Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • 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
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • 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
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

HFO CAPITAL/services/turnbull CCJ

melmumof3

By melmumof3
in M&S Cards

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3231 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

DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted

They have, I think, 21 days from the date of judgment to appeal. They would need astonishing grounds to get any extension given that THEY took YOU to court and should have had their evidence sorted first time. What can they change? What's new? Nothing!

 

Well, nothing unless they 'edit' all their documents to suit their case, which would be... well, stupid. HFOC can't take action, simple as that, unless they deny the assignment to HFOS doesn't apply which would be disingenuous at best. We can prove it applies to all debts bought by HFOC.

 

If they chose to claim as HFOS, I think it would be essentially the same claim so would be thrown out, especially as it would further suggest they don't know who owns the alleged debt.

 

And, as VJ says, that would mean getting really nasty back...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 665
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

vjohn82

vjohn82

Posted
Posted
They have, I think, 21 days from the date of judgment to appeal. They would need astonishing grounds to get any extension given that THEY took YOU to court and should have had their evidence sorted first time. What can they change? What's new? Nothing!

 

Well, nothing unless they 'edit' all their documents to suit their case, which would be... well, stupid. HFOC can't take action, simple as that, unless they deny the assignment to HFOS doesn't apply which would be disingenuous at best. We can prove it applies to all debts bought by HFOC.

 

If they chose to claim as HFOS, I think it would be essentially the same claim so would be thrown out, especially as it would further suggest they don't know who owns the alleged debt.

 

And, as VJ says, that would mean getting really nasty back...

 

The reply to my amended defence from Turnbull demonstrates entirely that they have absolutely no idea who owns the account...

 

Their paper trail is shocking and disingenous.

 

I feel it's time to apply for the strike out... I've had enough of these clowns.

 

The Judge has clearly disregarded their attempt to have HFOC added as a party... the document HFOS intend to rely upon to "prove" assignment clearly states that HFOC is the owner... no notice of assignment has been provided to HFOS etc...

 

I really can't see how they have any cause for action in either of our cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hungrybear

hungrybear

Posted
Posted
The reply to my amended defence from Turnbull demonstrates entirely that they have absolutely no idea who owns the account...

 

Their paper trail is shocking and disingenous.

 

I feel it's time to apply for the strike out... I've had enough of these clowns.

 

The Judge has clearly disregarded their attempt to have HFOC added as a party... the document HFOS intend to rely upon to "prove" assignment clearly states that HFOC is the owner... no notice of assignment has been provided to HFOS etc...

 

I really can't see how they have any cause for action in either of our cases.

 

being pick its disingenuous ('cos my spell checker said so:D) - but the point I want to make is that it the most legally applicable word I can think of to describe the whole hfo mess. I also wonder as an aside if HFO Capital Ltd used in the UK is 1) misleading as it implies a uk company and more importantly 2)ambiguous since there are two foreign companies to whom this could apply?

Link to post
Share on other sites
vjohn82

vjohn82

Posted
Posted
being pick its disingenuous ('cos my spell checker said so:D) - but the point I want to make is that it the most legally applicable word I can think of to describe the whole hfo mess. I also wonder as an aside if HFO Capital Ltd used in the UK is 1) misleading as it implies a uk company and more importantly 2)ambiguous since there are two foreign companies to whom this could apply?

 

You know there's only one thing worse than a fussy speller... and that's an employee at Turnbull :D

 

Forgive me a typo there HB... I've been arguing with HFO too long...

 

I agree though... they are incredibly naive to think I would let this drop... morons... I hope they turn up at the hearing actually... they would be depriving of my day in court if they discontinue now (even though they should because they are in a hopeless position)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hungrybear

hungrybear

Posted
Posted
You know there's only one thing worse than a fussy speller... and that's an employee at Turnbull :D

 

 

 

what about Public Schoolboys?

