Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • we have known for a very very long time that 9/10 the OC never knows IRRWW are chasing debtors nor  in some cases even taking money from them that the OC never ever see!! IDRWW pockets it -  free money - lets all go on a staff holiday. there was an article some years back whereby that quoted some +£4M debtors had paid to IDRWW on UAE debts that when contacted the originating banks knew nothing about....😎  
    • let the ombudsman do their job. you'll win handsdown you dont obv owe OVO p'haps anything at all.  dont worry about Past Due credit or any other DCA ( THEY ARE NOT BAILIFFS!) as for you being added to the debt, thats quite OK, you were a resident adult and equally liable under law. once you start getting things moving via the  ombudsman dont forget to get your credit files cleansed of any negative data & seek compensation for distress etc, again the  ombudsman should sort both out for you. as you are now NOT a customer of OVO, there is very very little they can do to you now.  
    • A question - did you use the supermarket or the restaurant? I see the restrictions are different. Sign.pdf
    • DN is ok DCA NOA is ok, though not one from Newday saying they've sold it. agreement states esigned on a sunday at 11am?? really??  but no typed names or tick box nor any IP address used. if the date is correct then poss ok, it that your correct address for that time of take out? but if not, then that could simply be a copy of someone elses they've used with you details copy'n'pasted over theirs. the agreement details separate T&C's in at least 8.4. a full set of T&C containing your correct address for the time MUST be included. failure renders the agreement unenforceable... have you the T&C's too? dx
    • Npower and Scottish Power and others have always had regulations that require them to treat customers fairly - the threads here and my experiences demonstrate that those regs are little more than useless.   Even Octopus recently spent month after month saying they needed to increase my monthly payments despite my credit balance slowly going up TWICE I had to reset it online back to prior payment as they unilaterally increased it unilaterally. Raised formal complaint and they than said i was paying too much and reduced the payment, again without my agreement, although that time at least they told me they were doing it.   .. and Octopus has been one of the better ones.    
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

me v creation


everton2005
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4473 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

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

In the most basic terms, they have said they are unable to find an agreement, you have it in writing, so until they can find one, enforcement not possible.

 

(I believe if it went to court, that true copy they refer to would HAVE to have your signature on it!)

 

HOWEVER, when was this account opened? Was it opened online (the 2006 regulations don't require a CCA for electronically created agreements...)

 

 

Others will probably be able to go into more complex reasons. These are the basics I have so far gleaned from reading this site.

When you've had all the help you need, make sure you stick around to help others too!

Just think, if everyone left the site after they'd got their help, there might not be anyone left the next time YOU come back needing more assistance!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No CCA - no enoforceable debt - admitted by these people in writing, keep the letter very safe and write back thanking them, also tell them to stop processing any data about you and to get lost.

 

:D:D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Lol. Well, for a start it is illegible and they must send you a legible copy. Your signature is there and there is a reference to a credit limit in the part for Store Use but there is no interest rate and no repayment schedule, so 2 prescribed terms required on an agreement are missing. This is an application form not an agreement and it is illegible. It is therefore unenforceable. Your reply to them is that it is illegible and does not fulfill the requirements of the CCA 1974 for a legible copy.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Send something like this (adapt it to suit)

Dear xxxxxxx

Account/Reference Number

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

This account is in Dispute.

On xxxxxx I wrote to xxxxxxx requesting that you supply me a true copy of the executed credit agreement for this account.

In response to this request I was supplied a mere application form which did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The document sent purporting to be a credit agreement does not contain any of the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) made under the authority of the “1974 Act” sets out what the prescribed terms are, I refer you to Schedule 6 Column 2 of SI 1983/1553 for the definition of what is required. Suffice to say none of the terms are present in the document.

 

Since this document does not contain the required prescribed terms it is rendered unenforceable by s127 (3) consumer Credit Act 1974, which states

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

In addition should you continue to pursue me for this debt you will be in breach of the OFT guidelines, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

I require you to produce a compliant copy of my credit agreement to confirm I am liable to you or any organisation, which you represent for this alleged debt, if you cannot do so I require written clarification that this is the case. Should you ignore this request I will report you to the Office of Fair Trading to consider your suitability to hold a credit licence in addition to a complaint to Trading Standards, as you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40.

 

Since the agreement is unenforceable, it would be in everyone’s interest to consider the matter closed and for your client to write the debt off. I suggest you give serious consideration to this as any attempt of litigation will be vigorously defended and I will counter claim for all quantifiable damages.

 

I respectfully request a response to this letter in 14 days.

 

Yours sincerely

Edited by clemma
Wrong letter posted
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...