Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • 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)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • 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

E-Petition - everyone please sign . Re. Debt Purchase and unfair Statutory Demand and Bankruptcy procedure use.


storm01
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3414 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 know you've been doing great work, helping people get set asides....well on all aspects really, no argument there ;-) It is purely that it DOES all need change, you are right there haha! And to think that £750 Bankruptcy threshold, the debt buyer would have paid under £75, (no point in guessing how much lower) and so the law presently lets them take your home/possessions even though they only paid out way under, hence a big part of my dispute, I want to see how much they paid, I expect the judge to view this figure. I don't think it is unreasonable. I argue that what was unsecured should never be changed to secured as that wasn't what was applied for from offset.

The latter is interesting (boom boom)....no seriously, some interest rates were raised and raised. The FOS occasionally look at whether there was good cause in the raises, paperwork and explaination. To think some started at maybe 14% and went to 29% especially if people miss a payment or so. (Just example).

 

 

Judges need a heads up on everything.

 

 

I may seem like I want the impossible, but I am trying to do this for everyone's sake, a lot of thought and experience has led to this petition.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I did mean the title of the thread, storm.. not the petition. Although I believe there have been many other petitions in respect of this particular issue.

 

 

 

I think the courts are waking up to the fact that many Debt purchasers are using Stat Demands innapropriately, so they arent all getting away with it. We have seen many SDs set aside on this forum and others.

 

What is so frustrating is that often the amounts are just over the BR limit of £750.00 which is crazy.

 

There really needs to be a total overhaul of the way debt is sold - pursued - collected.

 

I also believe that creditors should be forced to advise in their advertising and on their credit agreements that ALL debt, even unsecured debt can, if not repaid, land a person with a charge on their home or B/R

 

Please note that those Debt purchasers who use the Insolvency process to collect debt, tend to target home owners - there is little point in targetting someone who doesnt have any assets !

 

I think it should also be made clear that unsecured debt usually has a higher interest rate, so if they do manage to get a charge on a property, there should be some relief from the very high interest rates previously paid to the creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Signed and will post a link on Facebook. (To my 2 friends)

 

 

Thank you sooooo much....

 

 

I have run out of ideas.... did send to newspapers...and they didn't respond...too scared hahah. It is on various sites....but anyone is welcome to try any avenues they can think of.

 

 

COME ON CAGGERS.... GET SIGNING LOL (This is FOR YOUUUU)!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

REMINDER 100,000 signatures needed - please can you assist in trying to obtain.... to enable this to go to House Of Commons... potentially.

Every single person that is having trouble with DCAs or Debt buyers should be signing.... no pressure, as the choice is yours of course.... but it would help.

 

 

Thanks everyone :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed

 

I think that maybe the petition should be re worded to deal with *HOW* DCAs are allowed to breach the law and guidence as much as they like.

 

That the DCAs should only be allowed to recoup what they paid for the debt

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed

 

I think that maybe the petition should be re worded to deal with *HOW* DCAs are allowed to breach the law and guidence as much as they like.

 

That the DCAs should only be allowed to recoup what they paid for the debt

 

I know what you are saying. It should lead to a major overhaul....the Gov should surely be interested in the Tax Relief claimed by banks etc.... hmmm... (no comment)...

 

 

Sadly, there is no access to change the petition, it has been checked and authorised by Gov. personnel.

 

 

Thank you :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Having read many posts on this issue and also having been recently been threatened with a charging order on an unsecured debt. I had a close look at the CCA 1974 sec 55a.

I think this will be of great interest to those threatened with loosing their home due to an unsecured debt.

I would welcome well informed comments on my proposition here since I plan to start court proceedings on this soon. I far as I can see any creditor who issues a credit agreement without giving the oral explanation as detailed below is precluded from further action as described. ie putting a charge on the debtors property which could lead to their home being repossessed, or indeed taking legal action at all. Does anybody know of anybody who has had this explained to them prior to signing a simple credit agreement? Indeed would any reasonable person sign such an agreement in these circumstances.

What this means in effect is that the creditor is guilty of negligent misrepresentation to put it kindly. Remember if you or I did the same in any other business it would be deemed as fraud. The good news is that misrepresentation by omission is actionable, notwithstanding that the creditor would be in breach of their statutory duties and the terms of their credit licence. Furthermore a contract that is made by misrepresentation is voidable and can be rescinded.

I have copied sec 55a below. and will post again.

