Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Not at all. The onus is on them to ensure that their invoice respects the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to establish keeper liability. Which it can't as the area is covered by bye-laws. Spot on. Irrelevant as to whether you entered into a contract with VCS to pay them £100 if you didn't obey what was written on their silly signs. Who cares? What about their ridiculous generic Particulars of Claim where they deliberately mix up driver and keeper. And where do they mention this? You haven't shown us anything. Of course you have to prepare a Witness Statement and you'd better get on with it. This is the problem here - you've disappeared for months & months, haven't kept us updated and presumably haven't read other VCS threads. That needs to change - now. Otherwise you will lose - simple as that. For a start - please upload the court order which fixes the hearing date plus plus where "VCS mentioned my initial defence was generic and clearly copied from the internet". We're not mind readers. -
-
2nd class stamp only , get free proof of posting from any PO counter dx
-
Hi, It has been a long time but I have had confirmation claim will proceed to hearing in roughly 1 months time. I was wondering if anyone could advise on defence please. A few questions I have are: 1) I didn't notify VCS that I was not the driver of the vehicle and the judge may look negatively on this point. I did not receive any direction in correspondence from VCS that I should inform them if I was not the driver and that was going to be the foundation for may argument on this point. 2) The vehicle is stopped at a zebra crossing. Based on the images from VCS for around 10 seconds. At that time there is someone standing near the zebra crossing and someone else enters my vehicle. I was going to raise the point that stopping at a zebra crossing when someone is standing near it is to be expected. I was also going to ask the question how you can have a no stopping zone when there are zebra crossings where the driver is required to stop. 3) The no stopping zone is clearly signposted, however, no drop off or pickup is not clearly signposted with one small sign at the zebra crossing, parallel to the road and on the passengers side. I was going to challenge that no-drop off or pickup is clearly signposted. 4) VCS mentioned my initial defence was generic and clearly copied from the internet. It covered 1) Claimant not being in a position to state if the Defendant was the driver at the time. 2) No evidence that claimant's contract with landowner supersedes byelaws & signage isn't legally binding contract. 3) No contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on speculative charge. I am interested to know if anyone has had success or been unsuccessful with this 'generic' defence. 5) If I should submit an updated defence to the court based on questions 1, 2 & 3. Or if it is better to only raise these points in court? Thanks. Any guidance would be appreciated -
By Man in the middle · Posted
I honestly don't know, Baz. In addition what I don't understand (from that pamphlet) is this: The s88 criteria are quite clear and don't need a medical professional to interpret them . The one most relevant to his topic says that an application is not a "qualifying application" if a relevant disability has been declared. The problem with the word "may" is how does the applicant establish whether me "may" driver under s88 when he has not complied with its conditions? I don't know the answer to that either. But to further muddy the waters, the pamphlet says this (about : But the s88 statute says absolutely nothing like that at all. It simply says that if you have declared a relevant disability s88 does not apply. The DVLA pamphlet is simply confusing as far as I can see. That's actually my opinion and that's what I would stick to if it was me making the application. But I'll seek a few opinions from others over the next couple of days.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
kennythecelt 1 v halifax and BOS 0
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 6014 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts