Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • 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

HAK V Sainsburys Bank*Court claim issued**WON**BALANCE WRITTEN OFF


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5065 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok well i would say that, taking the two days for postage off it would have been posted on the 27th i guess

 

so it doesnt give you 14 days to remedy the default from the date deemed served IMHO

 

so fundamentally flawed IMHO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Paul i will have a good read and get a letter together.

 

There are loads of Illegal bank charges etc in this default amount so i will also be telling them this.

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty then

 

well firstly,

 

the default fails ot give you the prescribed period of time to remedy the default

 

secondly any charges which are penalty charges in nature are unlawful and would render the default invalid and considered to have not been served in law per woodchester and swain

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul have you got the woodchester and swain details so i can blind them with info

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice One.

 

Off out shortly so have a good new year and i will speak to you Next Year!!!

 

Cheers

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty then

 

well firstly,

 

the default fails ot give you the prescribed period of time to remedy the default

 

secondly any charges which are penalty charges in nature are unlawful and would render the default invalid and considered to have not been served in law per woodchester and swain

 

 

Hi HAK,

 

Just subbing in on your thread with interest.

 

Paul (pt2537), I noticed in your above post that penalty charges would render a Default invalid.

 

Is this true?

 

The reason I ask is because Argos have Defaulted me, and there were charges applied to the Account before they did so. Also, they have failed to show up with an Application Form or CCA, and I have been chased from Moorcrap and now Fredrickson who have now put the Account on hold as they are unable to provide a CCA, so far.

 

I look forward to hearing from you on this.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi HAK,

 

Just subbing in on your thread with interest.

 

Paul (pt2537), I noticed in your above post that penalty charges would render a Default invalid.

 

Is this true?

 

The reason I ask is because Argos have Defaulted me, and there were charges applied to the Account before they did so. Also, they have failed to show up with an Application Form or CCA, and I have been chased from Moorcrap and now Fredrickson who have now put the Account on hold as they are unable to provide a CCA, so far.

 

I look forward to hearing from you on this.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

 

 

indirectly it is my opinion that it would based upon the ruling of Kennedy LJ,

 

The statute required a lender to set out precisely what needed to be done to put right an alleged breach, since the wording of s

88(1) required the lender to specify not only the nature of the breach but also what action was necessary to remedy the

breach. It followed that, if the figure given in the default notice was more than the sum which the giver of the notice was

entitled to demand, the notice had to be invalid. It was important to bear in mind that the statute was plainly enacted to

protect consumers. Most of those consumers were likely to be individuals, who would be at a disadvantage when contracting

with a financial organisation, especially as the contract was likely to be in standard form and relatively complex. If an

individual were said to have broken its terms they needed to know precisely what they were said to have done wrong and

what they needed to do to put matters right. The lender had the ability and the resources to give that information, and if there

was a failure to do so accurately then he could not take the next step. Moreover, a lender should be able to calculate quite

easily what sum was due, whereas an ordinary hirer might not know, although the court might overlook an error which could

be described as de minimis. In the instant case, the breach was adequately described as 'failure to pay the rentals specified on

their due dates', but it did not specify accurately what sum of money had to be paid. Accordingly, the assistant recorder had

been incorrect to hold that the default notice was not rendered defective by alleging an amount which was in excess of the

sum necessary to remedy the breach.

 

if the sum stated in the default notice includes unlawful charges, it stands to reason that the figure is incorrect and does not disclose the sum required to be paid to remedy the default

 

therefor it would render the default invalid

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

 

Just one last thing.

 

If they issue the default regardless of what I say what legal action can I take if any,

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

indirectly it is my opinion that it would based upon the ruling of Kennedy LJ,

 

 

 

if the sum stated in the default notice includes unlawful charges, it stands to reason that the figure is incorrect and does not disclose the sum required to be paid to remedy the default

 

therefor it would render the default invalid

 

 

 

Mmmm, interesting, what would you recommend to have the Default removed then? I haven`t a clue about that.

 

I`m also expecting a Default from Lloyds TSB some time in the future too, they have completely blanked my CCA request, but being morons will no doubt Default. There are also unlawfull charges applied to my Credit Card and Current Account with Lloyds.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

 

 

P.S. Sorry to muscle in on this thread, it`s just I noticed your comments on here.

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm, interesting, what would you recommend to have the Default removed then? I haven`t a clue about that.

 

I`m also expecting a Default from Lloyds TSB some time in the future too, they have completely blanked my CCA request, but being morons will no doubt Default. There are also unlawfull charges applied to my Credit Card and Current Account with Lloyds.

 

Regards

 

 

N.P

 

 

P.S. Sorry to muscle in on this thread, it`s just I noticed your comments on here.

 

 

Ah now then thats an entirely different question

 

Default removal is different to an invalid default notice being rendered invalid and not allowing the claimant to demand repayments of monies

 

there seems to be some confusion as to this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...