:

Claimants or claimants solicitors address to which documents etc...

So, If you were, then you were purporting to be a solicitor. I cannot see any way that you could get round this in the eyes of the law.

I was helping an old lady recover some money from the RBS, and I looked into this a few months ago and was told I must never put my name there unless I was a solicitor.

I suppose that is a bit ridiculous when this sweet little old lady could not possibly do it herself and, if as you say, solicitors are not bothered then how would she do it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one Robert. I too got bothered by a (rather attractive) girl in Leeds the other day asking if I had had any bank charges, there were a few of them. I said I was with CAG and then spent ten minutes hanging around telling the people that they got to sign up that they could do it themselves for free. Would have stayed the whole day if i'd had the time. I know nothing about the legalities of what these companies do but it seems fairly imoral to me, kind of like coke selling bottled tap water for the same price as beer!!!

  • Haha 1

Barclays - 2 Accounts - WON

Capital 1 - WON with CI

LTSB - WON

LTSB pre 6 years - N1 for non compliance filed

Barclays pre 6 years - Prelim sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

how would she do it

 

People could help her for free, it does happen. The process doesn't take too much effort once you've done it. I have helped friends and only requested 5% donation to this website. My payment comes from the happiness of their win.

Barclays - 2 Accounts - WON

Capital 1 - WON with CI

LTSB - WON

LTSB pre 6 years - N1 for non compliance filed

Barclays pre 6 years - Prelim sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, there is a simple way around the problem. Just thought that it would be of interest to people.

Podgydad,

I assume you have been putting your company details on the N1 form for return correspondence have you? As it does say on there:

Claimants or claimants solicitors address to which documents etc...

So, If you were, then you were purporting to be a solicitor. I cannot see any way that you could get round this in the eyes of the law.

I was helping an old lady recover some money from the RBS, and I looked into this a few months ago and was told I must never put my name there unless I was a solicitor.

I suppose that is a bit ridiculous when this sweet little old lady could not possibly do it herself and, if as you say, solicitors are not bothered then how would she do it?

 

You can get round it by simply passing it all to a solicitor to deal with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People could help her for free, it does happen. The process doesn't take too much effort once you've done it. I have helped friends and only requested 5% donation to this website. My payment comes from the happiness of their win.

 

 

I was doing it for free!!!!

I even paid her £10 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) fee cos I felt sorry for her!!!! (WHICH i HAVE NOW LOST)

She is a friend of my mums, and my mum asked if I could help her, so I did.

Her S***head son has now taken over as he can see £6K coming her way.

So, if he cocks up like Mr Berwick, she loses everything.

OH AND MY HAPPINESS WOULD COME FROM THE SAME PLACE AS WELL

 

Maybe you would care to read my post if it helps!

http://http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/59695-please-help-old-lady.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDITED

 

Am i right in saying this is the same judge that found in favour of the defendent even though they could not even be bothered to turn up. Someone should be asking Questions, this bank treated his directions with utter contempt be he still found in their favour.

 

I am not saying that i agree with no win no fee companies but there are people out there that even with the help of excellent supports site like CAG & Penalty Charges, would not even attempt to take on their bank. I say this because i have recently odopted 2 claims from family members because it was getting to daunting for them and they bwhere prepared to give up their fight.

 

With that said if podgydad is using this site for gain then surely the 5% donation should become manditory. IMO.

 

Back to the main point we should all be working together to ensure people get their money back and sharing knowledge of the banks altering underhanded tactics in order to stay one pace ahead of these big organisations.

Thanks lillboy

 

 

 

Bogus Charges £499.00 LBA 1/06/06

Refund of £299.00 now sent Data Protection Act:)

 

GE Capital NEXT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Destinyofsouls. I didn't see your thread before I posted so believe me, I wasn't reffering to you. Was listening to the radio interview. The link to your thread didn't work, but I found it. You seem to have done a very selfless thing. Haven't got time to read it all now but I will later. I'm just not a fan of ambulance chasers or the way we seem to be following the american model of litigation culture. I know I'm a part of it but I believe England has had a small claims court for a long time! People stopping me every time i go onto a city or ringing me at home asking if I've had an accident is definitely quite recent!

