This appears to be a case of inaccurate data processing. The fact the return was accepted and the contract nullified indicates the entries made on your credit file are inaccurate. I find the world of credit reporting to be fairly murky and @dx100uk is the resident expert. My understanding is that you are required to receive a properly constituted Default Notice prior to a default being entered on your credit file. I understand you have a mortgage and therefore your place of residency is likely permanent, but perhaps you could clarify if you have moved in the last year or if there is any reason that their correspondence would not have reached you since you ended the contract. If you do not receive the response you want I think you should start detailing how this issue has affected you since you became aware of it and in particular whether it has caused you any distress. In reference to compensation I would also be keeping a record of the financing you would have expected to receive had your credit score remained as it was. Be mindful that technically creditors claim not to use a score to make decisions regarding lending but we all know this is just semantics and that regardless the entries will be what may have affected any lending decisions. Have you kept a record of what you think you would be paying/offered if the entries were not made, on what basis you have calculated this amount and importantly is there any evidence that the credit entries have resulted in you being offered more costly lending.

It might be a sticky wicket to argue that windshear procedures form part of the normal exercise of an airline. The number of windshear go-arounds compared to the number of uneventful approaches to land will be miniscule and therefore arguably not part of the normal exercise of the airline. The fact Dublin Airport remained open has no bearing on whether all reasonable measures were taken. If there was not sufficient fuel onboard to make a second approach and divert safely then to divert is the only real safe decision following a windshear go-around and even if there was sufficient fuel onboard the Commander can take any action they deem necessary to ensure the safe outcome of the flight. To clarify airlines cannot dictate with totality the fuel and operational decisions of the Commander, their autonomy is protected by the Air Navigation Order. That is at least how I would argue against some of your points if I was representing the airline.

Thank you for your coming back to report the outcome, I'm sorry to hear it wasn't what you wanted. I understand it may be difficult to read after the fact but I think the real issue was the diagnosis report. I recall when I first read it thinking that it reads as a stitch up of the owner and made very little of the fact that if coolant did leak it must have done so due to a problem inherent with the engine, particularly as the coolant system was assessed as intact. I recall you saying the judge suggested that the independent report should be carried out by the AA or the RAC. It later turns out the report was carried out by a company called Automotive Consulting Engineers Ltd which, unless I have misunderstood, are not associated with either the AA or the RAC and may have been appointed by the Defendant. A check of their reviews on trust pilot shows a string of negative experiences all of which have been made by car owners and not by garages. If they were appointed by the Defendant then regrettably I think this was an error and for anyone reading in the future it is important that an expert witness is not left to the other side to organise. I'm not suggesting this is what happened, but it is easy to imagine that a garage has lots of useful contacts they can call upon when they require a diagnosis report and who it might favour as a result.

I think it is unlikely that a claim will be stuck out immediately if a DQ is not filed on time. If you read the wording on the court directions issued by the CCBC it usually says "may be struck out". I think it is probably standard practice that the court will issue an "unless order" giving the party in default of the directions one last chance to comply. MCOL records are not gospel. The processing time of the court means that documents received, perhaps on time, may not be recorded as filed until a later date. While this may appear confusing I suppose in a way it is technically correct, a document may have been received on time and probably marked in some way to show when it was received, but is actually filed on a different date commensurate to the workload of the court.

Hmm, I think it is very troubling there are no transcripts and while it may be acceptable to presume a legal officer does not intend to mislead the court at the very least they should provide the source of their arguments. Your reference to "saying if there was no contract then the landowner would take action against any parking company" is troubling. I don't think one should be making presumptions that a valid contract exists on the basis that a landowner hasn't sued a parking operator for occupying their land. It is easy to understand why a landowner may allow a parking operator to remain while no valid contract exists as they may still benefit from the deterrent factor they provide. The problem with all this is that even if a judgment is known to contain some weaknesses it is clear that a LiP faces a dilemma when it comes to the decision to appeal due to the costs involved. So while it may not be a deliberate decision it must be in the back of someone's mind that if they don't get things exactly right it is very likely to be the end of the matter regardless, and of the two parties who is more likely to appeal, the LiP or the well resourced parking company with potentially millions on the line.

