Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • while politicians trough at subsidised bars and canteens, claim thousaands in expenses while letting out their properties and tories vote to leave UK children hungry That ALL needs to stop
    • J&P Credit Solutions are specialists on debt recovery. Either way they seem to be swapping between the JandP and IDR whatever their exact definitions are.
    • Primary and secondary teachers are supporting pupils with their own money, buying food and warm clothing. Eight in 10 primary teachers in England spending own money to help pupils | Education | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Increasing numbers of children hungry and lack adequate clothing, with two-thirds of secondary teachers also supporting pupils  
    • 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.   
  • 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

Penfold V Barclays (Woolwich) No agreement and taken to Court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6012 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 Bank will be faced with repaying money you contend you should never have been paid in the first place. The passage of time has led the Bank to get rid of the paperwork and they cannot now substantiate the debt.

 

You have reasonable grounds for making them produce some paperwork but it appears they have none. They will write this one off and pay up. There is no overiding principle they have to defend as there aren't that many cases where they have nothing at all.

 

The procedure is simply so that they have their chance to have their say - even if they make a choice not to do so.

 

Don't forget the LIP costs when calculating your total. Best to give it to the Judge immediately he has made his decision in your favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Tell you what P92, I wish I couldve got an order like that

 

On one of my CCA cases they managed to get leave to enter a Defence some 4 months after my Claim issue under the "overriding objective"

  • Haha 1

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ncf,

 

I tell you if you have read the whole thread ,I have been on their case and made the mistake of telling them my actions only once, the next time I jumped in before them and made sure I made the COurt see what stalling they were doing. The irony is their actions worked in my favour...

 

Edz, Can I really charge that and over 8 months how many hours do you recon I have done and speand, not mentioning the sleepless nights etc (sob sob)...

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the cases I have running, I am VERY intrigued to see how your claim for all payments goes and the judges thoughts on it

 

Its Wednesday for the hearing, right?

 

I wish you the very best

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thursday 20th Dec 10am...

 

I am also intrigued. Many on here thought I would not get anywhere at the beginning, but I blieved that as long as they had no info on the account (which I knew they wouldn't after this length of time and their attitude to paperwork maintainance) that I would stand a chance and they would mess it up somewhere along the line. I believe that if they had submitted on time and we were both in court together it would have been hard, but I still think I would have got something based on their non compliance of several laws and Act already mentioned in this thread.

 

But the beuauty was them missing the first deadline then asking for more time after another month and then missing that too...Killer mistake IMHO of course. Hence the reason I belive the Judge could see they were either not serious or knew they had no evidence to provide.

 

Hope this will help you or at least give you some confidence to go after these assuming banks! I tell you without the guys on my thread I would have given up LONG ago...

 

Edz, what is reasonable for the hours speand researching etc? I recon 12-15 hours over the 9 months? I believe that to be fair...

 

Penfold

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robinson Way have issued a claim against me (rather foolish since they were in breach of a CCA request at the time). I am applying for a strike out on the basis of the CCA, along with no pre-action protocols, no documents, no proper POC's, grossly inflated claim etc etc.

 

I am claiming for 20 hours for research, preparation, compiling documents etc, under the courts powers to award costs in SMT when the other party has breached rules and acted unreasonably.

 

I may get it, I may not - but I work on the basis that if I don't ask I won't get!

 

If a judge feels inclined to grant costs, he will probably have a figure in his mind anyway - and if he thinks your estimate is over the top he will usually just reduce it to what he thinks is reasonable.

 

The issue is only raised after judgement, so you can't lose anything by asking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LIP costs are a lot less than a Solicitor would charge but the courts have said that while a solicitor might take two hours there is no reason why a LIP can't claim for six. (They are on a learning curve). This any help?;

Litigants in Person

 

38 Where the receiving party is a litigant in person rule 48.6 (Appendix 1) governs the way in which the question of costs should be dealt with. A litigant in person may be allowed a sum in respect of costs at the rate of £9.25 for each hour reasonably spent in preparation and attendance. He may be allowed a reasonable sum in excess of that amount if he can show that his work on the case has caused him financial loss justifying a higher award.

