Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

Hearing to remove stay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4294 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

Hi prabs, nice to hear from you again........:)

 

They really are the limit aren't they? but I think you're right to be cautious - they're just as likely to tell the court you refused to co-operate in setting up a telephone hearing ( albeit for a non-existent hearing!). :eek:

 

As to the Test Case , the judgement is due to be handed down tomorrow (Thursday), but I wouldn't hold your breath, as either side is likely to take it to appeal..........:(

btw -thanks for tipping my scales........sorry I couldn't get back to you....

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi prabs

Depends whether the judge makes a ruling to that effect - or if OFT ask for a direction to that effect........

 

It would make sense that, if they have been allowed to carry on charging during this case, this should change whilst an appeal is in progress. But then when did sense ever come into it......:rolleyes:

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! looks as if you're right prabs - The 24 hour News channel is predicting that the banks are 'bracing themselves for defeat' ........

 

I suppose the miserable bankers will drag this out by appealing.... but at the moment it looks like :

 

We’ve won ! We’ve won! Yippee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

bump!

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking News On SKY NEWS;

 

Court Decides Bank Charges Unfair

 

Updated:10:14, Thursday April 24, 2008

The Office of Fair Trading has won its High Court claim that charges levied by banks for unauthorised overdrafts are unfair.

 

1499135.jpg Some customers reclaimed charges

 

The test case follows attempts by customers to reclaim millions of pounds of charges through the courts.

It was brought jointly by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), seven high street banks and a building society.

But the judgement will not open the floodgates for more consumers to reclaim money.

A second hearing will be needed to decide whether the charges are excessive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect neither side will want the costs of appeals/further court action and wonder if some kind of "backroom" deal is being thrashed out now. Perhaps setting a charge level acceptable to both and a limit on backdating? With a side order of "only pay out if people write and apply for the charges back".

Seen on other threads and forums that the banks suddenly seem more ameanable to refuding current charges over the phone? Interesting.

ali x

Btw I am no expert just give notes based on what I have read on here and other forums/sites, plus my own experiences and investigations.

 

All ccj's now dropped off file, 2 yrs to go to clear file.

All old debts either settled or made unenforcable.

 

RBS MPP-Full offer at 8 wks from first complaint

RBS Overdraft loanguard-full offer at 8 wks from complaint

Citicard ppi-with FOS finally paid 8 months after offer through FOS!

Capital one x2- with FOS

Monument ppi-with FOS

aqua x2 ppi-partialled settled still pushing for the rest

Black horse ppi-offers made and accepted except for one early loan they say no info held-still pushing for payment

Link to post
Share on other sites

When the OFT set the lmit for Credit Card charges to a MAX(and that is the important word)of £12.50,these were still being claimed back via the Courts as the Banks would not provide costing info for charges.Should an agreement be reached on the Current account charges ,then IMO it would have to be in the £2-£5 range to prevent the same thing happening as with Credit Cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That has always been my contention - I don't mind them charging - as long as it's fair and £2-£5 seems OK to me.

 

As for how the courts will clear this backlog and banks eventually settle up - we'll have to wait and see again ,for the moment - but the main thing is - the ruling - OFT can decide on what's fair and what's not...........

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as soon as the decision regarding the Stays is announced we should simply write to the Court to request they automatically remove the stay and issue a hearing date? Taht sounds about right to me, can't see why I should wait until 9th June for my hearing to set aside do any of you?

 

Prabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if I am being thick here...which is probably the case!....but wondered why we are still referring so often to "charges" when our arguement was that they were in fact "penalties"! Certainly, with Yorkshire Bank (NAG) claims, the comments of their CEO can be cited to show this.

Also important as has been referred to, is the fact that credit card cases have still gone through the courts even with the £12.50 max charge being known. So, even with the verdict and the possibility of stays being lifted pending any possible appeal, I reckon we should all be able to go for the all amounts taken to be refunded.

