Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
  • 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

Ruthbridge chasing old Direct Auto Finance Yes Car 'debt'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2004 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,

 

I received a letter from Ruthbridge over a DLC debt which has been assigned to them,

 

this is very old although payments were being made to dlc through a dmc in 2011.

 

I received this letter threatening to make me bankrupt!

 

I decided to send a CCA request to them and have just received a reply today returning my postal order.

 

This states

 

'we write further to your recent correspondence requesting information with regard to our reasons for contacting you.

 

We take note of the points you have raised in your correspondence, however we must advise we are not in a position to reply with your request at this stage as we are required to verify information we have been provided with yourself for the purposes of data protection in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

We would appreciate it if you would contact our offices so that we can complete the necessary verification and address and further queries you may have with regards to this matter'

 

Obviously it is a trick to try and get me to call them, but where does this leave me with the CCA request bearing in mind they returned the p order?

 

I should also point out that this debt is no where on my credit file and I think the original agreement must have been way back in about 2004/5, I doubt there is any chance they would have the original agreement.

 

Thanks

 

roadhog

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

so a spoofing DCA

chasing a debt for another spoofing DCA

 

that you sadly got spoofed into paying via a fee paying ? DMC

when you prob didn't need to pay in the first place.

 

they've had their pound of flesh already

 

its always wise to ignore them.

 

until you get advise from here.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks DX, but where do I stand with the CCA request now?

I sent it recorded delivery etc but they returned the postal order asking me to verify information.

 

Will the CCA request stand meaning the debt cant be enforced until they comply or can they actually issue me with a statutory demand and bankrupt me?

 

thanks

 

roadhog1

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much are Ruthbridge claiming as the amount claimed will determine whether or not the could apply for bankruptcy. Having had dealings with Ruthbridge I supect this is just one of their bog standard computerised letters aimed at frightening you.

 

As for additional information, you could of course write to them and ask them to explian precisely what is required

 

I cannot for the life of me understand why a DCA would write to you in this manner and then concede that they are not sure who you are. Therefore when they respond you could always respond by questioning why they sent a demand in the first place if they are unsure that you are the person they wish to contact.

 

PLEASE REMEBER THAT PHONE CALLS TO DCA'S ARE AN ABSOLUTE NO NO WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.

Edited by Crocdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never seen a statutory demand or bankruptcy petition issued by this horrible little debt collection agency. You have made your request quite clear, if you really want to then send a CCA request to the original creditor too. A fishing letter by them threatening to cancel Christmas and then a letter saying 'we aren't really sure if it is you !!

 

Send their correspondence to the OFT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are claiming about £3,500.00. This is an ancient debt, the original agreement is well over six years ago although like I say payments were made to DLC via a dmc up until July 2011.

 

Thanks

 

roadhog1

Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't really sure what to do....and that is why they have responded like they have done, they are desparate to speak to you to bully you into paying. And I would only recommend talking to them on the phone if you can record the calls, saying that, they obviously do not have a telephone number for you (luckily). Otherwise if they do call then you could try this - POST #56 - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?131475-Dealing-with-DCA-s-phone-calls/page3&highlight=patronising

Link to post
Share on other sites

we all pretty much know the DMC's here

 

many are 'in bed' with various DCA's or ex employee that

set them up.

 

get more money from mugs that way

 

who were they?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They were debt free direct I think. They were paying DLC at the time who had the debt then, the original debt was Auto Finance Direct which was an extortionate car finance company.

 

roadhog

Link to post
Share on other sites

aha - Auto Finance Direct

lots of thread about that lot

everyone shows the customer were fleeced blind.

 

poss time to SAR them

 

i bet theres LOADS to reclaim.

 

alot of their agreements were borderline fraud

 

type their name in our search top right

 

dx

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

who?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Hi,

 

I have received letters from DLC regarding a direct auto finance debt from 2004?

 

 

I have not heard anything since 2013 when this debt was with Ruthridge,

I send a CCA letter asking for credit agreement and they could not provide any details and heard nothing further.

 

 

Recently I started getting letters from DLC and now a letter from Mortimer Clarke with a 14 day notice to apply for judgment.

