Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

letter from the Tocatoo / Lowell


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4787 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

hello,

I was wondering if anyone would be able to give me any help or advice.

My boyfriend received a letter today from tocatto ltd stating he owes £37.91 outstanding balance from a 3 mobile contract phone he had 5 years ago.

 

4 years ago this debt went to a Debt collection agency, I think it was moorecroft I cant quite remember, and he agreed to pay £10 a fortnight until it was paid. This debt was paid as I myself went to the royal bank of Scotland and paid the £10 a fortnight until it was all paid.

 

About 2 years later we were sorting through paper work and thought we would no longer need the payment receipts from this debt so decided to throw them away.

A year later , about this time last year, we received a letter from another DCA informing my boyfriend he still owed the outstanding £37.91.

He phoned them and told them that he had paid the debt to which they asked for proof of payment. When he told them he had non as the receipts had been thrown away they told him as far as they were concerned without any proof of payment the debt was still owed.

The person he spoke to was very rude and unhelpful and didn't give a damn and kept insisting he must pay. My boyfriend quite bluntly told them that they would not receive any money from him as the debt was already paid. The conversation kept going round in circles eventually the guy from the DCA put the phone down on him.

We received another couple of letters and each time he phoned the company and told them the same thing. The debt has been paid and they will not get any money. Again they told him without proof then he still owes it.

After about the 3rd letter we never heard from them again or any other DCA concerning this account until today.

 

My partner hasn't rang Tocatto yet and we will probably hear the same cock and bull story from them.

So I was wondering if anyone had any ideas how to get rid of them once and for all without having the pay the debt a second time.

Any help would be very much appreciated

Thx in advance

Bec

Link to post
Share on other sites

firstly

 

NEVER EVER phone a DCA!!

 

they have NO LEGAL POWERS

to do anything bar send threat-o-grams

 

pers i would ignore the fleecers

 

i would suggest you do a bit of reading in this forum

 

you'll soon get the idea

 

as this has been paid-off anyhow

this shows what typically happens in the case of these 'phantom' mobile phone debts

it goes straight to the DCA's pocket without any record being place against your name on the phishing list

 

it get sold on & the next one tries their luck as you've proved to be a soft-touch.

 

the debt [if it ever existed] would have been written off against tax by the OC years ago

thats why the OC have neber asked themselves for the money!

 

well you've learned now - don't get caught again!

 

never ever believe what these fleecers say!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading stuff but not quite sure as to what to read or where to start. there is just so much information. Any payments we have made since to anyone we have since kept proof of payment and will do so for a very long time and so far so good with the rest of the debts. Just this one keeps cropping up like a bad aftertaste :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bec,

 

Rant continued....

 

Moorcroft work as follows.....mobile phone company pass your details to moorcroft, they contact you to say hello out-standing amount please pay, you pay, moorcroft say Here you go mobile phone company and thats it....BUT on the occasions were that they/moorcroft "Buy the Debt" they do not sell it on again to a third party.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Hotmamma :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bec,

 

Please take this advice...."DO NOT PAY THEM".....understand! You both know that you have paid and you can either print of statements from your bank via the internet or pay your the bank for copies which will show your payments and even ask the bank to supply you with a copy of the "in full and final settlement". confirmation of the closure of this debt.

Know think of it this way, this and it is a [problem], if this company chases 10 people at what seems to be the average amount of £30,that equals £300, so times that by 100, 1000, 10000.... get the picture, nice little earner. And because it is such a small amount, most people would pay it. But not us, we are out to screw them. Now, Don't forget if they contact you TELL THEM to prove that they own this debt and that they have "12 WORKING DAYS NO LONGER TO SUPPLY THIS" .....OR....THE DEBT IS UNENFORCEABLE!!!!!!

Check out all that has been said about this [EDIT - PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ABUSE]hole of a company and if they are rude to you on the phone, stand up, take control and threaten them, i told them to feck off, but that's me!

 

Oh, and when i spoke to Moorcroft, the guy told me that this sounded very odd and to be aware it could be a [problem] and to call ofsted! what's that telling you???? Keep us all posted, but for your own piece of mind get proof from your bank, also call moorcroft and give them any details regarding the phone contract they should be able to locate it in the past history they number is: 0161 4752858.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...