Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Statue of Limitation


closey
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6526 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

I am still unclear why we are only claiming back six year. The statute of limitation is a law which limits the length of time within which a suit must be commenced before the right to sue is lost. So in other words once we know about unlawful bank charges we have six years in which to act upon that knowledge.

 

Could one of the MODs shed light on why we advising about this the wrong way round. Surely we are lettting the banks get away with thousands more pounds they have unlawfully taken.

Lloyds TSB - £972

S.A.R, prelim and LBA sent

Claim acknowledged

Defence received

AQ 20/06/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 20/07/06***

 

Woolwich - £2288

S.A.R, prelim and LBA sent.

Offered half

Moneyclaim filed online 02/08/06

Judgement filed online 23/08/06

WARRANT FILED ONLINE 30/08/06

MONEY RECEIVED BY BALIFF 04/10/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 09/10/06***

 

Smile - £175

Pelim 23/06/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 07/07/06***

 

My Ex vs Woolwich - £715

S.A.R sent 30/08/06

Pelim 06/10/06

LBA 20/10/06

 

Advice & opinions provided are personal, and not endorsed by CAG or BAG, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of threads on this issue, and lots of people testing the boundaries eg Spiceskull and AlanfromDerby. If you do a few searches there has been a lot of discussion on this. Under the DPA banks are only required to keep financial information for 6 years, so supposedly you can't get information further back, but plenty of people are claiming further back, although I couldn't comment on success rates. Keep searching and you will find the threads.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh - you're confused.

 

We have six years from "The Cause" to submit an "Action". "The Cause" is the first unlawful charge being levied. If this was anything more than 6 years ago, then it's effectively statute barred as you only have 6 years to claim, from "The Cause". So we at the moment can only go back six years.

 

HOWEVER

 

Section 32 says that if there was concealment of something then the six years begins from the day that the concealment is discovered, or could reasonably be discovered. So - if the Banks kowingly concealed the punitive nature of their charges (DUH!!) then we can go back as long as we like because the six years begins TODAY, when you found out about the concealment. This is the untested part; we're still waiting for the results of some actions going back further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it to be six years 'from the date of knowledge' in other words the six years starts from the date we became aware that the charges were unlawful.

Lloyds TSB - £972

S.A.R, prelim and LBA sent

Claim acknowledged

Defence received

AQ 20/06/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 20/07/06***

 

Woolwich - £2288

S.A.R, prelim and LBA sent.

Offered half

Moneyclaim filed online 02/08/06

Judgement filed online 23/08/06

WARRANT FILED ONLINE 30/08/06

MONEY RECEIVED BY BALIFF 04/10/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 09/10/06***

 

Smile - £175

Pelim 23/06/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 07/07/06***

 

My Ex vs Woolwich - £715

S.A.R sent 30/08/06

Pelim 06/10/06

LBA 20/10/06

 

Advice & opinions provided are personal, and not endorsed by CAG or BAG, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it to be six years 'from the date of knowledge' in other words the six years starts from the date we became aware that the charges were unlawful.

 

That's what I said; but it's untested and we're waiting for Seminole to use this argument in court. Thing is, you will have to convince a court that the Defendant knew about the unlawfullness of the charges and actively concealed it - as opposed to some other thing getting in the way of it. In order to prove this, the banks would have to show the court their costs (which we're certain are tiny) and they would have to be far outstripped by the charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why the advice is 6 years as it is tried and tested.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked on this thread hoping to see another Labour government white elephant and find a serious debate instead....

 

The Statue of Limitation would look good by the side of the Thames!

Just the FAQ’s ma'am. Please read 'em thoroughly before jumping in. Cheers :)

 

Find all the letters under the rainbow here

 

Being a man, I am always right (however I will make no admission of liability if you have misinterpreted my instructions!! :) ) If you are in any doubt, then consult a professional. All opinions offered on this site are just that, and should not be taken as legal advice.

 

Halifax - £1400 reclaimed. Now on a crusade to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I clicked on this thread hoping to see another Labour government white elephant and find a serious debate instead....

 

The Statue of Limitation would look good by the side of the Thames!

I thought you had lost the plot at first but I see what you mean now!:D

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a dunderhead!

Lloyds TSB - £972

S.A.R, prelim and LBA sent

Claim acknowledged

Defence received

AQ 20/06/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 20/07/06***

 

Woolwich - £2288

S.A.R, prelim and LBA sent.

Offered half

Moneyclaim filed online 02/08/06

Judgement filed online 23/08/06

WARRANT FILED ONLINE 30/08/06

MONEY RECEIVED BY BALIFF 04/10/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 09/10/06***

 

Smile - £175

Pelim 23/06/06

***FULL SETTLEMENT RECEIVED 07/07/06***

 

My Ex vs Woolwich - £715

S.A.R sent 30/08/06

Pelim 06/10/06

LBA 20/10/06

 

Advice & opinions provided are personal, and not endorsed by CAG or BAG, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

plot and lost are two words that are often associated with me :)

Just the FAQ’s ma'am. Please read 'em thoroughly before jumping in. Cheers :)

 

Find all the letters under the rainbow here

 

Being a man, I am always right (however I will make no admission of liability if you have misinterpreted my instructions!! :) ) If you are in any doubt, then consult a professional. All opinions offered on this site are just that, and should not be taken as legal advice.

 

Halifax - £1400 reclaimed. Now on a crusade to help others!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...