Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • The CMA’s latest monitoring report on road fuel shows that prices at the pump have risen since late January, accompanied by above average margins and spreads.View the full article
    • 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
  • 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

CABOT contacted me again despite sending STOP.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2705 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 today received this copy agreement from MINT and would really appreciate advice regarding its enforceability.

 

 

I don't think everything is shown on my single page with my signature

and I assume the "here is your replacement card letter" and clear copy of the CCA is a reconstruct.

 

 

Thankyou!

 

 

mintcca001.pdf

mintcca002.pdf

mintcca003.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

thanks for your reply, PGH. I have attached the covernote now.

 

 

I hope somebody will be able to clarify if all the required info is shown on my original agreement,

which looks like a photocopy. maybe there is an overleaf or page two they have omitted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not sure they have.

 

 

My real problem is with the orignal agreement, upon which is my signature.

 

 

What they have supplied does not appear to be a complete agreement.

 

 

Ignore the reconstruct as they wouldnt be able to rely on that in court.

 

im having difficulty finding the requirements for an agreement. ie, what must be shown....

Link to post
Share on other sites

When was the account opened?. I notice that the fees for over limit etc are £12 on the t & cs - this was the recent rate wasn't it? So if you have had this card since before they were reduced by most companies then that is not the relevant terms and conditions is it? Just a thought

 

Feb 2004... Interesting point though. I have a feeling they are supposed to supply the original t and c's too?

Edited by disgruntled2007
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 6 years later...

Hi all,

 

 

I haven't posted for four years or more as I thought all my debts had gone away

today I got a letter from CABOT Financial and MINT.

 

It's all in order in that MINT have stated they have sold the debt and CABOT have included a NOA.

 

However, this is a historic debt on the cusp of becoming barred

and no matter how hard I search through the threads

I can't really decide WHEN it became barred, or will become barred.

 

Perhaps I can get some helpful advice here!

 

Long story short I got the CC in 2004 and got into difficulties in 2009. The timeline runs like this:

 

07/09/10 Default registered at CRA

10/08/10 Letter of Termination from MINT

05/07/10 Default Notice issued by MINT

29/12/09 Last payment to MINT

 

However,

I was originally being responsible and communicating with them but that changed

when they (IMHO) issued a dodgy default notice so the following dates are also relevant:

 

19/05/10 Letter to MINT in which debt is acknowledged

25/06/10 Letter on a different matter to MINT but referring to letter to MINT dated 19/05/10

05/07/10 MINT acknowledge both letters

 

The facts surrounding the dodgy default are irrelevant here

but can I rely on SB clock starting on 19/05/10 or am I being too optimistic?

 

Thanks in advance for any help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

its statute barred

ignore them

until/unless they issue a claimform.

 

 

old and new threads merged.

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

IMO I would go with July this year as SB, BUT I would not inform them of this UNLESS they attempt court action, let it drag out.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Small update for you...

 

Had a text from Cassie at Cabot on Thursday last week. She would really like to talk to me!

 

Checked my credit file via clear score and found that 1st Credit performed a search on 25 Aptil.

 

In June my credit score halved to 170!

 

I would attach screenshots but can't seem to work out how to via my iPad.

 

Anyway, I'm not panicking...

 

😎

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update. Have had a number of calls from 0344 556 0229.

I don't generally take calls from such numbers but I am expecting a call from a Public Sector Dept

and answered it.

It was Cassie from Cabot!

 

I denied receiving a letter and I declined their invitation to answer security questions stating I have no idea who she is.

 

She was quite insistent that she needed to talk to me about a personal financial matter.

She said she could send out another letter. I said sure, you do that.

 

I will await the letter and revert back to you guys here for advice!

 

Now I know the number you can be sure it won't be answered ever again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of your threads being merged, you should just ignore them from now on, unless and until they issue a court claim, then ignore.

 

But the likelihood of that is remote.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

attachment here! oops!

 

 

 

This is incorrect the £1 statutory fee is for processing your CCA request and not for a credit to your account, this needs correcting IMHO...

 

 

By adding this as a credit your account they hope to restart the SB clock so be wary....

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incorrect the £1 statutory fee is for processing your CCA request and not for a credit to your account, this needs correcting IMHO...

 

 

By adding this as a credit your account they hope to restart the SB clock so be wary....

 

 

 

It's OK, Mikey - that letter is over 6 years old. I haven't posted the latest one and have no intention of letting clocks be reset, or indeed, pendulums held!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A well worn trick which DJ's are well aware of, there is no possibility of the fee ever resetting the clock, it matters not what they do with the fee, it can never reset the clock.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a lovely letter from Cabot arrive Saturday morning....

 

They have recently confirmed I live at "the above address" and have recently bought the account I held with MINT...

 

They are going to help me manage my account and receive future payments.

 

They will be in touch soon and look forward to talking to me...

 

I can't wait! I'm so excited...

 

LOL...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...