I have read up and understand that I technically wouldn't have to pay these off if we moved house, but surely if we just remortgage it wouldn't work that way? Because the mortgage company would want to be first charge but they wouldn't be, the other charges would be there
to answer the questions on my previous post you have to realise that DCBL are referred by us as being a 7th rated solicitor since they are outright numpties who do not understand the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. This is the Act that governs private parking companies. In the Act the driver is responsible to pay the charge for the first 28 days. Should they not have paid by then the Law is that the keeper is then responsible to pay providing the parking companies comply with the Act which seems beyond their capability. Paragraph 4 states Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle 4(1)The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; Paragraph 5 states Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 5(1)The first condition is that the creditor— (a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but (b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. Paragraph 6 states 6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9. As EPC failed to comply with the requirements of paragraph 9 as I pointed out in my previous post that means that the keeper can no longer be liable, regardless of what ECP and their idiot solicitors would like to believe. As the arbiters of the accuracy of their paperwork relies fortunately with Judges who do understand the law should it ever go to Court that is where they will find out that you are not liable. You can check amongst the many of our members that have gone to Court and their cases been thrown out when the keeper was not the driver and the paperwork did not comply with the Act.
The Food Standards Agency warns counterfeit bottles have been found to contain a dangerous substance.View the full article
Shares in Trump Media are now worth less than they were at the start of the year.View the full article
the seller is legally required to provide the green slip. no good reporting it to anyone fill in a V62. dx
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.
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
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
