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

Warrant against Egg


simeon1964
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6147 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

The warrant issued against Barclays was not executed because Barclay had made application to set the judgenent asside, on the ground that the the judgement was inconsistent with the direction made on the 15 may 2007.

Barclay did not defend the claim but apply to strike it on onCPR.22.1(6) onthe 17/4/07, but I had no knowledge of this. only new after my petition to the court by which the court had already given judgement.

 

Here are the procedure to request judgement and warrant:

1. Claim was issued for £3367.02 .

2. After a month and 3days I applied for judgement and was I written to as judgement rejected.

3 Almost a month after rejecting the application for judgement, I wrote a petition to the court that the defendant had not defended the claim yet, this was on the 30/05/07

4. On the 11th june 2007 the judgement was granted and a copy was faxed straight to the defendant for payment which they ignored.

6.On the 13/07/07 I rang the defendant that if payment is not made by 4pm of the that day I will apply for a warrant which I did.

7. This was almost 30days after the judgement.

8. The warrant was issued and sent to bailiff

9. Barclays now have a new solicitor appearing to represnt them in order to set aside the jugement

10. I have now received order from the court for the date to hear it.

11. Help the date is 22/08/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

yikes! i might be in for this, received my judgement almost 4 weeks ago and have sent in warrant of execution for my monument credit card (issued by barclays).

 

Sounds like they are playing a dangerous game of delaying tactics, i can't see what credible legal reasoning they could give to have the judgement set aside.

 

regards,

shane

____________________________________________

All advice is offered freely & without prejudice

 

 

If my post has been useful to you please click the scales

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in the same situation. I have asked for judgement as they havenot acknowledged my claim and I am now given the chioce of issuing a warrant, which I do not know if I should as I have to pay another £55.00 and i don't know even if I will get my money back!!!

Halifax - £245 - SETTLED - in full

MBNA Business - £190 - SETTLED - in full

HSBC - Closed business a/c - £1,850 - SETTLED IN FULL

HSBC - Business a/c - £4,388 - SETTLED FOR £4,100

Nat West Card - SETTLE IN FULL - £124.71

Halifax Credit Card - MCOL 26th May 2007

Egg - 1st LBA 12th May 2007

Are you a business customer, let's join forces subscribe to:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/68191-claiming-business-account-lets-6.html#post646109

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you try and contact Barclays. I have got an e-mail address of a guy that just deals with default judgements. Try:

 

dino.papaevripides@barclays.com

 

He was very good with me and responded to my e-mail straight away.

 

Good Luck!

Halifax - £245 - SETTLED - in full

MBNA Business - £190 - SETTLED - in full

HSBC - Closed business a/c - £1,850 - SETTLED IN FULL

HSBC - Business a/c - £4,388 - SETTLED FOR £4,100

Nat West Card - SETTLE IN FULL - £124.71

Halifax Credit Card - MCOL 26th May 2007

Egg - 1st LBA 12th May 2007

Are you a business customer, let's join forces subscribe to:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/68191-claiming-business-account-lets-6.html#post646109

Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit cards

 

It is hard for anybody to make head or tail of this thread or your other thread pasted above. Livelylad tried, but without an itemised claim it is hard to know what you are doing, especially if after having been to court and obtained judgment, you suddenly say your opponent was never Barclays Bank but actually Egg Credit Card.

 

What you referred to as "purchases interest" is probably the debit interest shown on a credit card's monthly statement. This would be made up of interest on outstanding purchases and cash advances (lawful and unreclaimable), plus monthly interest on outstanding penalty charges (unlawful and reclaimable). The simple way to disentangle the two would be to add up your unlawful charges to date, and multiply that amount by the monthly interest rate as shown on the statement, say 1.6%, risen to 2% now.

 

One reclaimant executed his warrant, marching at the head of his bailiffs into Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Chalk Farm, London, to remove bank PCs etc with a view to reselling same. Customers were astonished, the RBS manager was shocked, and reclaimants everywhere were over the moon.

 

If you want to discuss with the Forum your setaside hearing on 22nd August, it is up to you to articulate your opponent's grounds already made known to you.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...