Jump to content

2ltr16valve

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 2ltr16valve

  1. Thanks Dx, so that’s what I state on the strike out request - they Fail to establish keeper liability under POFA 2012 as they are claiming extra charges in breach of that section ?
  2. I am reading the POFA 2012 but cant get my head around how they fail on this ? Dont really understand it tbf The only bit I can see of POFA 2012 is - Section 4 (5) (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). The NTK states £75, then the letters from Zenith state £160 but will take £136, then letters from gladstones state £160. Then court claim states - £169.62 (£160 charge + £9.62 interest) + 25 + 50 = £244.62 Is this in breach of POFA ?
  3. Does the strike out request go direct to the NCCBC ? Will try get my defence up tonight, been a bad day today
  4. Screen duly saved and printed, I really need help with how to format this defence brain is not working.... taken me an hour to get cca request for other claim done.
  5. Many appologies DX, been a very long night both babies have Silent Reflux and doctors can not medicate them for another two weeks until their a month old CCA sent off, with PO - sent signed for.
  6. Dx is this going to QQ, motormile finance or Moriarty law ? thanks Also, this under section 77 only ? Claimant is MMF, solicitors is Moriarty law
  7. I’ll get it sent in morning once me coffee kicks in is it okay to send a cheque with it ?
  8. Yeah I forgot the CCA request, sent cpr though. Defence not submitted yet
  9. Thank you. Just looking through what was sent i missed the cca but did the cpr 31.14.
  10. Thank you all they are certainly making their arrival known, both have reflux ! so sleep is in short supply, hospital cant help them as under 1 month old and nothing they can be given - and gp cant register them until 5/1/18
  11. Ah okay, The people issuing tickets are completely seperate from the on site security and are from what I can tell employees of Gemini ? The bays are large disabled bays, with the exception on the Pay and display bays the ticket was received in but they are fairly suitable the signage on the other hand, on entrance to the car park there is no visable signage - you have to park to then go and see any signs, by which time you have entered the contract by parking ?? the sign on entry actually is facing the other direction. The new signs that have been put up (around 10-12ft) on posts - replaced existing signs, same shape and colour, only wording changed - stating "Blue badge holders must pay and display if parked in non disabled bays". These are small unlit signs on the posts, above what you can see when in the vehicle. The thing that really annoys me, is 1) we were told by site security previously we can park anywhere outside with a badge. Then gemini take over and put these tiny signs up and dish tickets out like smarties ! 2) we could have parked on double yellows and made space tight, and not been ticketed! Also, this link states parking outside is free to disabled persons - https://www.nhs.uk/Services/hospitals/Facilities/DefaultView.aspx?id=627 Disabled blue badge holders may park for free on the surface level car park when displaying their permit, but must pay to park in the multi-storey car park. There are 74 free of charge disabled parking spaces (outside of the barrier control) and 12 chargeable disabled parking spaces (within the barrier control).
  12. Ah okay, I took some of it and edited it :/ Ill try again 1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted and accepted I have in the past had financial dealings with Casheuronet LLC T/A quick quid I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has to date failed to comply. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served last year from either the Claimant or Casheuronet LLC T/A quick quid 4.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14. therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 5. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date Moriarty Law have failed to comply in relation to my 31:14 request, with no reply. 6. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. 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 82 A of the consumer creditAct 1974.8. 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. Is that any better ? :s Also, how would I incorportate the IRL into the defense ? or should I leave it out ?
  13. Thank you DX. Does this look okay ? 1.The defendant owes the claimant £292.81 under a regulated loan agreement with Casheuronet LLC T/A quick quid dated 03/09/2013 and which was assigned to the claimant on 01/12/2016 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 01/12/2016 (Debt). 2. Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay and the claimant claims £292.81 and further claims interest thereon pursuant to the section 69 of the courty court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 2.45% per annum amounting to £7.18 Defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. 1) Paragraph 1 is noted and It is denied that the amount claimed is owed. It is denied that any Notice of Assignment has been sent or received. 2) Any alledged debt to the claimant is denied. 3) The claimant has failed to reply to the defendants CPR 31.14 request sent to them and duly signed for. 4)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 82 A of the consumer creditAct 1974.8. 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. hows that for a first attempt ? :/
  14. Thats how ive been looking through the threads Dx, but cant see any defenses within the threads ? Ive even tried adding "won" and "discontinued" to the search but drawn a blank : ( dont help both our twins have reflux so weve had next to no sleep the last 10 days
  15. I dont know if im just too sleep deprived/cranky but Ive looked through lots of mmf moriarty threads but can not find a example defence ?
  16. Hi all, Just thought Id post a pic of my identical twin boys who entered the world on 13/12/2017 at 0709 & 0720. Doc1.pdf I hope you can all give me a little leaway if I ask stupid questions or seem lazy this week, were (my partner and I) both burned out already an to top things off one of them have a cold so even less sleep.
  17. Hi all, The more I read the thread and associated cases to do with gemini, I am more and more confused ! I think they are trying to imply that the RK is responsible for whatever anyone does driving their vehicle .... which is an old assumption ? which is not the case here as I am not emplyeed as my partners butler or anything in fact. The contactal side of things ? Its not possible to read the contact without parking first, by which time the contact is accepted ?? as the sign on entry to the car park is facing the other way so you can not see it. Any and all help would be very much appreciated, Ive been snowed under and sleep deprived - my twin boys were born on 13/12 so things have been hectic .
  18. I am looking at getting my defence written up tonight for this, is there anything specific to include ? Been a bit delayed, my identical twin boys were born on 13/12 Thank you
×
×
  • Create New...