Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Post the NTK up here for the regulars to double-check. I highly doubt it's compliant with POFA though. Ignore the deforestation that comes unless it's ever a letter of claim. Any luck with the organ grinder?
    • Probably the case @lookinforinfo Also an update, I've got the registered keeper letter. Just to check that I continue to ignore it until PAP letter comes in?
    • Thanks very much Bank. I've now done a lot of reading and have drafted my Letter of Claim as attached. I look forward to your comments. 16Apr24 draft Letter of Claim against Parcel2Go.pdf16Apr24 draft Letter of Claim against Parcel2Go.pdf16Apr24 draft Letter of Claim against Parcel2Go.pdf
    • ive already CAREFULLY explained how it all works earlier. what you will have to pay is already preset and detailed on the court forms/TfL stuff you already have. you wont be asked any questions upon your financial means etc. thats not under debate . you wont be asked upon any mitigating circumstances, you have pleaded guity which you always SHOULD.  the ONLY 2 reasons you are attending is to: 1) after finding the TfL prosecutor... plead directly face to face before you go in to try and get an OOC (you can bring up or say anything/everything you like ...anything that might get them to agree) 2) if 1 fails...show your genuine remorse face to face to the magistrate, BRIEFLY mention how a criminal record would hinder your future then hope they take pity on you and dont also record this on your file.  PS its only declarable/shows there for one year anyway. regardless to what an employer might ask in job questionnaires past 1yrs you forget about it. they cannot see it even on enhanced DBS etc etc. you should not latterly ever appeal a criminal record for this type (1yrs)  of 'offence' its not worth it and if you lose said appeal it will cost your dear in terms of additional wages grabbing and court fees. and extends the time it shows if you lose too. dx  
    • hit letter of claim follow post 2 despite repeated requests, the claimant has failed to produce any enforceable paperwork.
  • 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

ScarletPimpernel vs. Regal {RBS]


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5523 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

A letter this morning, out of the blue, from Regal Credit Consultants, with a catchy red band across the top with 'NOTICE' on it. They demand payment of a debt they claim is owed to RBS.

 

Interestingly, there are no threats of immediate legal action; no mention of bailiffs, or attachments of earnings. It simply says that if they don't hear from me they will "need to explore all options", which may include "recommending to our client that legal action is taken".

 

I have no previous experience of this lot, but it struck me that the standard threat-o-gram has been toned down, probably since the introduction of CPUTR.

 

Anyway, to test my theory (and because I couldn't resist), I phoned them. The phone monkey was neither rude nor aggressive; she didn't interrupt; after I warned her that RBS were in default of a CCA she didn't ask me for a payment. In fact, the only slight disagreement was when she tried to claim that making any payment on a credit card acount amounts to accepting legal liability for a subsequent debt, but that was quickly dealt with. She acknowledged that DCAs have no legal powers. She claimed not to be aware of the CCA, but showed reasonable knowledge of the OFT guidance, to the extent that when I told her that not only were RBS in default of a CCA, what they had sent was entirely unenforceable, and the alleged debt was disputed, she said, without prompting, that they would now cease all activity.

 

I asked if she was aware of CPUTR, and she told me "we've touched on it, it's only just come in". She didn't know much about it, but when I said that failing to comply with a code of practice such as OFT guidance is now prosecutable, she said: "I've confirmed that it's on hold, and this call's recorded".

 

So, is this an anomaly, or are some DCAs realising that they can't keep getting away with their old non-compliant practices.

 

Anyway, Ive sent them a short note inviting them to insert the file in RBS' corporate hoop, and will wait to see what happens.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey SP, all that without her even having to ask a grown up!!:D:D

 

Think you may well be right about the new regs having an impact. I have only had one DCA, (RMA) contact me in the last five weeks. When I told them the account was in dispute and asked them for their complaints procedure, they promptly returned it to the OC.

 

Would be nice to think that the industry is cleaning up it's act but I can't help thinking of leopards & spots and when they get to grips with it, (or find new ways round it), they will be back.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

...and so it goes on. A couple of weeks ago I had a letter from Moorcroft about this RBS card account. I sent my standard 'dispute' letter, receipt of which they acknowledged.

 

However, today I received another threatogram. I rang Moorcroft and spoke to one of the compliance people, who was very polite and businesslike; it was confirmed that their system shows that the debt is disputed. Now here's the thing: they clearly understood that the letter is non-compliant; I got an apology, and was told that they'd asked RBS to comment on the dispute, and had no reply, so they'd be sending the file back to RBS with the recommendation that they take no further action because the alleged debt can't be collected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...