Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Mackenzie Hall - Money Shop Debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5520 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

Hi

 

I have an outstanding debt with The Money Shop for £620.00

 

I have been in contact recently with MH and I did set up a payment plan, however, I am not 100% sure that I have made any payments. In fact, I had a "online" chat with someone a few weeks ago and they confirmed that £5 has been paid off the debt.

 

I have sent a CCA request to this Company, payment yet to be presented - silly me I sent them a cheque payment!

 

I have today received another chaser letter wanting payment by noon 29th Jan 2009.

 

Now I have two questions:

 

1. Do I ignore this letter and wait to see if the CCA turns up?

2. Do I contact The Money Shop and ask for them to withhold action even though The Money Shop do not know my confirmed address?

3. Shall I send them another snot-o-gram?

 

I tried to talk to them via their online chat this morning, but because I wouldnt fill in the details and only completed the reference number he hung up the chat on me the to**er!!!

 

Jo

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been in contact recently with MH and I did set up a payment plan...

Ouch!

Do I ignore this letter and wait to see if the CCA turns up?

You should allow 12+2 days for them to comply with your CCA request and that is all - not 'see if it turns up'. If the time has expired, send them a copy of http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/170674-reply-cca.html#post1840880

...he hung up the chat on me the to**er!!!

What an accurate description of a Kilmarnock Kowboy!

 

Don't use the online chat or telephone, you want any discussion to be in black and white, so you prove what was said and when. DCA muppets are not known for being bright and could easily type into their system that you were going to pay £55, not £5. NEVER let them have bank account details or make payment via debit/credit card, they may forget the conversation and could make further debits a few days later... (note the use of their favourite words MAY and COULD!)

 

Quite simply, if they don't send the paperwork, send them maroondevo52's letter and that should be it.

 

The Money Shop wouldn't want to know, simple as that. They've passed on details of the alleged debt for collection and they'll just say its out of their hands.

  • Haha 1

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as soon as I met this site I realised I shouldnt have paid that £5 payment **slaps head**!!

 

Thanks for the advice, they have NEVER had my card or bank details that is one thing I know not to give to these idiots.

 

The funny thing was when this idiot stopped the online chat I registered again and got the same guy, had great pleasure in asking him he if was going to disconnect again and then called him an IDIOT before I hung up the chat! Had to be done i guess!

 

I am on countdown for the 12+2 days. I have a file with all my paperwork in and I need to sit down and sort it out so I can plan my next stage of attack!

 

Thanks for your help, have clicked your scales BTW!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that account is going to be closed, with NatWest. My account with HSBC is a new one and they NO details whatsoever and that is where my salary, tax credits get paid into.

 

Thought give them their due, NatWest are good at recalling payments if they haven't been made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today received a letter from Mackenzie Hall, returning my £1 payment and a letter saying....

 

We refer to your letrer dated 1/21/2009

We have contacted our client for a copy of your agreement and statement of your account.

Your account is currently on HOLD. Please be assures that no action will be taken against you.

Should we not receive the relevant proof from our client within 40 days we wil close your file and return to our client. Our client will then decide what step to take.

 

Right, what I now need to know is:-

 

1. Can they hold this for 40 days? Surely this should be the 12+2 days?

 

2. Would they have made a indent on my credit file and can I ask them to remove this?

 

3. Is there a follow up letter to their holding letter that I can send them?

 

Thanks J

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today received a letter from Mackenzie Hall...

They like making things up as they go along, hoping that you don't know the law. They have 12+2 days to comply with the CCA request. If they don't send it in that time then they fail. Simple.

 

If they cannot enforce the matter by way of a valid CCA then they have to close the file and remove any default from your credit file.

 

Their time is up soon, if you've heard nothing more by the end of this week there is a good letter to base your next move on at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/170674-reply-cca.html#post1840880

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have 12 days - end of. The additional two days is not part of the statutory limit but to allow for the Royal Mail to deliver their letter to you. If they havern't posted it by working day 12 it ain't never going to happen.

 

So on 12days plus 2 you send them the letter syaing - you ain't got the paperwork, push off and don't bother me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...