 

 

Oh, Hello Donkey, hows tricks!:p

 

 

....and the word of the day is disingenuous (2 eyes in your head and 2 ewes in a Welshman's wellies)

- hope you read that before cagbot descends!

 

Actually I hope they do turn up, just to prove how daft they are. You never know you might get the man himself - is there a rutherford?

Link to post
Share on other sites
DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted

Technically VJ, they may discontinue but you don't have to accept the discontinuation! You can insist on going to court. If it gets to the stage of counterclaim, their discontinuance would, I think, render your counterclaim won.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Docman

Docman

Posted
Posted

mel,

 

It could be the letter from M&S will be used to start over again with HFO/TR issuing a new N1 claim. Sorry if that sounds bad but you've been through it once, so you will be able to beat them again. I suggest you wait to see if anything comes from SW19.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted

Hi Docman

 

I think that would be difficult for them. The evidence would be essentially the same. They would have to then claim the account was assigned from HFOC to HFOS, which they did not claim first time round. This would simply raise more confusion, as Mel would still be entitled to enter the first M&S letter as evidence.

 

I rather hope they are stuffed. And they deserve to be!

 

I think they would get short shrift from the judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Docman

Docman

Posted
Posted

I agree they shouldn't get far. My concern is that they start with a new N1 but do not produce any documents and still try for a summary judgment, hoping to get a district judge who isn't clued up on the CCA. Shouldn't happen but it does...

 

As to stopping them, the county court can make a civil restraint order banning further action on a claim under CPR 3.11. It is possible to get a stiffer ban from the High Court but a complete ban on them taking ANY legal action in ANY case has to be made by the High Court but only on the application of the Attorney General. The AG will only make such an application following an investigation by the Treasury Solicitor (a government department). T Sols (as they are known) won't conduct an investigation unless they get about SIX complaints concerning the same party bringing claims with little or no foundation.

 

From that lot, you may guess what I've been up to in the background. I've also had a chat to an old acquaintance who runs a small office in Leamington Spa. Mr T will know all about them and their collegues in Redditch, so I can't say more just yet.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
Docman

Docman

Posted
Posted
when i was in court, i gave the DJ my paperwork , and gave her the original M and S letter..... she didnt give me the original back. i guess its not worth worrying about now?

 

 

It should be on the court file now. You can ask to see the file and take a copy of a document on the file but I doubt you will be able to retreive the original. Might be worth though next time you are passing the court to pop in and get a copy.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted
when i was in court, i gave the DJ my paperwork , and gave her the original M and S letter..... she didnt give me the original back. i guess its not worth worrying about now?

 

Don't worry Mel... there is a 'certified true copy' on this thread! Suggest you edit your thread to remove that fact and I'll remove this once you've done it. Ditto Docman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
melmumof3

melmumof3

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

hi guys...

ive had a letter from the court today 'notice of transfer of proceedings'... saying as a result of an order made on 17th dec (??? on phone to court as we speak as dont know what order was made??)... its being transferred to another county court :(

 

HFO Capital have appealed the judges decision, so as the court it was originally heard in doesnt have an appeal judge, its been transferred to one that has.. he is back on the 4th jan... GRRRR..hoping the judge sees their crap!!.

Edited by melmumof3
Link to post
Share on other sites
DonkeyB

DonkeyB

Posted
Posted

Oooer... looks like they may have appealed... if they have, don't worry. You still have a killer document.

 

Tell us more... if they're appealing, it's time to get Tony Hetherington at the Mail involved. He likes HFO. Not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
melmumof3

melmumof3

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Oooer... looks like they may have appealed... if they have, don't worry. You still have a killer document.

 

Tell us more... if they're appealing, it's time to get Tony Hetherington at the Mail involved. He likes HFO. Not.

 

hi DB, yes they've appealed, the court hasnt got the file yet, but will in the next few days. judge will make a decision if there is scope for appeal the week of the 4th jan...

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...