 

 

I think I made payments under a DCA until March 2009 so would be coming up to statute barred.

 

 

my plan is to send a CCA letter to DLC and MClarke by recorded delivery.

Is this the right way to go?

Is it the case that they cannot issue proceedings before providing me with this information?

Not sure what to do with this one really...

 

Thankyou

 

roadhog1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you actually received a claim form roadhog?..its not clear from your post.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can still issue a court claim but cannot enforce in court while in default of your CCA request. As the agreement is prior to 2006 they would need the original agreement and not a reconstructed to enforce as the old Section 127(3) CCA 1974 will still apply.

 

The way to go is to send another CCA request direct to Mortimer Clarke.

 

If the last payment was made in 2009 then it will be almost cetainly statute barred now and an absolute defence.

 

These old car agreements are easy to defend anyway as they usd any deposit for the insurance crap, and not the car. Have you claimed back any of that PPI nonsense??

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for your prompt response.

No claim form, 14 day letter saying they will issue.

 

Just looked at the mortimer clarke letter again and their client is ME III limited.

 

I've not received any correspondence from them at all.

 

Last letter from DLC was saying it was being passed to cabot financial who may issue then got a 14 day from MClarke.

 

So if I send a CCA letter to them do I say..

...I do not acknowledge any debt with ME III Ltd or still your company?

 

Cant say for sure re:- statute barred regarding last payment through DCA,

how would I find out this information?

 

thanks

 

roadhog1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes CCA request to Mortimer clarke as they are the solicitors threatening legal action on behalf of their clients. Send recorded delivery. Use a template in the forum library

 

Remember to use the Mortimer Clarke reference number in the letter they sent you

 

If last payment was 2009 or any written communication it would have become statute barred in 2015

 

Your request being a HP agreement will be under section 79 CCA.

I always myself put under section 77-79 CCA 1974 myself to avoid any confusion.

But that is just me

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for your prompt response. No claim form, 14 day letter saying they will issue. Just looked at the mortimer clarke letter again and their client is ME III limited. I've not received any correspondence from them at all. Last letter from DLC was saying it was being passed to cabot financial who may issue then got a 14 day from MClarke. So if I send a CCA letter to them do I say.....I do not acknowledge any debt with ME III Ltd or still your company? Cant say for sure re:- statute barred regarding last payment through DCA, how would I find out this information?

 

thanks

 

roadhog1

 

Thread moved to the Debt Collection Agencies Forum.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what you say it doesnt really have legs but if you do nothing they will think that you wont be bothered to defend a claim.

I bet that the CCA request will elicit a response that they dont have the paperwork but they know you still owe the money but are putting their collection activites on hold for the moment..

Link to post
Share on other sites

old and new thread merged for history

best to go read the thread from post 1 again everyone.

 

all the DCA's sols you mention are all part of the same group

so its simply willy waving.

 

so you are indicating that after the last thread you paid someone?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi, following on from this.

 

I now have an update.

 

Dlc have provided a copy of the original agreement from 2004.

Unfortunately the last payment made was in august 2011 so not statute barred till August! .

 

there is ppi which doesnt make sense to me and has never been claimed.

 

It looks like deposit has been made up etc.

 

Any ideas as to what to do next?

 

Do i have defence when they issue?

 

Happy to defend if theres a chance .

 

Definitely dont want a ccj though.

 

Many thanks

 

Roadhog1

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the deposit has been used for ythe insurance crap and not the cost of the vehicle you can use that. Did it myself with Yes Car finance.

 

Put simply it impacts the prescribed terms as in APR and the total amount of credit is misstated.

 

If the agreement fails to comply with s61(1)(a) CCA 1974 the court cannot enforce

 

As the agreement is pre-2007 section 127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 will kick in and scrub the agreement

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

scan up to pdf what they sent please

upload

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

It was yes car credit and the deposit shows on the PPI part not the vehicle cost. The car was actually given back to them because it didn't work and they failed to fix it. I will upload the PDF as soon as I get home.

 

 

thanks for your responses

 

 

Roadhog1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...