Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
    • when did they (who) inform you there was a 'police case' and when was this attained? i will guess the debt is now SB'd as it's UAE 15yrs. have you informed the bsnk ever by email/letter of your correct and current address? you can always ignore anyone else accept the bank,  Block and bounce back all emails. Block any text messages  Ignore any letters unless it's: - a Statutory Demand - a Letter Of Claim - a Court Claimform via Northants bulk.  
    • I left Dubai 8 years ago and intended to return. However a job prospect fell through. I’d been there for 15 years. I decided to pay my credit card and the bank had frozen my account. There is no means to pay the CC so completely unable to pay when I wanted to other than the bank advising me to ask a friend in the UAE to pay it on my behalf!  fast forward bank informs there is a police case against me for non payment. Years later IDR chased me and after months/ years they stopped. Now Judge & Priestley are trying their luck. Now I have received an email in English and Arabic from JP saying the bank has authorised them to collect debts. Is this the same as IDR although I didn’t receive anything like this from them. Just says they are authorised?
    • The neighbour's house is built right on the boundary so the side of their house is effectively the 'wall' in our garden separating the two properties. It's a three storey house and so the mortar poses a potential danger to us. Because of the danger, we have put up an interior fence in our garden to ensure we don't risk mortar dropping on us. That reduces the garden by 25% which is not only an inconvenience, but it's the part of the garden where we had lined up contractors to install a patio and gazebo which we will use for our wedding reception in less than 2 months. We have spoken to the neighbour's caretaker who is on the case, has spoken with a roofer and possibly a scaffolding company, but there are several issues. They don't seem to understand the urgency. As long as there is a risk of falling mortar, we can't carry out any work in the garden, and unless they hurry up, we're looking at cancelling our wedding as it's not viable to book a venue because we can't use our own garden! Also, they want to put the scaffolding up in our garden which would be ok with us if it was a matter of a few days and they hurried up, but there is a tree (most likely protected by the conservation area), so most likely they can only reach part of the roof with the scaffolding if they put it up in our garden. We suggested a roofer with a cherry picker but they seem to want to use a company they've used before. Any and all comments, suggestions, advice is more than welcome.  PS. does it make any difference that the neighbour is a business (ltd) and not a private dwelling?
  • 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 
        • 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

Leeds Merchantile Aug 29th


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6120 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

Bad news...a stay was granted but only until the Judge in the OFT case makes his initial decision...other things are also involved...however any DISPUTED charges made by the banks to todays claimants may not be enforced.during the duration of the stay..what ever that means???you tell me.

The templates for objection/appeal.are wrong in one area

The arguement that we (the claimants) have not got funds to employ barristers against the Banks,was in fact made one of the reasons for a stay,as the OFT have the money and they are 'supposed' to be representative of us,so anyone else needs to delete that from any letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i've been told the bank cannot put any more charges on disputed accounts. Which is really good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes have to agree with you there Jess, us Barclays claiments were disappointed. What time did you end up getting out, as i left after talking to the Barclays representative - who was applying for a stay on our claims. So we didnt necessarily have to go back in?

 

out of interest which one was you lol?

 

I got out about 4ish, god I thought we'd be in there forever! lol

 

Erm, not sure how to describe myself lol, I was sat in the jurers section if that helps? Next to a guy with glasses, 2nd from the end nearest the wall. About 5 ft 4, blonde, late 20's, the lady who looked really really bored lol! Who were you, did you stand up and talk at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jess, thats good for you, if they dont pay you can send the bailiffs in LOL xx

 

Thanks, yeah it's good, but I'm not getting my hopes up for a cheque in the post in the next 14 days, prob will have to go to the baliffs knowing LTSB!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good luck with the cheque business, at least a handful of people will/should be getting what they went in there for.

 

Jess - Dressed all in black by any chance? No i didnt stand up and talk. I was in a blue shirt and tie about 5ft 5, mind 20s, sat next to a bloke in a pink shirt in the area on the right you walk in the door. I didnt realise there were going to be so many people in one hearing, and how disorganised could they have been at the beginning. I found some of the language the bank representatives used was a bit over my head at times.

 

I got kind of confused towards the end. So, due to our claims been stayed until the OFT have had the test case, do we have to go back to court at all/until after that has taken place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Judge Leeds Merchantile Aug 29th took a great deal of time this morning over his decision to stay the majority of cases of which 150 individual claimants were represented. He ruled in favour of the stay applications and recieved direction from some of the legal representitives of the banks who had failed to submit stay applications in to the court in sufficient time. The OFT test case has become a security blanket for the Banks and this test case will be the cause of further delays and many loop holes for the banks concerned. Valiant and brave claimants I am sure many linked to this forum spoke up during the open court opportunity to oppose the motion to stay. Sadly for the majority this battle for he present has come to a standstill. A long day in court.

I now await my letter from Barclays to which I will object to their request to stay my case which on a court trial date set as soon as possible following the week commencing the 3rd Dec will be granted its stay application.

Dont know what others felt about today or if they succeeded in getting their bank to settle or where we go from here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good luck with the cheque business, at least a handful of people will/should be getting what they went in there for.

 

Jess - Dressed all in black by any chance? No i didnt stand up and talk. I was in a blue shirt and tie about 5ft 5, mind 20s, sat next to a bloke in a pink shirt in the area on the right you walk in the door. I didnt realise there were going to be so many people in one hearing, and how disorganised could they have been at the beginning. I found some of the language the bank representatives used was a bit over my head at times.

 

I got kind of confused towards the end. So, due to our claims been stayed until the OFT have had the test case, do we have to go back to court at all/until after that has taken place?

 

Yep I was the one all in black, I might as well been going to a funeral the way I was dressed :rolleyes: I don't do formal usually lol

 

Yes I know what you mean about the amount of people there, I did expect that though but yes it was unorganised and I don't think anyone expected that so many of us would stand up and have our say. I wish I could of added something but I wasn't confident enough that I could of argued my point with the solicitors.

 

I'm sure they intentionly try and baffle us with long words and legal terms to intimatate us all, but in some cases it didn't work which was great to see.

 

Yes I get the impression that if the OFT test case rules in your favour you will be back in court again, presuming that Barclays don't decide to pay up first?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I was the one all in black, I might as well been going to a funeral the way I was dressed :rolleyes: I don't do formal usually lol

 

Yes I know what you mean about the amount of people there, I did expect that though but yes it was unorganised and I don't think anyone expected that so many of us would stand up and have our say. I wish I could of added something but I wasn't confident enough that I could of argued my point with the solicitors.

 

I'm sure they intentionly try and baffle us with long words and legal terms to intimatate us all, but in some cases it didn't work which was great to see.

 

Yes I get the impression that if the OFT test case rules in your favour you will be back in court again, presuming that Barclays don't decide to pay up first?

 

 

Yeah, im used to wearing a shirt for work but dont normally do ties.

 

I got the impression the banks solicitors were not very experienced though, made a few errors and they didnt seem that much (if at all) older then me (24). They didnt seem that long out of uni.

 

To be honest, because the court has put a stay on the barclays claims until the OFT test case, i cant see the bank settling before the test case. The banks could be a little more confident now that the judge has postponed the decision until jan. Although its not over yet by a long shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...