Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. 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 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 reading 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. 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 that 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 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.  
    • 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
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • 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

RBS/Carter claimform - Mint Card - CCA Is This Enforeable?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2050 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

Hi,

Ive CCA'd Mint for my card agreement and they have seemingly sent a good copy of a signed agreement.

They also attached a 3 pages of a photocopied set of Terms & Conditions.

Lots of very small print that will not scan & copy very well so have not included it here at the moment.

 

Could someone please have a look at the Credit agreement an tell me if you think that it is enforceable or what action to take next to try and verify it.

 

They sent current T&C's plus a Card re-issue letter with associated T&C's

Also current outstanding values owed to the account.

The signature, dates, my information and name all seem to be correct.

Have also attached the letter they sent with it.

 

Hope you can give me some good news.

Thanx

Murph

Edited by MurphyW
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanx Cerberus,

Appreciated the fast reply and clear help pointers.

I'll read through that and see where i go next.

O/S balance approx £10k

Will I need to CPS to get docs or SARN them?

Yours

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could try them with this first;

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

This account is in Dispute .

 

On xx/xx/2009 I wrote to xxxxxxxxx requesting that xxxxxxx 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 refer to 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 and the default notice is non compliant, 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

 

 

I trust this out lines the situation

Print name do not sign

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cerberus,

Thank you for pointing out the missing aspects that are required.

I wouldn't have known what I was looking for.

I've done a letter as suggested and will send it recorded delivery.

On the 19th june I received a letter advising of my account termination.

See copy of 2 pages here.

 

Do I need to respond to this and in what way please?

I much appreciate all this help as things were getting pretty bad all round.

Yours

Murph

Edited by MurphyW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cerberus,

Yes, they sent me a default notice way back on the 20th May 2009, received 23/05/09, along with OFT Leaflet

 

They also sent a letter acknowledging my I & E financial statement separately on the same day.

 

Where does this leave me now?

Will the letter that I've just done based on your suggestion above create a delay or should I be looking at going down the CPR route?

Thanks for your help.

Yours

Murph

Edited by MurphyW
Revising picture links - Same documents as originals
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Default Notice is defective because they are required to stipulate a remedy date, it is not sufficient just to state that it has to be remedied within 17 days of the date of the notice. When they terminate the a/c they will only be able to claim the arrears, the remaining balance will in effect have to be written off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi Cerberus,

Well it has been quite quiet for some time.

They did respond to my SA request with a load of papers and the same application form as in my previous post.

 

No proper CCA with all the prescribed terms and signatures.

They have now sent me this letter threatening further action to sell the debt.

What 's the next possible course of action considering they have issued a duff default notice and there would not appear to be a true CCA?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

I'm not in a position to pay these people anything at the moment. I had hoped to be able to have a new business into profit by now but still struggling.

Murphy

Edited by MurphyW
Link to post
Share on other sites

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

They have finally passed the debt onto their lackeys at Triton (Owned by RBS) to collect some money. I don't think so!!

 

I don't have any! They do not have a valid CCA, did not issue the default notice correctly and have now terminated the account.

 

Should I write to Triton?

Which is the best letter to use.

Refer them back to Mint?

How should I proceed with Mint now?

Sorry to ask so many questions.

Yours Murphy

Edited by MurphyW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the fast reply Cerberus,

I take it that I amend that letter and address it to triton but referring to all details that have occurred with Mint rather than RBS who were the original lender.

How would I find out what date they entered a default notice on my credit file please?

Yours

Murphy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Don't be too exasperated with me!!

Thanks for the heads up over my name.

I usually try to check but must have been in a bit of a hurry with that one.

Have changed the links IMG's. Thanks for the tip.

Murphy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cerberus,

I signed up for the credit file check.

There is an initial one off registration fee to pay of £2.50 but this gives you access to the key relevant bits of the different accounts and their status.

You can get more information by paying a wee bit more of £4.97 per year if anyone wants to.

I suggest that these are both great value when viewed avgainst the competition "Check my file" etc.

Yours

Murphy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There,

I sent the letter but took out the references to the data protection bit as they have not got a default registered with the credit reference agencies.

The flag has been set to Green OK rather than D even after the 6 months of missed / reduced payments.

I'll keep that bit for later if the indicator is changed.

Yours

Murphy

Letter as here: -

Edited by MurphyW
Added Picture of letter sent
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi again,

They've now passed my letter 17 back to Mint who have acknowledge it by saying that they are looking into the matter!

 

It will be interesting to see what they have to say next.

Will keep you up to date as and when.

Murphy

Edited by MurphyW
Added Letter Picture File
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well they've taken a while to enjoy their xmas break and Triton have decide they need to try and move things along.

I've not had any response from the enquiries that Mint were going to make yet!

Triton think they can push with this letter: -

 

 

I think I'll write and refer them to Mint's response and my last letter and tell them to stop chasing me for payment.

Has anyone any other ideas how to treat this please?

Yours

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Empty threats M. Will do no harm to write and keep that paper trail going but no harm in ignoring it. Personally, i'd ignore it. It's empty :)

 

M

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi again,

Well time goes on and on 24th March 2010 Mint finally replied to my letter of contention basically refuting what i said and looks like challenging me to make the first move in a legal action on the second page ...

 

I decided to wait and see what they would do next.

No point in starting legal costs on my side.

Yours

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...