Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi If you have went via a Mutual Exchange and this is to do with Social Housing/Housing Association then both parties need to firstly be approved by each parties Housing Association and accepted by them. Once this is done the relevant Housing Association for each will then get each party to sign a New Tenancy Agreement with the relevant Housing Association. So what we really need to know is: Does the other party to this Mutual Exchange know you have changed your mind on exchanging properties? Have they just signed an Agreement in principle to exchange properties? or Have they actually signed a New Tenancy Agreement for that Property? If they have signed a New Tenancy Agreement then this will make not now wanting to continue the mutual exchange difficult due to the New Tenancy Agreement being Signed. We really need to know what stage this is at to give correct advice
    • From unhackable communication networks to powerful computers, quantum technology promises huge advances.View the full article
    • going nowhere then. well if you've not been simply doing it to look the big cheese to your mates, you need to address why you are doing it. if its to impress your mates then simply stop being an idiot eh? , learn from it and go live your life . dx
    • Yes only with dwf. The first letter I received was explaining that I have not responded to the first letter they sent which I did not receive at all  then the second letter came, they said again saying we have not heard from you we are extending this another 14 days but at that point a couple of days before I called them on the phone saying I have received this and supposedly i owe money for stolen goods and that I need to see the breakdown which they then emailed to me dwf said this was what we were trying to send to you at first and I told them we have not received your first letter only one asking for demand of payment. On my second call to them I asked can you list the things that I have supposedly stole to which they replied “we normally have this on file but I can’t seem to find this on your file”   
    • oh well, at least your eign of terror is over now. so no contact directly since from/to sainsbury's. everything since has only been with DWF?
  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6185 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

hello all just got court papers through today for my partners case against lloyds its the 28th of june, same as before with the paperwork anyone else got this date ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey just had a thought in light of the berwick case the other week do you think anything needs to be added altered to the CMI sheet or is it same as before am just about to send my aprtners off thats al.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have this date but im confused in my letter it says 68 cases maybe dealt with as a group litigation how would they do that ? also i will be returning frm holiday abroad that day so wont be in leeds until around 15.30 and i am due in court at 10.30am i understand i will have to inform the court and they will probably give me another date but i would still like to know how a group lit works ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Purplesilk,

 

See what happened at the previous Leeds hearings (7 Feb and 26 April).

See thread:

'Leeds Mercantile Court Hearing 28 June 2007' which will give you all the other threads thah you need to see.

It is essential that you inform the Court that you will not be able to attend on the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i spoke to the courts today and informed them that i cant attend court until later in the day, i asked if i could send someone to represent me and they said it should be ok but i need to put it in writing so i am sending a letter today, my partner will attend on my behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info purplesilk.

 

Anybody else wishing to make further posts regarding the 28th June Leeds hearing, please post on thread 'Leeds Mercantile Court 28th June 2007' so that we have one common thread for all to see and post on now that the hearing is getting close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've got two threads running in parallel which is becoming rather confusing - this 'Leeds june 28th' thread and the 'Leeds Mercantile Court Hearing 28th June 2007' thread.

 

Now that we are getting closer to the hearing, it would seem sensible to be using one thread only. Therefore please do not put any more posts on this 'Leeds June 28th' thread. Use the 'Leeds Mercantile Court Hearing 28th June 2007' thread which will create the 'full story' up to and including the hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...