Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
    • The Barclay Card conditions is complete. There was only 3 pages. This had old address on. Full CCA. 15 pages. The only personal info is my name and address. Current Address The rest just like a generic document.  Barclays CCA 260424.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Moorcroft - letters to deceased demanding payment o2 debt


PDTS
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4927 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

 

Can anyone give me advice re Moorcroft Debt Recovery tactics please?

 

My mother has opened a letter from Moorcroft Debt Recovery addressed to my father who died last year. They are demanding money allegedly owed to phone company 02. It appears that even though my brother informed 02 that my father had died a few days after his death and my mother no longer wished to continue the phone contract the 'debt' which is claimed is almost £500 has been passed to Moorcroft. My father did not owe a penny so I have no idea how this sum has been reached.

 

I have advised my mum not to worry as the letter is not addressed to her, but the letter is threatening court action/baliffs. Had I seen the letter, I would have returned it unopened marked 'deceased' and 'not at this address'. Advice please as mum is in no position to pay such a large amount, even if dad owed it in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice would be to send a letter, does not really matter whether from you or your Mother informing Moorcroft that the person to who the letter is addressed died a while ago and further inform them that the OC (o2) had been informed at the time.

 

Should they insist by writing any further, come back onto CAG and there will be further assistance available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thebereavementregister.org.uk/

 

Add your fathers details onto the bereavement register also.

 

Contact O2 and tell them in no uncertain terms that unless they call off their chosen third party threat monkey, you will seek legal advice with a view to suing for damages against both O2 and Moorcr@p.

As you say IF there were any liability owed, then they should have put in a vested interest when Probate was being granted, as they didn't they lose. tough cheddar.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I am the brother mentioned by the O.P. We entered dad's details onto the bereavement register a few days after he died - almost a year ago now. As Dad's estate consisted largely of their home and very little else, we were advised that there was no need to go to probate as Mum was the sole beneficiary, and as far as we knew he had no debts. However it strikes me as strange that they have taken until now to try and reclaim the "debt". Do you think they are "trying it on"?

Rob - reclaiming what's mine :)

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent to Smile 9/10/2006

Partial repayment - £1700

Link to post
Share on other sites

My sincere condolences to you and your family. You've been through enough without dealing with this.

 

Press office a very good idea, if they have one. You should mention other DCA blunders, the most sick one I've heard about was the case of Beryl Brazier.

 

DCAs chasing deceased people is not uncommon. They're amazing at what depths they will sink to.

 

My personal reply would be to write to Moorcr@p and give them my relative's new address :) Not to everyone's taste of course. (Please exscuse my SOH but I've had a bit of a run in years ago with these bunch of numpties).

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

Please don't take this in the wrong way as it's not intended to belittle the serious nature of your post at a distressing time -- however with DCA's like moorcr@p it's always worth "Baiting" them.

 

In addition to the suggestions outlined in previous posts such as harassement etc also send their letter back with a statement saying that the person concerned DOES NOT LIVE at the this address any more so please in future address all correspondence regarding this matter to her current address C/O "The Holy Ghost, Heaven" and then let them get on with it.

 

Knowing moorcr@p with their "pre-pubescent teen" and other "divisions" they will probably try to send it to that address too.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I didn't expect such a response to my question.:-) I'll get together with my bro in a couple of days and devise a suitable reply to Moorcr@p & Co. I'll keep you posted if there are any further developments.

 

PD x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update as promised. Moorcr@p have now left a message on Mum's answerphone asking my dead father to ring them. I rang explaining he was deceased but was told they couldn't discuss anything with me as it was a 'data protection matter' and they needed to speak with the person concerned. Doh, dimwits! :evil: Mum was distressed at first but has decided that if they ring again to take babybear and jimbo's advice and give them the cemetary address. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is cause for a major complaint.

OFT/TS/MP/PRESS/BBC Watchdog.

OFT&TS Via http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact

Local MP Via http://www.writetothem.com/

The Press Via http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/article240522.ece

BBC Watchdog http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/gotastory/

Credit Services Association (of which these fools are members) http://www.csaconsumers-uk.com/page/i-have-a-complaint

 

If they continue to ring, report them to your local Police station for harassment. P.S. they don't know how to spell data protection least of all understand what it entails, morons..:noidea:

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's 2 people from Moorcr@p you can contact via email (Trust me these work as they emailed back when I refused to deal with them in writing)

 

[email protected]

 

[email protected]

 

They are compliance officers. I would not phone them if they will only speak to somebody that's dead (Which is vile and nasty)

 

EDIT: Dunno why the space is in the first addy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's 2 people from Moorcr@p you can contact via email (Trust me these work as they emailed back when I refused to deal with them in writing)

 

[email protected]

 

 

[email protected]

 

They are compliance officers. I would not phone them if they will only speak to somebody that's dead (Which is vile and nasty)

 

EDIT: Dunno why the space is in the first addy

 

The site does the space thingy...

 

When I'm bored I might email them later :)

Edited by babybear39
too many laters :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Result! Wrote to 02 and emailed Moorcr@p. As suspected, no reply from latter but received an apology for the distress caused from 02 agreeing account was closed at the time of my father's death so there is nothing owing. Hmm, they may not have heard the last of me though. My mum was really upset by this and apology or not, I'm still angry. :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

I think that as well, because what they've done is ... inexcusable.

Edited by Cartaphilus
Shortened my post.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...