Let's all keep our fingers crossed that teh county courts see sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume the reason why 'charges' are used,is that like lots of words and terms they become abbreviated very quickly,and 'Text Talk' perhaps demonstrates that.The full term is 'penalty charges',but on these sort of sites, then just charges or even just penalties are regularly used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

This is my first post so please bear with me and apologies if I make a mess of it! I also sent the relevant letter to First Direct ages ago (just after a hold was put on the reclaim of charges) and I have nt done anything since as I didnt know I could! Am I right in thinking that I can ask for the hold to be lifted? Is this the same as 'the stay'? sorry to be a bit thick ! I would be very nervous to have to go to court in case I said the wrong thing. Is there any feedback from people who have been and succeeded so that I could know how daunting it would be? thanks Sue

 

Great news! Like you, I sent in an order to have the stay removed and have just got back a hearing date set for 29th Nov. My case is against First Direct (HSBC).

 

Think it's a bit poor that I originally had a date set for 3rd Sept and then the stay was applied by the court. Paid £65 for an order to get it lifted and now have a date for a hearing re the stay 3 months away. If that is successful I will probably get a final hearing date xx months after that which may not be any earlier than if I'd just accepted the stay and waited for some decision on the test case.

 

Sorry for whining!!

 

I'll keep on eye yours now cos the advice and help is excellent and it will certainly help me along

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue,

After the High Court decision yesterday ,there is a Case Management meeting set up for the 22nd May,at which the Banks or the OFT can appeal the decision.So until then, at least.no action is likely to be taken in any Court .So until the outcome of that is known,I think its a matter of sit and wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

OK boys and girls, further to my post on Auds thread saying we have till the 22nd it seems things are starting to move...

 

Please see the letter DG sent the Court after the re arranged telephone hearing was moved to June as it was made a physical hearing (remember my attempts to get them in COurt since they did not organise the last telelphone hearing...): http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/DG1.gif

and then page 2:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/DG2.gif

 

Here is the Court's reply:

http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn275/pmflkapskycom/Court1.gif

 

Now unless I am reading too much into things DG are trying to say I should be liable for their costs because they organised a telelphone hearing that they should not have done, right? What about the 2nd telelphone hearing they did not orgainse and both myself and my wife had to take a day off work? Bless them...

 

Now to the Court's response....

 

What should I be reading into this? DG's letter was not recieved...probably never posted it...

OK I must admit that they did not say it was canx, but when DG called me for the hearing I told them that we had a new physical hearing date...I assumption, but the COurt appears to agree with me...

I do not understand the last paragraph? Are they saying DG should apply to put the stay back? If so what is the point of the hearing on the 9th?

 

Thanks,

 

Prabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this sort of thing as a repost back at the COurt to try our luck?

 

Dear Court Manager,

RE: Claim number 7LU0XXXX Issue Date: 11 July 2007

We would be grateful if you could put this before the District Judge at your earliest convenience. We thank the Court for informing us of the Defendant’s letter dated 29th April 2008 and the Courts response.

We would like to draw the Court to the fact that the Defendant did not organise the adjourned telephone hearing yet managed to send out its skeleton argument. Then this time they organised the hearing when a letter had been sent out stating it had been changed to a physical hearing. They then have the nerve to state they will bring costs to the attention of the Court at the hearing on the 9th June. What about the costs incurred by my wife and I taking a day off work for the hearing they conveniently failed to organise? Are they simply either taking advantage of litigants in person or even worse being vexatious defendants. After all they have not successfully defended any case in Court either prior or post the OFT Test Case.

We would like to bring to the Courts attention the skeleton arguments we filed for the original hearing to set aside the stay dated 17th October 2007. We humbly ask the Court who has really benefited from the catalogue of errors by the Defendants counsel? They have simply wasted both our and the Courts time with their knowledge of the legal system.

The Court will be aware of the Judgment made by Mr. Justice Andrew Smith and we draw the Courts attention back to our arguments and specifically pages 98-102. This was the case where his Honour Judge Behrens (in the High Court) specifically lifted a stay due to the continued processing of subject data where it is marked as in default and this disputed data is being passed onto third parties. The basis of this was that it included, in the alleged debt, charges that were in dispute. Please find enclosed a copy of our recent credit file showing the default recorded in 2005 when we closed this account. The Defendant have refused to remove or freeze said information under any circumstances.

