Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
  • 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

CCA 1st Credit / Connaught **SET ASIDE WITH COSTS**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5628 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

Just called the Courts today and the Judge has accepted the set aside hearing.

 

Will not post when it is just now but I cant wait.

 

Do you think Connaughts will turn up????

 

HAK

 

 

Still nothing back of the Magistrates Court yet!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just called the Courts today and the Judge has accepted the set aside hearing.

 

Will not post when it is just now but I cant wait.

 

Do you think Connaughts will turn up????

 

HAK

 

 

Still nothing back of the Magistrates Court yet!!

You will soon get a letter from the CON men advising you that they are withdrawing their SD. However unless you hear from the Courts that you are not required then you should go along on the date and ask for costs against the CON men

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that ODC.

 

Thats what the woman form the Courts said turn up anyway if they back out.

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been talking to a Solicitor.

Due to Con man issuing the SD without prior collection is not seen likley by the Courts and as we know abuse of the system.

She has said also to ask the Judge at the set aside hearing to guide you to take out a civil claim against them for harrasment etc...

 

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just a real shame that the onus for sorting out these disreputable DCA's is down to us...I do think the court itself should do something to stop the DCA's interpreting the rules and regulations in order to apply as much pressure as they want to debtors (or people they just assume are the debtors) without censure.

 

I think it is time that the Courts applied punative measures to DCA's that have been proven to harrass, intimidate and make life misery for ordinary people.

Advice given is my opinion only, I am not a legal or financial expert (far from it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

just sent off a cca request to 1st direct myself today,this thread is very interesting reading!! Im a bit shocked that dca's read our posts!!!

I sent one last week to bryan carters too, I never thought I would be doing all this!!

I have been reading lots of posts for about a week and a half now, but im not quite sure what a set aside is, could someone point me in the right direction to read up about it.

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

42 MAN

 

Firstly great to see you as a site helper :D.

 

i am just doing my defence for the Court claim and should be on to the SD shortly.

Are you around today?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi 42MAN/ MONX

 

I cant seem to get started on this. Totally lost:confused:

 

Any pointer in to what to take with me??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember HAK....you disputed the debt before the SD came through, they have not contacted you stating that it is their intention to drop the SD......i'd be pretty annoyed...!!! It is a serious abuse and a waste of the courts time to use the Insolvency service as a method of collecting disputed debts !!

 

You might find this interesting to HAK !!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/135078-me-1st-credit-stat.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it 42 Man!!

 

Cheers

 

Ive printed a load of legistlation of with rulings if needed.

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just found this below

It again mentions signatures

 

 

Legal Loophole in a Statutory Demand

 

A statutory demand must show a named person or persons from the Creditor or their agent/solicitor whom you can contact directly. This is Rule 6.2 of The insolvency Rules 1986.

This means that if the statutory demand doesn't give the name of a person you can speak to then it is not valid. If you try to contact the named person and they won’t put you through then it is also invalid.

Be aware that named people on accompanying letters are not part of the Statutory Demand - only those on the Demand itself are valid.

Important - make notes of dates/times you try to call the named person on the statutory demand, together with the name of the person that you spoke to and a note of what was said. Write and confirm everything said by Special Delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE

 

Just got a letter from CON saying the SD was issued in error and they are writing to the Courts to say they will not be attending...

 

Should I still go?

Can I claim costs?

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...