Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Do you think I should send the CCA request now then instead of waiting? I really can do without the stress. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you for responding.
    • How was the "receiver" appointed and what is their role? Appointed by the lender under the terms of their security on the loan (sometimes referred to as "LPA Receiver")? Or are they acting for you in insolveny? What's the current role of the agent?
    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
  • 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

Bookie v Grattan - again...


Bookworm
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5641 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

Not having a good couple of weeks here... Washing-machine died the other day and now this... :-|

 

3 years ago, I bought Mr Bookie the TV of his dreams (at the time! Technology has moved on since): a 42" LCD Sony Home Cinema system, the KF-42SX300U, retailing at that point round the £1500 mark. Ouch. Still, it was on the BNPL over 50 weeks, and he was warned it would have to do for his next birthdays, Christmases, anniversaries and whatnot for the next few years... :razz:

 

Fast forward to a couple of weeks ago when dead pixels started appearing right in the middle of the screen. First one, then a couple of days later, another one, then another one... We're currently up to 5. Also at the same time, the bottom corner started having a blue hazy tinge that would come and go randomly... Except it's now more and more often, and it has spread to most of the side and since Sunday, it's now gone on to the middle of the screen in a sort of arc pattern.

 

On to my trusted Internet, where it would appear that this problem is known as the "blue blob", is down to an optical block of some sort failure, and it has been such an issue that Sony are repairing FOC until December 08.... in the US and Canada. Sony Europe? Nah, no chance. :rolleyes:

 

I contact Grattan and tell them nicely of the issue and what do they plan to do about it? Reply: Contact Sony, here's the number, they'll be able to help. Hmmm... Ok, so maybe they have a direct line for their own customers? Some companies do, right? At any rate, it's worth a call just in case.

 

Of course, I was giving Grattan too much credit. :-( This was the number for Sony Europe, who of course wanted to charge me for this and frankly had no interest in the fact that their counterpart across the pond were doing rather better. (then again, there is a class action going on against Sony US about that at the moment)

 

So back to Grattan, where I have told them in no uncertain term that a) it is their problem and what do they intend to do about it? and b) that I am rather displeased at their clumsy attempt to palm me off to Sony. :mad:

 

Update as and when it comes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already starting to feel sorry for Grattan....:p

 

Definately!

 

The blue blob problem sounds terminal - I've got one on my very old Toshiba (it's not flat, it's not silver!) which is fine when you are watching a film about the ocean I guess.

 

As for the US sorting this out for free and the UK saying 'go whistle', well that's no surprise. My son's laptop's wireless bit stopped working about a month out of warranty. It's 'known issue' with Hewlett Packard in the States and very easy & free to get repaired, but over here? Fat chance! In the end I just bought a plug in wireless adaptor.

 

Go for it Bookie! :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phone call a moment ago: they're prepared to take back the TV and refund me minus a 40% usage allowance, which would give me about £840 to buy a new one. The way the prices have dropped in the last few years, it would allow me to buy an equivalent or slightly better no problem, as long as it is a cash refund, not a credit to my catalogue account, obviously (forgot to check, but I'll kick off on that if need be, after all, I have paid in full, so to coin a phrase: it's my money! :razz:).

 

Very tempted to accept straight away, I have to say, I've got so much on my plate just now, and I do feel it is quite a fair offer.

 

Comments? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd take it - with reservation.

 

Compared to a replacement or repair, it is probably the most proportionate. You would also be the worse off imho if you sought compensation.

 

Looks like they have complied with the letter of the law at least.

 

However 40% - is that a bit too harsh? A three year old TV having a lifespan of 7 years? Hmmm. Dunno. May have a fight arguing otherwise...

 

Grab it and run, I say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as refund is by cheque and not by credit to your account that seems reasonable to me.

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...