Their error. depending on their T’s & C’s, there were a few points at which the contract became ‘crystallised”. The default (offer, acceptance, presence of consideration, with legal ability and intent to create a contract) is when there is acceptance by payment, BUT their T’s and C’s might make it e.g. on despatch of the goods. Reply, saying your understanding is that a contract was formed, and was completed (potentially prior to the goods being delivered) but certainly at/by the goods being both delivered and paid for, and they can’t retrospectively impose a new contract, let alone try to do so unilaterally. Else, any supplier could decide after the event to ask for extra money!

“Getting *on in* other sites” not *in on*, that should read, of course.

There are 2 possible scenarios here: 1) OP didn’t read the T’s and C’s they were signing, agreed the usual credit hire terms, and is now caught by buyers’ remorse, things not having worked out how they wanted. They then abreact when it is suggested to them this is the scenario, as it isn’t the “magic wand to wave” to fix their woes that they were looking for. 2) OP, using the powers instilled in them as a former CAB volunteer*, and with their profound confidence of not being open to be questioned : read the T’s and C’s, and there weren’t the usual credit hire terms, and as a result: they aren’t on the hook for a large fee. I’ll guess we’ll never know for sure, but given if it were scenario 2 the OP would be loudly protesting dx and I were wrong, and providing the T’s and C’s (CAB trained expert, they’ll have kept all the paperwork, of course), and given their “flounce off”, my money is still on scenario 1. Don’t let the door hit you on the behind as you flounce off. I can see a few of the ‘motoring’ regulars / experts (who have previously replied to threads where the OPs of those thread’s have also posted about them elsewhere) have looked in. It’ll be interesting to hear how the OP is getting in on other sites if they’ve not got the validation they wanted here. *(since we all know that whilst CAB share the good intent of CAG volunteers, not all CAB volunteer advice is scrutinised in the same way advice posted on CAG is open to scrutiny by others, allowing wrong advice to be corrected on CAG : we’ve seen poor CAB advice …….)

If it were a different OP, I might start asking them if they had been in a position to hire a car themselves, or if they had no alternative but to use credit hire*, and also if they have a copy of the terms they agreed. UB suggests there are likely standard terms in the T’s & C’s that create liability to the credit hire firm. The OP states: “I signed for the usual Ts&Cs”, and “normal” terms, so it seems likely sight of those T’s and C’s would be useful. * (nb, before anyone jumps down my throat, not to chide them, for using credit hire - but for if the situation of being persued for costs arises, that the need [or not] for credit hire, at the time of the incident, then becomes a significant factor). (Easi-drive’s website also seems to be undergoing an upgrade and not showing their default Terms at present).

Someone could help you, no doubt. Would dx, now? Would I?. What about the next person? Might they not think “Orley just seems like too much hard work”……… Way to go to narrow down the pool of people both able AND willing to give up their time to help you. CAG is a self-help site. I’m not sure you are helping yourself here, so far …….

Other argument? Yes : Your argument with the insurers….Just because you haven’t started that conversation with them yet doesn’t mean it isn’t clear it is going to happen. I stress again : do you think you are doing yourself any favours here if you really want advice (and not just either argument OR blind agreement with you).

dx has helped many people. I didn't read their tone as offensive. No doubt you'll consider my reply offensive too (and any reply that doesn't agree with you 100% and tell you only what you want to hear). So, did you come here for help or wanting another argument (as well as the one with your insurers)? I'm just a.n.other user (not 'site team'), but my goodwill to help you evaporated when you groundlessly accused dx of being offensive. So, my reply isn't for your benefit, more for others who might be considering "how can I maximise my chances of getting help / support" and who then might decide not to go down the route you have!. Good luck!

Not conflicting : 2 different issues. 1) Don’t go down the £300/letter and/or Illford vs Ilford route on their claim against you : don’t risk irritating the judge 2) Ways you can seek redress against them : DPA / SAR non-compliance. Potentially you claiming against them.

