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

Another DCA ploy


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4783 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

Thought that ODC and tea and toast i didnt think it was fair to put the muppets name up , after all he is only trying to make a living. lol

 

I wouldn't worry about it. He probably doesn't exist but, if he does, he deserves to have his name and address broadcast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick phonecall confirms his name as Alex Robins , and he states it is not illegal to send out postcards and it is common buisness practice , i refused to give him any reference number so he bid me farewell.

 

You may want to ring the clown up again and point out the OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the relevant guidleines :

 

Communication

2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear,

inaccurate or misleading manner.

2.2 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. use of official looking documents intended or likely to mislead

debtors as to their status, for example, documents made to resemble court

claims.

b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it

creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors'

lack of knowledge

c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who

they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the

contact is

d. unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language, for

example, use of Latin phrases

e. failing to provide debtors or creditors with information on status

of debts, for example, not providing requested balance statements when

reasonably requested

f. contacting debtors at unreasonable times

g. ignoring or disregarding debtors' legitimate wishes in respect

of when and where to contact them, for example, shift workers who

ask not to be telephoned during certain times of the day

h. asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate

telephone numbers

 

Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals

b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further

borrowing or to extend their borrowing

c. using more than one debt collection business at the same time

resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties

d. not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as

appropriate resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different

parties

e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a

different debt collector

f. pressurising debtors to pay in full, in unreasonably large instalments,

or to increase payments when they are unable to do so

g. making threatening statements or gestures or taking actions which

suggest harm to debtors

h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are

disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

i. disclosing or threatening to disclose debt details to third parties unless

legally entitled to do so

j. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either

deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting

correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox,

thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it

creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors'

lack of knowledge

 

e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a

different debt collector

 

You are too kind Babybear. I would add the above 2 as well less word 'different' in some instances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr Robins

Following our recent and short telephone conversation, in which you stated , that postcards addressed to the occupier of an address was quite legal and common business practice i would like to advise you of the OFT guidelines on unfair practices. Those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the

contact is. Acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either

deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox,thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

I trust that this will make the matter clear to you and your company . I have forwarded my complaint to the Office of fair trading regarding your behaviour. I have deliberatley ommited any contact details for myself , in order that your company might think twice when considering sending out phishing mail in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I had one of those cards this morning and called the number and spoke to a narky woman. She said it was a tracing dept and asked me for the ref so I told her to go an whistle for it and was reporting them to the OFT" :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I have added to this thread as an open postcard was addressed to 'The Occupier' at our office block, now there are about 6 companies working in this office block and it was posted through the main door....it requests to call Leon on 01482 380680 and a reference number and in the tiniest printed writing it says '2f is a trading name of Wescot Credit Services Ltd. Registered in Scotland...(and an unreadable number) And their 'registered' office Kyleshill House, 1, Glencairn Street, SALTCOATS, Ayrshire, KA21 5JT

 

This will of course be sent to the OFT.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...