39 In all cases there is an absolute cap on the amount recoverable by a litigant in person, namely the reasonable costs of disbursements plus two thirds of the amount which would have been allowed if the litigant in person had been legally represented. (rule 48.6(2)). The litigant in person is entitled to recover in addition: payments reasonably made for legal services relating to the conduct of the proceedings; and the costs of obtaining expert assistance in connection with assessing the claim for costs. This does mean that a litigant in person may be able to claim both the cost of obtaining legal advice and services as well as the cost of undertaking the litigation in person. Those qualified to give expert assistance in connection with assessing the claim for costs are: a barrister, a solicitor, Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives, Fellow of the Association of Law Costs Draftsmen, a law costs draftsman who is a member of the Academy of Experts and a law costs draftsman who is a member of the Expert Witness Institute.

40 Although the definition of litigant in person includes a solicitor, a solicitor who instead of acting for himself is represented in the proceedings by his firm, or by himself in his firm name, is not, for the purpose of the Civil Procedure Rules, a litigant in person (see Section 52 of the Costs Practice Directionpdp-43).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alan,

 

I think the following is fair and Barclays if you are reading this just send the payment today and save time!

 

Total Claim now at Hearing based on Thursday 20th December 2007

Payments Made under the Unenforceable Debt Collection Agency - £1038.00

Court Fees - £260.00

Interest under section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8% a year from the 28/05/1998 to the hearing date of 20/12/2007 giving a figure of - £516.43

Costs incurred (£19.80 photocopying, £16.60 postage and £5.30 travel and parking costs).

£41.70

I would also request the Your Honor grant me time spent researching and preparing my claim over the last nine months. I estimate this to be a total of around 25 hours in total and I believe the hourly rate of a Litigant in person is £9.25.

This would give a total of £231.25

This gives a total judgment requested of £2087.38

 

 

Have I missed anything? I do not feel due to the fact I entered an IVA that I can go for damages on this one, but I am happy with the above if I get it.

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just realised that it is the 17th today so as they have not filed an application they cannot do so now under the Order of the 4th December. So they cannot defend...That just sounds funny to me...

 

Oh well see what happens now...

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Got this email today after my letter and email yesterday morning:

 

Without prejudice

Dear Mr Penfold

Thank you for your email.

To save the time and expense of an attendance at court on Thursday 20 December, I would be willing to negotiate settlement terms with you.

You had previously intimated that you were prepared to accept £1,736 (email 04.09.07) in full and final settlement. You are now seeking £2,087 to include costs.

Whilst I would agree to start at £1,736 as the basis of settlement, I would direct you to the Civil Precedure Rules governing costs in relation to small claims cases. These are strictly limited. Over and above your court issue fees, if your claim was successful you would be entitled to £80. Please see Part 45.2 of the CPR.

I would be willing to refund you all you court fees incurred, plus the £80, but not the hourly charges.

As regards the practicalities of settlement, once we have an agreement in principle we would need to have that confirmed on a formal basis in writing. I can provide a formal letter of settlement for you to sign and return as an email attachment or by fax. It may not be practical to have the funds in your account by Thursday. As a lawyer I do not have access to funds, so I need to arrange for our Accounts dept to implement the payment for me. Once we have a firm settlement agreement it will then be in open correspondence for the court to see. We are absolutely bound to pay you, so you can be rest assured that you would be paid. I would be obliged if, once we agree on the sum to be paid, we both write to the court indicating that the parties have agreed settlement terms and payment is still to be made. The hearing can then be adjourned to save either party having to attend.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

I have emailed back to say CHAPS payment today for £2050 and that is it and no confidentiality clause...

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Edz,

 

He has emailed back to say he accepts the £2050 settlement. I am now waiting for an attatchment to sign to agree it in writting then I will call the court to adjourn the hearing until payment has cleared.

 

Penfold

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ermm, is this going to be incorporated into an order or are they going to pay up and you withdraw. I'd favour an order. These informal arrangements have a habit of fouling up afterwards. Get the terms agreed and get an order that incorporates them. They don't have to turn up on 20th but you should and show the Judge the agreed terms so they can be included.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As he is probably reading this anyway...

 

It makes sense to get the terms incorporated into an order. Just get them agreed before and then everyone is happy.

 

If you go along to the Court and say that "the defendant is not going to show up as we have agreed settlement terms" "could the terms be incorporated ito an order please" you'll get one. It deals with the case permanently.

 

So tell him who is reading this that you'll be applying for an order that includes the settlement terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The order should include the terms that you have agreed.

 

Congratulations BTW!!!

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...