Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
need a better scan of 10+11 dx -
By theorionsound · Posted
Appreciate your swift input and amendments! I've reworded some of it (and will likely reformat the page a bit before printing to make it neater) but I've included the majority of your suggestions. Let me know what you think. Would you recommend I email this to the individual who declined the compensation as well as sending it by post? Cheers Switch2 - Letter of Claim v3.pdf -
I suggest (change in red) - The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [car reg no]. 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. The Claimant is claiming an unlawful amount of interest. The dispute between the parties concerns a disputed, unpaid invoice, issued on 6 January 2025, on which it is written "Payment to be made by 06-Feb-2025". Yet the Claimant is claiming interest from 4 January 2025. 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. -
By BankFodder · Posted
Okay. That sounds a lot better. Hopefully you now realise that the third party rights act only applies if you have used a parcel broker but you are trying to sue the courier company directly. So because you contracted directly with the courier, you are going to sue them directly. By using insurance or prohibited items or non-compensation lists, they are seeking to exclude or limit liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care – and of course this is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and in fact the insurance that they pressurise you to purchase amounts to a secondary contract under section 72 of the Act because it is a prohibited secondary contract which is attempting also to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care. The prohibited items list is an unfair term as you have already pointed out. Even more significantly here not only are they saying that it is prohibited – but they are saying this despite the fact that they were very happy to take your money in respect of insurance. These people are stupid and dishonest. But also now they will abuse the County Court system by making you jump through the hoops because it costs them scarcely anything at all to use up the County Court system because it is a publicly funded taxpayer resourced system of justice. They don't use this to obtain justice. They use this simply as a means of debt avoidance to try and frustrate their customers legitimate claims. Okay I've made a few amendments – and also I've added a further head of damage for unfair trading which could give you a next your little bit of money and also an extra little bit of leverage. Please have a look. See if you are happy with it. If you want to take anything away. If you want to add anything. If there is anything which is incorrect – and post up the final draft here please for a last look. -
Nope, not yet filed, have it in draft but was going to leave it a little while until nearer the deadline 🙂
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Big Motoring World,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 162 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
We are now - The National Consumer Service
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.