Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Help with cca?/GE money.


guzzleguts
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5346 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

Guz,

 

Let's see if I've got this straight. You have filed an application (N244 plus fee right?) to strike your opponent out on the grounds that it had failed to give disclosure in compliance with an order of the court. The hearing of your application is to coincide with a CMC next Tuesday when the court will give case management directions.

 

I also take it that the opponent has still not complied with the order? What excuse does the opponent offer?

 

My view is that as part of the case management directions, unless it has already done so, the court will make an 'unless order'. That is, an order which says, in terms:

 

'Unless the opponent complies with the order of (date) by giving disclosure of (desacription of document) to GG by 4:00pm on (date) the Particulars of Claim shall stand stand struck out and the claim dismissed and (GG) shall be at liberty without further order of the court, to apply for judgment upon his defence and for his costs of the case to be paid by (the opponent) to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.'

 

For reasons which will be obvious therefore, I doubt the court has already made an unless order because if the opponent was already in breach of an unless order there wouldn't be any need for you to apply the court to strike out.

 

A failure to comply with the unless order is where the PF85A comes in.

 

I'd go to court armed with a statement of costs which I had served on the opponent not less than 24 hours before the hearing. Assuming the court makes an order against the opponent upon your application, ask the judge to award you the costs of the application and present your costs statement to enable him to summarily assess those costs.

 

If the court strikes out the claim at the hearing, ask the court to award you the costs of the case to be paid by the opponent to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed. Those costs will, as you know, be subject to litigant in person limitations.

 

A skeleton argument ought not to be necessary on an application to strike out or for a sanction owing to a failure to give disclosure pursuant to a court order. It's factual and usually uncomplicated. There has either been compliance or there hasn't. Your application notice ought to have included a built-in or separate supporting witness statement exhibiting any documents you intended to rely on. The only occasion I would expect you to want to rely on a second or subsidiary witness statement would be where some witness statement had been filed in opposition which you wished to answer.

 

At the CMC the court will probavbly bolt on some directions which will flow on from the opponent's compliance with the order dealing with disclosure. Typically the directions will involve standard disclosure of documents, whether expert evidence is to be admitted and if so the form of that evidence, the exchange of lay witness statements of fact, and arrangements for trial.

 

x20

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If you have not filed a N244 application notice the court can not be guaranteed to entertain an application to strike out or give summary judgment or pass some onerous order on your opponent. That would be so regardless of whatever day of the week it is. The court will treat the hearing as a CMC and address standard case management directions. A failure to comply with a previous order of the court can be dealt with by the DJ but to make sure, file your N244. Don't think the court will make contentious decisions on a straghtforward CMC unles there's a proper application with evidence.

 

Further, don't expect to be awarded the costs of an application you haven't made.

 

x20

Link to post
Share on other sites

The PF85A is a simple document used to certify an opponent's non-compliance with an unless order and gain the consequential advantages the unless order afforded. It has nothing to do with costs assessment proceedings.

 

To begin detailed assessment proceedings you will need to complete a N252 and attach a bill of costs and the order giving rise to your costs entitlement and send these to the paying party.

 

x20

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...