De minimis. Why risk obscuring your (good / viable) points with dross (£300/letter, Ilford vs. Illford) that might serve to irritate a judge?

Who do you believe is the third party colluding? Have you looked at CPR27.14 and PD27A?

Collusion between whom?

Small claims track of county court. costs limited (including reclaimable solicitors’ fee, if a party chooses to use a solicitor). So, yes you can charge but it’ll be capped at £100. If you are asking for £200 per letter in, £300 out, the judge might ask were you planning to stop at 1/3 of your letter (while chortling to themselves….)

Unrealistic. You can’t impose charges on them, claiming that if they reply they accept those charges: a) since you are engaged in conversation with them, and parties to litigation are expected to engage with each other to avoid matters proceeding to a hearing, as far as is reasonably possible, b) Some of their responses will be mandated by the process, such as DQ and WS’s. Unreasonable threats won’t impress a judge, will be unenforceable and give the impression “I don’t know what I’m doing, and my case is so weak I have to resort to empty threats”.

Don’t mention the date. if it gets to court you can draw the attention of the judge to the fact that you are suing them jointly, and one defendant admits there is liability (even if the are saying “but it was them, not me!”)

Great : because they are both liable if the property was jointly owned, and you are suing them both. So you get a win against them both, recover the judgment from either (as able), and they can sort out between them who they feel is liable (that isn’t your concern!).

£200k? That’d be in the multi-track track of the County Court, and might even get transferred to the High Court. I’d STRONGLY advise using a solicitor. Could a no-win, no-fee arrangement be on option for your friend?. I’m suggesting this as although they may have a strong case, it’d be a shame to loose on some administrative point, and the defendant could then ask for significant costs!

I doubt the mediator would say that : that isn’t their call to make. Additionally, isn’t the DQ where you state if you are willing to go to mediation? So, I don’t know why the court service mediator would be involved at the DQ stage?

Don’t like it? Just ask them to remove them. That way you won’t have to pay a standing charge. Sorted. Then you can get on to your mobile phone provider and charge them for having their Sim in your phone. Do let us know how you get on, (even if it means going to the library to access the internet because you have no electricity at home, and no mobile service ………)

You do over think it. That would be multiple bridges that’d need to be crossed 1) They get a CCJ 2) they get an order for questioning in court (which would be difficult if he’s already applied for service out of jurisdiction: and do they have an address for service?) 3) Contempt of court would be for “deliberately not turning up”, not “out of the country and didn’t know was expected to turn up”. In terms of your initial query : have you had a final response to your complaint? I suspect so if the solicitor is talking about issuing a claim. Does it mention your right to go to the Legal Ombudsman (LO) ? I’d complain to the LO. Let the solicitor know you are escalating this to the LO and suggest they await the outcome of that before issuing their claim against you. (Then if they do issue before the LO has reached their decision you ask the court to stay the case pending the LO’s decision which is binding on the solicitor).

matters not in law. Why? It was never your shed. That is the chance you took / the choice you made, given it was never yours.

Needs to be 12 years to gain “adverse possession”, not 6.

That’s a “PR stunt” response alluding to American Independence, but why would they feel the need to mention that if it weren’t for: ”Hey, his mum died in a car crash precipitated by a paparazzi chase - how do you think he was feeling / what do you think he was thinking”? (And they wanted to divert attention from that)

I’m surprised they said anything : usually if there is any concern / it has tripped an “anti-money laundering” (AML) alert, they can’t tell you (there is a criminal offence of “tipping off”) So, this may not be AML, and might be concern of scam / fraud.

Better to complain to the legal ombudsman (their remit is wider than the SRA and they can refer to the SRA), BUT a) you need to exhaust the solicitor’s complaint procedure first, and b) with the issues raised in MitM’s post at #13 about if the advice was before or after the FPN, so if you have a complaint or not!

Point this out asking for sentencing to be at the fixed penalty level, as advised by MitM. your aim is to minimise your fine, you can still expect 6 points.