Barclays - 2 Accounts - WON

Capital 1 - WON with CI

LTSB - WON

LTSB pre 6 years - N1 for non compliance filed

Barclays pre 6 years - Prelim sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDITED

 

Am i right in saying this is the same judge that found in favour of the defendent even though they could not even be bothered to turn up. Someone should be asking Questions, this bank treated his directions with utter contempt be he still found in their favour.

 

I am not saying that i agree with no win no fee companies but there are people out there that even with the help of excellent supports site like CAG & Penalty Charges, would not even attempt to take on their bank. I say this because i have recently odopted 2 claims from family members because it was getting to daunting for them and they bwhere prepared to give up their fight.

 

With that said if podgydad is using this site for gain then surely the 5% donation should become manditory. IMO.

 

Back to the main point we should all be working together to ensure people get their money back and sharing knowledge of the banks altering underhanded tactics in order to stay one pace ahead of these big organisations.

 

 

I agree with Lillboy - we're getting away from the main issue.

Remember - Together we stand - Divided we fall.

 

We're all on the same side and trying to get the same results from the Banks. The last thing we need is to bicker amongst ourselves and let Lloyds and the Smarmy SC & M read these posts and think that they are getting the upper hand. Onwards and Upwards - back to main objective!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with with Lillboy. These kind of firms are now regulated and it's not

a judge's role to act like a watchdog. Far from accusing someone of acting as a lawyer he could be accused of acting like the OFT.

 

In fairness, if such companies are using the court system, its the judges job to make sure that such companies comply with the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a bit worried now as a company is charging 25% to do all my paperwork concerning my claim. I haven't had any problems with them but now i am worried.

Iv'e just got an order of judgement accepted by the courts so they haven't mentioned that the company cant act on my behalf or anything but does this mean that they are breaking the law??

Further more, where does it leave me in regards to paying them??

caroline

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that’s an interesting point.

 

Presumably, when the cheque is forthcoming from the unsuccessful defendant, it is made out in favour of the claimant. So, how does the amb…sorry, Regulated Claims Management Company ensure it gets paid?

 

If car2 chooses not to pay the perfectly reasonable 25%:o , and legs it with the cheque, then the RCMC will have to sue for its money (in its own name, of course)!

 

Els

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that’s an interesting point.

 

Presumably, when the cheque is forthcoming from the unsuccessful defendant, it is made out in favour of the claimant. So, how does the amb…sorry, Regulated Claims Management Company ensure it gets paid?

 

If car2 chooses not to pay the perfectly reasonable 25%:o , and legs it with the cheque, then the RCMC will have to sue for its money (in its own name, of course)!

 

Els

 

Bad debt is a serious problem, especially since many claimants are in debt to begin with, often their settlement gets eaten up by other debts leaving them struggling to pay us. We reclaimed £6.5k for a client 3 months ago who still hasn't paid us. People are a lot better at cashing cheques than writing them :-)

 

Of course the best solution is to get the banks to pay us directly, the only one to do so is Natwest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a bit worried now as a company is charging 25% to do all my paperwork concerning my claim. I haven't had any problems with them but now i am worried.

Iv'e just got an order of judgement accepted by the courts so they haven't mentioned that the company cant act on my behalf or anything but does this mean that they are breaking the law??

Further more, where does it leave me in regards to paying them??

caroline

 

Did you have to sign any court papers? If so did it mention their name anywhere on the form?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not been on this site since February. What a change in attitude I have seen tonight. I thought this forum supported people making claims, not underminded them. The fact remains that the banks are making huge profits out of disavantaged people, unfairly. Do not stop this from posting podgydad. I am sure many other members will support you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...