Thank you for posting this up, it's not easy to write a summary after not getting the result you wanted. The more detail you are able to remember and post up the more others will hopefully benefit. If its your first time in court it is also difficult to know when to make notes and how best to take them, well done for getting down as much as you could. I'm a little confused about C19 (did you mean paragraph 19 of your WS?) it appears the judge didn't like the title as opposed to the substance of the argument? It appears the cases the judge may have referred to are: Bank of New York Mellon (International) Ltd v Cine-UK Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1021; and One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] - Heard on appeal on behalf of OPS following a County Court judgment for which I cannot find a transcript online. Perhaps they provided you with a copy as they should have?

Read post #98 again. I don't say this to point fingers but to draw your attention to the fact that sometimes important details which can help you are easily missed. The better you become at picking up on important details in your cases the more your chances of success will increase going forwards. The simple act of posting up the redacted claim form would have clarified this straight away. However, well done for realising the difference in the two systems and understanding why you are having to do things a different way. It's not easy for someone who has never embarked on this path before to navigate everything first time around and your self help appears to be paying off.

That's strange when I checked I found the email for Alison Rose CEO of NatWest, not forgetting that RBS became a subsidiary of NatWest Holdings in 2019. If they were managing their correspondence then I expect it would have just been passed down to the position you find yourself in now anyway.

Personally I wouldn't bother submitting another WS ahead of the hearing, it will appear in some way to condone their actions and you keep the high ground by not stooping to their level. Of course you don't want to be blindsided in case what they have submitted is later accepted. I would prepare my responses and then IF the SWS is admitted, simply present them to the Court on the day on the grounds that one shouldn't be prejudiced by a late submission of evidence. To be honest it somewhat works in your favour that they have submitted a SWS as most of what they have written has given you advance notice of what they wish to say. A counsel better at strategising might have saved their arguments for the day of the hearing or close to. Certainly you should object to any late submission of documents which appear to be referred to as Exhibit 2.

I wouldn't normally suggest this as I know we don't link to other sites, however I think it may help you to have a look on another well known site that claims to be an expert at helping you save money. Without too much searching you will find a first hand written experience by someone who deconstructed OPS in the County Court at Brighton where I expect your claim is also listed for hearing. The reason I suggest this, and in particular if you happen to stand before the same judge, is because it will give you an excellent idea of what to expect given that the court and the claimant are the same albeit that the specific circumstances are different.

You could try searching RBS on ceoemail.com for a relevant email address. The results have varying success depending on how well each company is prepared to manage its correspondence, but it may speed up the process.

The suffix hmcts.gsi.gov.uk is out of date. All email contacts for the court system now end in justice.gov.uk If you haven't managed to respond to the claim against you by logging in to MCOL using the claim reference and password provided it may be a good idea to also send a copy of your defence by post.

That message to me appears to indicate the claim was perhaps issued out of the County Court Money Claims Centre, which while still based online is slightly different and more up to date than MCOL which issues claims out of the County Court Business Centre. Perhaps you could clarify exactly how you issued your claim for the failure to disclose data. I don't think we've seen a claim form or any other correspondence. In any case processing times can be found here. According to the processing times, entering judgment online should be automatic. Using MCOL you should be able to move to enforcement immediately once a judgment in default has been entered.

This MSE chargeback guide is pretty easy to follow. It lists one of the conditions for a chargeback as breach of contract and then more specifically for non-delivery. You wrote above that you didn't receive a ticket but were charged. In my experience banks and their card issuers are generally pretty obstructive. They sign up to all sorts of agreements between each other on how to handle payment disputes, all in the interest of quantifying their liability and with very little interest in returning your money. I think you will find that one of the conditions is that you approach the company with whom the error arose before initiating the chargeback process. The underlying reason being the card issuer will likely charge a fee for the chargeback process. Notifying the company involved gives them an opportunity to rectify the dispute before the card issuer charges them a fee for doing so. Mastercard have a very large document referred to as their "Chargeback Guide". I don't know which company issued your card but no doubt Visa and American Express have similar documents. If you have the time to read such a document and want to know more, all the devilish terms etc will be contained within.

It is very kind of FTMDave to put together a substantial response in such a short period of time. I think it best not to emphasise the time between the breach occurring and when the claim for distress was issued. It would be useful if @kfdh1962 could post up the exact particulars they used for the claim which is loosely referred to in this thread as a breach of the GDPR. My understanding is different to yours, it appears to me you received 1 defence to 1 claim which was for a breach of the GDPR. You then received one application hoping to deal with both of your claims, however importantly at the top of the draft defence is a redacted claim number. That claim number will indicate exactly which claim the defence is aimed at and it would be helpful if you could make that clear to us as well. FTMDave is excellent at keeping on top of things but if it were straight forward to do, it may help to create a separate thread for each claim.