 

 

 

 

Pre-contractual explanations etc

 

(1)Before a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, is made, the creditor must—

(a)provide the debtor with an adequate explanation of the matters referred to in subsection (2) in order to place him in a position enabling him to assess whether the agreement is adapted to his needs and his financial situation,

(b)advise the debtor—

(i)to consider the information which is required to be disclosed under section 55(1), and

(ii)where this information is disclosed in person to the debtor, that the debtor is able to take it away,

©provide the debtor with an opportunity to ask questions about the agreement, and

(d)advise the debtor how to ask the creditor for further information and explanation.

(2)The matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a)the features of the agreement which may make the credit to be provided under the agreement unsuitable for particular types of use,

(b)how much the debtor will have to pay periodically and, where the amount can be determined, in total under the agreement,

©the features of the agreement which may operate in a manner which would have a significant adverse effect on the debtor in a way which the debtor is unlikely to foresee,

(d)the principal consequences for the debtor arising from a failure to make payments under the agreement at the times required by the agreement including legal proceedings and, where this is a possibility, repossession of the debtor's home,and

(e)the effect of the exercise of any right to withdraw from the agreement and how and when this right may be exercised.

(3)The advice and explanation may be given orally or in writing except as provided in subsection (4).

(4)Where the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (2) is given orally or in person to a debtor, the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs © and (d) of that subsection, and the advice required to be given by subsection (1)(b), must be given orally to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

s55a introduced 2/11, as per eu directives. (not retrospective)

cld be worth a try.

they usually now state in writing prior (the small print/ads), as required, that home cld be at risk, which wld prob cover the CO aspect. whether how they advertise that though is enough?

ss3 - orally or in writing. so, if given in writing doesnt need to be oral. but if oral, then ss4

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument is very interesting. Wouldn't arguing this in court be prohibitively expensive though?

 

 

 

Having read many posts on this issue and also having been recently been threatened with a charging order on an unsecured debt. I had a close look at the CCA 1974 sec 55a.

I think this will be of great interest to those threatened with loosing their home due to an unsecured debt.

I would welcome well informed comments on my proposition here since I plan to start court proceedings on this soon. I far as I can see any creditor who issues a credit agreement without giving the oral explanation as detailed below is precluded from further action as described. ie putting a charge on the debtors property which could lead to their home being repossessed, or indeed taking legal action at all. Does anybody know of anybody who has had this explained to them prior to signing a simple credit agreement? Indeed would any reasonable person sign such an agreement in these circumstances.

What this means in effect is that the creditor is guilty of negligent misrepresentation to put it kindly. Remember if you or I did the same in any other business it would be deemed as fraud. The good news is that misrepresentation by omission is actionable, notwithstanding that the creditor would be in breach of their statutory duties and the terms of their credit licence. Furthermore a contract that is made by misrepresentation is voidable and can be rescinded.

I have copied sec 55a below. and will post again.

 

 

 

 

Pre-contractual explanations etc

 

(1)Before a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, is made, the creditor must—

(a)provide the debtor with an adequate explanation of the matters referred to in subsection (2) in order to place him in a position enabling him to assess whether the agreement is adapted to his needs and his financial situation,

(b)advise the debtor—

(i)to consider the information which is required to be disclosed under section 55(1), and

(ii)where this information is disclosed in person to the debtor, that the debtor is able to take it away,

©provide the debtor with an opportunity to ask questions about the agreement, and

(d)advise the debtor how to ask the creditor for further information and explanation.

(2)The matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a)the features of the agreement which may make the credit to be provided under the agreement unsuitable for particular types of use,

(b)how much the debtor will have to pay periodically and, where the amount can be determined, in total under the agreement,

©the features of the agreement which may operate in a manner which would have a significant adverse effect on the debtor in a way which the debtor is unlikely to foresee,

(d)the principal consequences for the debtor arising from a failure to make payments under the agreement at the times required by the agreement including legal proceedings and, where this is a possibility, repossession of the debtor's home,and

(e)the effect of the exercise of any right to withdraw from the agreement and how and when this right may be exercised.

(3)The advice and explanation may be given orally or in writing except as provided in subsection (4).

(4)Where the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (2) is given orally or in person to a debtor, the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs © and (d) of that subsection, and the advice required to be given by subsection (1)(b), must be given orally to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just received a decision from the FOS that said the Nationwide are treating me fairly by going to court to get a charging order, because of debt arrears, when I was sick in 2012. It said the nationwide cannot be expected to keep on accepting a token payment, and they are within their rights to go to court. must ask them where did it say on my agreement that they are entitled to my home.

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...