Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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
      • 160 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

Clydesdale Financial Services "WON"


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5685 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

My son has a loan with CFS going back to 2005. During that time they have added over £200 in late payment fees.

 

We wrote to them on 5 October under s77(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requesting a copy of the executed agreement and statement of account. The statement of account came by return (twice) but nothing else. This contains all payments and charges added so we got everything we would have receievd under an SAR.

 

As more than 12 days have passed, we have put the account in dispute until they come up with the agreement. They have until 19 Novemeber or they will have committed an offence.

 

We will keep you posted

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'll keep an eye on you, Steven my lad, as I have a credit agreement ending next month with them, and as I pay my standing order, I'll be paying my last legitimate payment, which means if they want the charges (1 late payment, I had deleted the S/O by accident, doofus, and they plonked about £70 of charge for that), they'll have to pursue me for them. Should be interesting. :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am claiming on behalf of no 1 son. We are reclaiming several lots of £22.50 for letters sent due to late payments on the grounds that the letters cannot cost more than 35p and are therefore disguised penalties. They repaid half of them immediately after receiving the prelim letter. (actually more than half since they seem to be inordinately bad at maths ;))

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

N1 going in tomorrow. We are also asking for default removal since they applied one a couple of weeks ago. I agreed a payment with their agent on the phone and paid it electronically and they still placed the default :mad:

 

They are not goijg to get away with that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to teach you to suck eggs Steven, but don't accept any cash settlement without removal of the default.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to teach you to suck eggs Steven, but don't accept any cash settlement without removal of the default.
Absolutely. Although there is a problem - they repaid some of the charges by just crediting the account. I expect they will do that again, especially as the 'brink' approaches.

 

What I propose to do is to write and say we don't accept the payment and demand that they remove it. I think that is all we can do given that it is a loan account. There is no way of sending them back the money as far as I can see.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

N1 going in tomorrow.
Went to the court and they were closed :-(

 

They had a notice on the door "Closed until Tuesday 2nd January" :confused:

 

Do they know something we don't?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Two letters recieved yesterday - one from the court with Barclay's (they bought CFS) defence and an AQ, the other an offer from Barclays for the full amount. No offer to remove the default though :(

 

I need to talk to son to find out what he wants to do.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long since it was defaulted, and was it for more or less than the amount of the charges? If it was a while ago, and if he has any more recent ones or CCJ's it might not be worth holding out for removal, but he shouldn't accept the settlement if he wants to get rid of the default.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, IMO he should not accept the financial settlement. The default would not have occurred had the charges not been incurred. You should force them to court if necessary. Jonni2bad is your man on defaults. I'll see if he'll post some advice for you.

 

I don't need to tell you that your son will struggle to get credit for another 5 years and 11 months if he doesn't fight hard. If he accepts the money, he has little or no chance of removing the default.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know that really. You just need to emphasise how important it is to him. Good luck.:)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending them this letter

Dear Mr Anderson,

 

Claim against Barclays Bank PLC,

Claim Number 8LGXXXXX

 

Thank you for your letter of 24 January 2008, the contents of which I have noted.

 

I have read the defence filed by Barclays on 23 January which I note is a standard defence.

 

I note that you have offered me, without prejudice, the entire monetary component of my claim but that you have not included removal of the default notice. Despite what you said in your defence, I contend that this notice would not have been issued if the charges had not been applied to my account. Thus, if the charges are unlawful, so is the default notice.

 

Therefore, I accept your offer only as a partial settlement of my claim and intend to continue with the action.

 

I am willing to let the court decide whether the charges are lawful or not and on this basis will be seeking an order from the court for Barclays to disclose the actual costs to them due to breaches of contract when I submit the AQ (which is due on 11 February). Knowledge of the actual cost base will allow the court to determine if the charges levied are in excess of actual costs. The law on penalties in contracts is well established and this simple arithmetic comparison will settle the issue.

 

I note that you reserve the right to disclose your letter of 24 January to the court. I will be attaching this letter to the documents submitted to the court with my AQ.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

myson

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see if they pay up on your terms. Do you know of other similar cases with CFS, and how they've reacted?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of similar CFS cases but they are Barclays now and there are loads of BC cases. It all hinges on what they make of "I am willing to let the court decide whether the charges are lawful or not".

 

In their letter to us they say, "We... recognise that it is not cost-effective for either party to take this matter all the way to trial". It's no skin off our nose if it goes to trial (I would relish the chance to be honest) so I expect them to cave in, if only on those grounds.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sounds good then Steven. I bet your son is very pleased. Well done.:)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...