Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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

no credit agreement help please


bha100
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5265 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

I have been helping out a friend with a debt that was originally with bank of scotland but has been bought by the boys at 1st credit, we sent off the caa letter and they did the usual reply and followed up with a copy of the assignment letter and about 20 pages of statements but no credit agreement.

Great i thought they must not have one, the debt dates back to 2001.

 

Anyhow it seems that back in may 08 first credit got a ccj against him, he went along to the court and got an agreed to pay £5 p/m which he has been doing.

 

So my question is, i guess 1st credit must not have any agreement but as hes been to court and the ccj registered can he still tell them where to go and get that ccj removed, my thoughts were that you can't inforce something thats uninforceable, any help with the next move, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have already had one bite of the cherry in defending the case the first time around your chances of having the original judgment set aside are minimal. You can certainly try though.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slim, but not impossible. If you can make a case that the agreement was not enforceable but you previously been led to believe it was then you stand a chance.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

The boys and girls at 1st Crud towers caught out a friend of mine with a statute barred debt dating back to 2000,

 

back in January this year he foolishly paid them £5 when they contacted him about it,

 

More recently he sent a cca request which all they sent was a load of statements,

then he sent the failed to comply letter they just wrote back saying pay up,

 

my question is they dont have a vaild agreement,

a ccj was registered against this debt back 2000 but i guess that as he paid £5 the six years will start again but can they do anything through the courts now, or should he just tell them to take a run and jump, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a CCJ in place it doesn't become Statute Barred, however if they haven't enforced the CCJ in that time they would need to apply to the court to enforce it & would have to show a very good reason.

 

The CCJ should have dropped off his credit file so the chances are they are not aware of the CCJ anyway, so he might as well send the Statute Barred letter . The onus is on them to prove otherwise. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

once stat barred always stat barred stop paying them -

 

Question that needs answering - was there a clear 6 year period with no payments?

 

Thanks, hes going to check to see if he can find any statements but it was so long but hes 99% 6 years had passed with no contact, what about the ccj does that make any difference? would it be worth sending a sar to the original creditor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a CCJ in place it doesn't become Statute Barred, however if they haven't enforced the CCJ in that time they would need to apply to the court to enforce it & would have to show a very good reason.

 

. ;)

 

really?

Link to post
Share on other sites

really?

 

County Court Judgement

 

If the creditor has previously taken you to court and you have received a County Court Judgement, you will be unable to use the Limitations Act 1980 to dispute the debt. If the judgement is over 6 years old the creditor may need the permission of the Court to enforce the debt.

The Limitation Act 1980 | Debt Advice | Payplan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hes in a bit of a mess with this one, seems back in 2000 he made on and off token payments until around 2005 then crud bought it in 2006,crud then got a ccj in 2008 to which he was ordered to pay £5 pm so s barred is out.

 

they do not have a valid agreement but does the fact crud have a ccj make it a loss cause for him, should i advise him to just keep paying the £5 pm. thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

imho

 

i would look at the case again. these people will want their pound of flesh.

 

 

lilly

 

Oh yes they will, with no valid agreement but a ccj in place is he up the creek without a paddle, what else can i tell him to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...