Car refund advice
Comments
-
The OP is bring forth a consumer rights act 2015 claim against the trader, the only way to communicate with a trader who shuts down verbal communication is writing the act allows for conusmers to make complaints so this i would assume would grant authority to communicate under the act.But the Act specifically applies only "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post".
AFAIK a Letter Before Action is not authorised or required by any Act but by Court Procedure Rules, and so the Interpretation Act does not apply to it.
I could be wrong.0 -
This is going way off topic now, if the act does not apply then i accept that and state im wrong, no shame in that.
What i do honestly believe that the theory of rejecting a letter is proof and evidence it was never delivered or recieved is just too contraversioal for me to believe. The op is "serving" a ltd company not person it just needs to be at the address.
http://www.aboutsmallclaims.co.uk/serving-court-papers-documents.html
This website accurately describes my point of views on posting a document.0 -
David_Aston wrote: »That means you don't know if registered would cover him?
Registered doesnt exist.........0 -
atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »This is going way off topic now, if the act does not apply then i accept that and state im wrong, no shame in that.
What i do honestly believe that the theory of rejecting a letter is proof and evidence it was never delivered or recieved is just too contraversioal for me to believe. The op is "serving" a ltd company not person it just needs to be at the address.
http://www.aboutsmallclaims.co.uk/serving-court-papers-documents.html
This website accurately describes my point of views on posting a document.
Its more complex than that page makes out. Theres a difference when service has a time limit.
For example the court of appeals LJ Parker has said (albeit in relation to s26 of the predecessor 1889 act but its almost word for word identical to s7 of the 1978 act and has been often quoted since):The section, it will be seen, is in two parts. The first part provides that the dispatch of the notice or other document, in the manner laid down, shall be deemed to be service thereof. The second part provides that unless the contrary is proved that service is effected on the day when in the ordinary course of post the document would be delivered. This second part, therefore, concerning delivery as it does, comes into play and only comes into play in a case where under the legislation to which the section is being applied the document has to be received by a certain time. If in such a case "the contrary is proved", i.e. that the document was not received by that time or at all, then the position appears to be that though under the first part of the section the document is deemed to have been served, it has been proved that it was not served in time.'
Although I don't know of any act underpinning the sending of a LBC/LBA by post so I am of the opinion it can't be relied upon here.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
Exactly. They are not an Act, so the Interpretation Act does not apply.
Schedule 1 of that Act makes this even clearer: “Act” means an Act of Parliament.
A statutory instrument is part of an act. It's secondary legislation. Given an LBC is mandatory in law I still wouldn't like to argue it wasn't a legal document.0 -
unholyangel wrote: »
Although I don't know of any act underpinning the sending of a LBC/LBA by post so I am of the opinion it can't be relied upon here.
I'm not sure there is one. I'm not actually 100% convinced either way but a Supreme Court ruling has said that the CPRs and Practice Directions must be followed except where completely impractical.
An LBC therefore must be sent. This is underpinned by secondary legislation.
Arguing to a lower court that this isn't a legal document because secondary legislation isn't an act frankly is a big ask. I could see this going to appeal. If it went to the Supreme Court you would be asking them to essentially contradict themselves.
Like I said I'm not 100% convinced either way but I now which I would rather be arguing.0 -
I'm not sure there is one. I'm not actually 100% convinced either way but a Supreme Court ruling has said that the CPRs and Practice Directions must be followed except where completely impractical.
An LBC therefore must be sent. This is underpinned by secondary legislation.
Arguing to a lower court that this isn't a legal document because secondary legislation isn't an act frankly is a big ask. I could see this going to appeal. If it went to the Supreme Court you would be asking them to essentially contradict themselves.
Like I said I'm not 100% convinced either way but I now which I would rather be arguing.
A court served document is time sensitive would locked in under the act, I have 6 years in which to bring a Court action by commencing it with a Letter before Action does this make the LBA time sensitive or time crucial?0 -
Two copies from two different post offices with proof of posting. Should satisfy all requirements. Why make this so difficult?Please do not quote spam as this enables it to 'live on' once the spam post is removed.
If you quote me, don't forget the capital 'M'
Declutterers of the world - unite! :rotfl::rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards