Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

Trust deed that has lasted for 6 years! Help!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4357 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

Nearly 6 years ago I signed a trust deed, I was advised that this would be the best route to take as I could not pay debts that had mainly been incurred as a result of my husband entering into an ill judged buiness arrangement. I signed the trust deed before a valuation was carried on the IPs instructions. In my opinion the valuation was considerably over the market value of the house and I argued this but nothing was done at this time i have continued to pay the agreed amount every month. At the end of 3 years I was told that the IP still had an interest in the house, at that time I gathered evidence that the house had been overvalued by showing the prices other houses in the street had been sold for at the time of valuation and also information showing over valuation based on the Bank of Scotland Scottish Price Index and the Nationwide house price calcullator, in addition I paid for a chartered Surveyor to carry ou a retrospective valuation, all this information confirmed thay the value of my house was approximately £106000 and not £123,600. (I have an interest only mortgage of £95,000). I received information back from the IP saying that additional sums were still required to allow the equity to be bought out. That was in March 2010 and I'm still paying my monthly contribution. I have no way to raise this sum and I cannot remortgage due to my credit rating, I have lived in the same home for the last 16 years and have 2 children to look after, I decided on the trust deed as I was told that I could stay in my home. After all this time and worry can they still force me to sell my home and end up homeless? Also my husband and i have been separated for 7 years and although his name was not on the mortgage he considers that he still has an interest in the equity of the house if I sell it, I'm not sure how this affects the situation? Can anyone give me any advice about what I should do. From what I can see from the statements my IP sent me, (not had one of these for a few years) it shows that all I'm really doing is contributing to the IP's annual fees. A solicitor suggested going to see an Advocate that specialises in these matters, but I'm sure that will cost thousands too?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi 6 year trust, Have you spoke to your solicitor to find out if you can get legal aid, i dont know much about trust deeds, hopefully someone who does will be along.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Without knowing the full terms of the Trust Deed it is difficult to comment as the process CAN be extended beyond the normal 3 year period. However if you want to lodge a complaint you should contact the following.

 

If the client thinks that the trustee's actions are unreasonable or contrary to the law, s/he could make a complaint to the company that the trustee works for and/or the professional body that the trustee is registered with. If the trustee is an accountant, complaints should be made to:-

91 Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

CA House

21 Haymarket Yards

Edinburgh

EH12 5BH

 

Tel: 0131 347 0100

Fax: 0131 347 0105

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.icas.org.uk

92 If the trustee is a solicitor, a complaint should be made to:-

The Law Society of Scotland

26 Drumsheugh Gardens

Edinburgh

EH3 7YR

 

Tel: 0131 226 7411

Fax: 0131 225 2934

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.lawscot.org.uk

The Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB) has a general power of supervision and audit of protected trust deeds. The AiB can investigate complaints about trustees but will expect the client to have raised her/his concerns with the trustee and their governing body first.

 

I hope this information is of assistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In many cases the Trust Deed is extended in circumstances wher the debtor owns a property in order to buy out the equity without selling the property. There are a few other examples relating to assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...