Once again we do not understand why the Court is even entertaining the blatant abuse of process by the Defendant. After all, how is it the Defendant can file and serve the same skeleton argument for the Stay based on a telephone hearing yet fail to organise the telephone hearing, but instead instruct someone to attend Court? Then when the rearranged hearing comes round, several months later, fail to cancel it when they get the letter confirming a new hearing date? Surely they should have rung the Court at that point to clarify? Being Litigant in nature perhaps we do not understand the Court procedures, however, this is a clear case of wasting both the Courts and our time by trying to delay the hearing as much as possible. We feel this further provides evidence in favour of the Human Rights issue for “a fair trial within a reasonable timescale”. We should have had a decision on this matter back in October 2007 that is nearly 7 months ago. The amount being claimed is irrelevant to the Defendant yet a great deal of money to us.

As the Court states in its letter to the Defendant, on the 14th May 2008, that the original stay has expired now, we humbly request that the hearing set for the 9th June simply be vacated and the Court issue Orders for a full hearing and a new hearing date on the basis of this information. This is in the interest of costs to ourselves and saves on wasted Court time.

Yours faithfully

Penfold

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Penfold , hope you don't mind me proof-reading (again! ) :)

 

How about this for a (slightly ) amended submission:

 

Dear Court Manager,*RE: Claim number 7LU0XXXX Issue Date: **11 July 2007*

We would be grateful if you could put this before the District Judge at your earliest convenience. We thank the Court for informing us of the Defendant’s letter dated 29th April 2008 and the Courts response.

 

We would like to draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Defendant failed to organise the adjourned telephone hearing yet managed to send out its skeleton argument. Then, this time, they organised the hearing when a letter had been sent out stating it had been changed to a physical hearing.

They then have the audacity to state that they will bring costs to the attention of the Court at the hearing on the 9th June.

What about the costs incurred by my wife and me taking a day off work for the hearing they conveniently failed to organise? Are they simply taking advantage of Litigants in Person or even worse being vexatious defendants. After all they have not successfully defended any case in Court either prior to, or post, the OFT Test Case.

 

We would also like to bring to the Courts attention the skeleton arguments we filed for the original hearing to set aside the stay dated 17th October 2007. We humbly ask the Court, “Who has really benefited from the catalogue of errors by the Defendants counsel?” They have simply wasted both the Courts time and ours with their knowledge of the legal system.

 

The Court will be aware of the Judgment made by Mr. Justice Andrew Smith and we draw the Courts attention back to our arguments, specifically pages 98-102. This was the case where his Honour Judge Behrens (in the High Court) specifically lifted a stay due to the continued processing of subject data where it is marked as in default and this disputed data is being passed onto third parties. The basis of this was that it included, in the alleged debt, charges that were in dispute. Please find enclosed a copy of our recent credit file showing the default recorded in 2005 when we closed this account. The Defendant has refused to remove or freeze said information under any circumstances.

 

Once again we are at a loss to understand why the Court is even entertaining the blatant abuse of process by the Defendant. After all, how is it the Defendant can file and serve the same skeleton argument for the Stay based on a telephone hearing, then fail to organise the telephone hearing, but instead instruct someone to attend Court? Then, when the rearranged hearing comes round, several months later, they fail to cancel it when they get the letter confirming a new hearing date?

Surely they should have rung the Court at that point to clarify? Being Litigants in Person perhaps we do not understand the Court procedures, however, this is a clear case of wasting both the Courts and our time by trying to delay the hearing as much as possible. We feel this further provides evidence in favour of the Human Rights issue for “a fair trial within a reasonable timescale”. We should have had a decision on this matter back in October 2007 and that is nearly 7 months ago. The amount being claimed is irrelevant to the Defendant yet a great deal of money to us.

 

As the Court states in its letter to the Defendant, on the 14th May 2008, the original stay has now expired , we humbly request that the hearing set for the 9th June simply be vacated and the Court issue Orders for a full hearing and a new hearing date on the basis of this information. This is in the interest of costs to ourselves and saves on wasted Court time.

Yours faithfully

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good point prabs, - I'd think the court would appreciate you saving their time - you've also stated your case clearly - and it would save a pointless attendance on 9 June ...........

 

However , pete, freaky, jo (et al) may have a different viewpoint - so may be prudent to wait for further feedback before committing yourself......:)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...