Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Reason for asking is that I have come across someone with some Covid type symptons having a negative LFT and then having the PCR which also came back as negative. This person was advised to go thorugh this process by their employers. Was not sure why they did not just have the PCR.
  3. I thought ignorance would be better as I'm not a pro some judges have a little bit of leniency towards that.
  4. i must admit though this puzzles me ...what do you mean? and obv this is not the same address as the home your sole debts/sole owner co's are registered against?
  5. No need to respond, the court wont be concerned and if raised simply state that you thought it had.
  6. Today
  7. The whole thing seems bizarre this person is holding this vehicle and that he has had it so long and that he is not giving you any information and you have no idea what is going on. The only way to force his hand is to issue proceedings. If he fails to respond to those then apply the judgement and then put their sheriffs in. I'm afraid I'm completely out of ideas otherwise – and you seem to be as well. Revealing his identity on this forum, it's another way of putting pressure on him because if he realised that he was being discussed on social media, this might influence him to t
  8. then they need paying sadly i will bet Lloyds have sold the debt now along with the CCJ/CO to a debt buyer so you'll need to find out who owns the debt now. odds on it will have been sold, my guess to the Cabot Group. typically debt buyer might accept 70% to clear the registry.
  9. Its not fatal to your defence but it does give them opportunity to come at you and provides ammunition to discredit your statement. How should I respond to this if I'm asked?
  10. Threads merged. mortimer clarke are cabots solicitors and MEIII is a trading name of cabot. so Blackhorse sold the debt to the Cabot Group. so cabot own the CCJ/CO now it will need paying if what andyorch advised earlier still applies, which ofcourse it does. now as for paying it and getting it removed, if they have offered 30% off that means there is more to be had i bet but you'd have to SAR blackhorse and hope they still have all the details 10yrs later. then get out a fined toothed comb and study the statements to see why cabot are
  11. Sadly I think you are right. If she moved to another house in a virgin area they wouldn't make her pay up the rest of the contract just asked her to do another contract seems very unfair.
  12. But he hasn't once said that he wants money from us, or indeed that we need to pay for the repairs carried out. The only time he has made any reference to this is in one of our final conversations (end of March 2021), he said that "I was doing this as a favour for your dad". And when he spoke to my brother in law around about the same time, he said that he "had an agreement with your father in law (my dad) that he would contribute towards the cost of repairs if it was getting to a certain point regarding costs". But this so called conversation between the trader and my
  13. Hi dx Yes it is a Blackhorse one. It shows on land registry as a charge against the property. The house is jointly owned - but the agreement was also in joint names (B/H made us put it in both names). However, it is also a shared ownership property. We own half and a housing association the other half. It's now owned by someone called ME III Limited.
  14. Ludicrously yes , they cant break the contract because they offered to serve the original house for the minimum contract term whether she resides there or not...even though they offer a house moving service. Its not their fault they are not available in the new area and it was your daughters choice to move home mid contract. This whole minimum term contract nonsense really needs to be clamped down on by the regulator as it is its a win win position for the likes of the telecom industry, lets hope they treat your daughter with some discretion but I wouldn't hold my breath.
  15. If he's offering to settle he must have squeaky cheeks the team will dissect his WS and help point you in the right direction.
  16. now do you know its not a restriction k that doesn't need paying AT ALL> and i doubt its been passed around at all i bet the CO name is part of the Cabot Group. is this a joint debt and is the home jointly owned dx is this the blackhorse one?
  17. The costs remain the same as stated in the initial claim form N1.
  18. And by the way, don't expect it all to be straightforward. The fact that they are already ask you to sign agreements and making veiled threats in respect of social media references indicates that these people are not straight dealing. You may still find yourself in conflict with them but of course we will support you all the way. If they are reading the thread, they ought to understand that they are taking on some serious players
  19. Thank you. Makes perfect sense. I had just taken the pictures and video of the car inside/out and will take some more when its on the recovery truck. I will hand them over both car keys that came when I purchased along with the V5 log book. I won't sign anything if they ask me. Just quick one - I had initially purchased GAP insurance alongside the car. It says on the paper I have 30 days to cancel it. I assume I need to get this done, or will this be part of the finance step as it is them who issued the finance for it. Thanks BankFodder, your help means a l
  20. The legislation is not important. He can make the refund to you using any means which works for both of you – as long as you end up with the money.
  21. As stated earlier, the original method of payment was part-cash, part-BACS and the seller now says he's 'lost the code to the safe' so can only give us the BACS refund today and we would have to return tomorrow for the cash part of the refund. The seller suggested that he was obliged to refund via the original method of payment (despite being happy in principle to refund in full via BACS), but the legislation I quoted above suggests that the buyer can agree to a different method.
  22. You should certainly take pictures of the vehicle as it is being taken away and if you can get pictures of it on the recovery truck so much the better. In terms of negative postings online, they may well have seen this thread. They are not entitled to impose conditions of any sort. The consumer rights act is quite clear. You are entitled to a refund and also you would be entitled to recover all of your ancillary losses. If I were you I would refuse to sign anything and if they cause any trouble about the refund then we will go after the finance company. If they refer to this thr
  23. Well you could bring action in conversion but I suppose that if he says that he wasn't prepared to allow you access to the car because you owed him money then that might be a basis for defending that allegation. You really need a clear indication that he is dealing with the property in a way that only the user could. That he has converted your ownership into his by his actions – and a definite refusal to access the vehicle or to know where it is would be adequate to satisfy this requirement. I had thought from the information you are given so far that he had refused access to the vehicl
  24. I have no idea what you are banging on about – but quite frankly it's not very relevant. You have a certain right of refund and despite what regulations govern that refund, if the dealer isn't minded to respect your statutory rights, then you will still have to enforce that refund by going to court. The fact that you find one seller regulations which you think applies as opposed to a different set of regulations, doesn't make a whole lot of difference. It all depends on the attitude and the willingness of the dealer to step up to the mark.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...