Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
  • 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

Moorcroft for Arrows - chasing OH's M+S card debt


marco23
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1622 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 all

i am writting this on behalf of my wife,

 

she had a large debt with marks & spencer credit card just over £9000,

she defaulted on payments and the debt was sold on to Moorcroft who aranged a repayment plan with her of £5 per month,

 

all has been well for two years and now they want her to complete an expenditure form,

 

i emailed them back saying they have no legal right to demand this and will not submit the inforation requested.

 

the online payment facility keeps taking her to the expenditure form page and wont take the payment, their is no CCJ on the account,where does she go from here ?

 

thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore moorcroft. Theyre total bottom feeders. Also, are you sure they bought it? They normally just chase on behalf of a creditor.

 

If they bought it, i would seriously question you blindly paying them without checking the validity of the debt.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

then dont pay online. Arrange a standing order for the fiver and do a CCA request tio see if they have the paperwork to enforce the debt. If thet dont you cancel the standing order. Refusal to accept the payment can invalidate the debt given enough time so take screen shots of the web pages to use against them and keep hard copies of all emails.

DONT use the phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moorcroft don't buy debts - who told you they'd purchased it???

 

 

look on their letters

who is stated as their client please...

when was the card taken out too?

 

 

please don't forget the golden rule

that applies to all her debts

a DCA IS NOT A BAILIFF

and has

NO LEGAL POWERS WHATSOEVER

 

 

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

many thanks for the replies guys,

they must be collecting it on behalf of M&S,

 

the account was opened around 2007,

trouble is the default is within 12 months of dropping of her credit file so she obviously doesn't want a CCJ at this stage,

 

probably better to send the letter asking to see the loan agreement ?

but i would have thought M&S credit card services would have this on file anyway or am i missing something here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact that the default is almost 6yrs doesn't mean anything.

 

 

a CCJ can still be attained after that and will still show.

who is their client please???

 

 

the original creditor would never do court

so stop being scared of that.

 

 

and if its it IS still owned by M+S

little point in a CCA request to them either

 

 

just ignore Moorcroft.

I would guess she stupidly started paying Moorcroft because at that time you'd not found CAG?

go pay M+S directly

 

 

cut out the DCA.

 

 

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

  • 2 years later...

hi all im having a bit of trouble if anyone can point me in the right direction

 

I have been paying Moorcroft Debt Recovery £5 per month for around 4 years on a 8k debt which was on a M&S credit card,

 

they are now insisting i complete a financial assessment form ,

i take it they are trying to up the payments,

 

i have never sent them a prove it letter and their is no CCJ on the account,

 

they say the agreement i have is informal and may not stop county court action,

 

what direction should i take,

,many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to moorcroft & M+S card debt

old and new threads merged 

 

now please re read and answer the outstanding questions?

like are moorcrofts client M+S?

why did you keep paying Moorcroft when you were advised before to doing stop that?

 

 

 

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

it was easier at the time to pay moorcroft as the payments were low and affordable,

the wife had had a nervous breakdown so i took over the repayment arrangements to take the pressure from her,

the debt was in effect sleeping while not making her ill,,

i hope you can understand

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks old Cogger,

i'm thinking now to stop the payment to moorcroft and put the debt into dispute by sending them a prove it letter

 

however i think the chances are slim that M&S don't have the documentation,,

somewhere in the cog of collection either M&S want the payments increased or Moorcroft do,

probably Moorcroft i suspect

but passing the buck to M&S by saying if i don't comply 'its an informal agreement that can be concluded with a CCJ'

Link to post
Share on other sites

??

forget stupid prove it letters.

 

follow post 8

 

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

may i ask why not?

or is it they just sell on for someone else to do the dirty work

 

its debt to M&S credit card services, other than that only Moorcroft have been involved in the collection

Link to post
Share on other sites

so still owned by the OC

they wont do court because of potential bad publicity.

so pay then directly via your banks interweb portal.

ignore and do not pay or anything at all Moorcroft.

 

 

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 wont be sending anymore payments to Moorcroft and shall contact the OC to pay direct.

 

i'm quite happy to make the monthly payments but was concerned as the debt is around 9K they may go for a CCJ then a charge on property, even those i could live with but 'i dont know' do they add interest on a property charge if so then that's when it gets scary, is it still not worth doing the CCA letter?

 

the account was opened around 2007

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as I've said there is little evidence of Original Creditors issuing any court proceedings.

there is NO evidence here that M+S do.

 

I didnt say contact the OC, just do it monthly by say BACS or automatically by setting up standing order via your banks interweb portal.

unless this was a store card upgraded to a credit card, there is little or no point in a CCA request to M+S the OC.

 

 

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

18 hours ago, marco23 said:

 

 

they are now insisting i complete a financial assessment form ,

 

 

Only  a court, HMRC or Council Tax Collections have the right to insist on a financial assessment form.   

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, London1971 said:

 

Only  a court, HMRC or Council Tax Collections have the right to insist on a financial assessment form.   

yeh their not getting that London, their not even getting a response, DX has given some valuable points and i thank you all

Link to post
Share on other sites

ahhhh, i just checked the letter from Moorcroft and its headed Re: Arrow Global LTD (sorry i missed that) so at some point it must have left the hands of M&S, does this change things now??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send Arrow a CCA request

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Send Arrow a CCA request

 

thank you,, i have no reference numbers or account number to include on the letter so should i use the moorcroft client ref number and moorcroft reference (two dif numbers) and make PO payable to Arrow Global ltd

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Andyorch said:

Yes

OK the CCA request has gone off in the post,

 

now if Arrow Global cant produce this then that chucks up an alternative route to the problem,

 

should they be able to enforce the debt 'with the CCA' then what route is best to keep it out of the County Court,

 

i can only see an increase in payments would do the trick,

 

my main objective is not to let it go to CC or worse even a charging order because this will make the wife ill again, 

 

so an increase in the monthly payment or an offer of full and final payment at say 50% of the debt

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...