Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Same as Barclays one I have just updated on. PRA group have written back and told me they intend to proceed with claim, have also sent another stack of documents, similar to last time round. I did fill in an online income breakdown etc on their website  offering to pay them x amount of money back each month,  a couple of weeks back, they haven't acknowledged that ?  
    • Hello, I wasn't able to update the defence, so they got the daft one.  Pra Group have responded dated 25th April saying they intend to proceed with claim. I have also received a stack of documents, similar to last time - print outs of old statements, but this time around they have send me a copy of the Barclay Card Conditions. Unsigned and dated. The address is an old address.  A consumer credit agreement with current address. Pages of it and no signature. I have uploaded onto a PDF what I have. The CCA agreement looks like a generic print out, I5 pages + long, I've included the 1st page that had my details on (redacted) don't know if its necessary to upload all of it.  Barclays 26042024.pdf
    • I suggested consideration of bankruptcy some years ago. It was not well received.
    • That is a superb WS. However, I have a few tweaks to suggest. In (2) "indicating" not "indication". I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2. Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay. I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion. After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point - 8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.   In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits. In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write - 16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative. You also need ot number your exhibits. The rest is excellent - well done.
  • 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

sidog70 v Halifax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6496 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

The defendant admits that all the money is owed.

 

Please make your selection:

1) I accept the defendant's proposal for payment

 

Say how the defendant intends to pay. The court will send the defendant an order to pay. You will also be sent a copy.

 

 

 

 

2) The defendant has not made any proposal for payment

 

Say how you want the defendant to pay. You can ask for the judgment to be paid by instalments or in one payment. The court will send the defendant an order to pay. You will also be sent a copy.

 

Cant get to this anymore as i have gone for option 2

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following information relates to your judgment:

 

Claim Description

 

Claim Number

 

Status of this Judgment

 

 

Halifax

 

6QZ44128

 

Requested

 

Your judgment has been submitted to the court for final validation before being issued.

 

 

This is what i get now...also got a pdf form from the courts outlining all the money that is owed and how im going to receive it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, unless I am very much mistaken, a very bemused congratulations... I can't help feeling that Halifax have messed up their response, but in the absence of other evidence... It would seem you've won...

 

DO keep us updated, will you? I can't help feeling that there is something odd going on here...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah any further news i get will be posted to my thread ASAP.

 

I would have thought if they have admitted liabilty then they can not now go back on this, is this correct ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted elsewhere, I don't know if you recognise the set-up? Does that sound possible?

 

The OP is talking about the choices that you get when you click on "enter judgement".

 

You have two choices:

 

1) Judgement by default

2) Judgement by admission

 

It sounds like the OP has clicked on "enter judgement" (or whatever the link was), selected one of the options, and is now at the stage described in her post.

 

It's more of a POSSIBLE cockup on her part. I mean a possible on her part, as if HFX haven't entered a defence/acknowledgement then she is doing right in entering a default against them, however, if they are/have replied, then she shouldn't be doing what she has done.

 

Hope this clears things up, I'm not quite 100% I'm right here, but I'm pretty sure, because I press the same button once FD had settled my claim, as I thought I'd have the option to close the claim. I didn't. The claim is, effectively, still running, as when I called Northampton CC (MCOL) to see how to cancel the claim, she told me that I don't have to, I can just leave it, though she recommended changing the "claim description" (which is merely for my info) by putting SETTLED before what was already int he description.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds familiar but before when i tried to select a option it just said on the lines of you need to give halifax 14 days to respond..yesterday though this had changed from start to continue and when i clicked on it thats when i got The defendant admits that all the money is owed option now

Link to post
Share on other sites

another weird thing just received a letter this morning from Northampton courts with a acknowledgment from halifax attached and the the box is ticked to say intend to defend all the claim...

 

In that case then I would assume you have selected the option on Moneyclaim which says "Judgement by admission" and that is why you have got the screen which you now see.

 

Is that what you did?

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was under the judgment heading, the link under that heading changed from start which it had been to continue, then when i clicked on continue it said that the defendant admits that all the money is owed. Then i went for the option which said that i had not been advised of the payment.

 

Can anyone shed some light on this, dont want to have ruined my chances by buggering things up online...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my previous post - before the status changed to continue, had you clicked on "Judgement by admission"?

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have had 2 options - 1 would have said judgement by default, the other would have said judgement by admission.

 

You clicked judgement by default, it said you can't do this until 14 days have passed.

 

Did you then click judgement by admission (the second option)?

 

Surely you must remember what you clicked?

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should try and phone MCOL asap and see what they say. It wdn't be the 1st time they made a mistake. So far, they have once withdrawn one of my claims(!), and on one of my current ones, it shows defence was entered 5th June, and I only filed claim on the 7th!!!!

 

Theit helpline people are usually very good, I think you need to get this clarified by them. Please let us know what they said!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spoke to MCOL helpline, seems i have prematurely hit the judgement button (story of my life really), this does not affect the claim at all, halifax have until 8th Aug to submit a defence now. the only thing different i will have to do is submit a manual judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6496 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...