Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • 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    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
  • 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

Cabot/Restons claimform - old Halifax Credit card - fraud use+Poss SBd


Yani P
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2362 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

In their 31:14 response they said that it does not apply to claims made online and they said I would have had all the contract terms and agreement when I opened the account so no reason why they should provide an additional copy.

 

Yes we see that statement on every Restons thread...but it does apply after you submit your defence.....when they have to disclose all the original documents to proceed.

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

Just one more query. Will that defence statement 2 posts up suffice for entry tomorrow or does it need to contain more detail about my overall defence? Not done one of these before so no idea if it covers all the requirements.

Edited by Yani P
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that their particulars...verbatim...you have not removed anything...account number etc etc....?

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant(s) under a contract between the defendant(s) and Halifax dated on or about Sept 17 2003, and assigned to the claimant on July 18 2014. To the value of £xxx.xx

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

Is that their particulars...verbatim...you have not removed anything...account number etc etc....?

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant(s) under a contract between the defendant(s) and Halifax dated on or about Sept 17 2003, and assigned to the claimant on July 18 2014. To the value of £xxx.xx

 

sorry there is more under that just looked a little jumbled -

PARTICULARS a/c number (number listed)

Date 12/11/14 ITEM default balance VALUE £xxxx

Post Refrl Cr NIL

 

 

(I didnt add them to the defence as didnt see that detail in the version I lifted from another thread)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok is that number 16 digits?

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

great so def a credit card claim then.

 

 

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

All - seriously thanks very much for taking the time to help - much appreciated. I will send the following (cut from above where you have kindly added the various pieces). I guess for now this is all I have to do as pretty blind on next steps without the proof from them of dates of last payments etc etc. I have added an extra line or two from their 31:14 response as they state that the particulars of the claim give enough information.

------------------------------------------------

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimant claims payment of the overdue balance due from the Defendant(s) under a contract between the defendant(s) and Halifax dated on or about Sept 17 2003, and assigned to the claimant on July 18 2014. To the value of £xxx.xx

 

PARTICULARS a/c number (number listed)

Date 12/11/14 ITEM default balance VALUE £xxxx

Post Refrl Cr NIL

 

Defence

The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of agreement/contract/breach as requested by CPR 31.14. Furthermore, a CCA Requesticon sent on 5/9/17 has still not been responded to.

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/contract with the Claimant; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

3. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

4. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

In their 31:14 response it suggests that it does not apply to claims made online as no opportunity to attach documents, and they also stated that I would have had all the contract terms and agreement when I opened the account so no reason why they should provide an additional copy. They also state that the Particulars of the Claim (quoted above) contains sufficient information in order for me to understand what the Claim relates to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it not be wise to state this is a fraudulent account and is a case if identity theft?

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

Would it not be wise to state this is a fraudulent account and is a case if identity theft?

 

I didnt know whether that would be something for the future (ie if they prove that this isnt SB?) I didnt know if I should put that in as well but can easily add that something like:

 

I also believe that this account is likely to have been subject to some fraudulent usage as I had my identity stolen, and had raised concerns with Halifax that this account may have been subject to fraudulent activity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you initially open this account in your name ?

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

Yes this was certainly my account - I believe I have not had any activity on it for well over 6 years in the first instance.

 

I had my identity stolen and raised concerns on various accounts I held that some of the transactions were fraudulent usage. These concerns were basically ignored.

 

So not challenging that it was my account, more the potential of it being SB and the reasons why there were issues in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay and you have retained copies of this activity that you sent to halifax ...? Roughly how much would you equate to any possible fraudulent use ?

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

I dont think I hold any of the original documentation or correspondence.

 

I tried asking Halifax for any copies of account detail and/or correspondence but they could not even locate the account according to the people I spoke to (hence my call to the ICO).

 

I think a sizeable lump of this debt is probably interest as they kept loading it up even when I was in dispute querying the possible frauds.

 

I did report the fraud to the police at the time and have it acknowledged as identity theft by the police (as other accounts were affected as will as DVLA activity).

 

If I submit the statement a few posts up I am happy to add a paragraph about potential fraud on the account and identity theft. Do I need to call out all potential issues in this initial defence?

 

My question is do I do this now as could be SB?

If they prove it is not SB (even though I believe it is)

could I still then raise the issues with fraud/identity theft in the future?

 

I have submitted

- lets see what comes back

- I mentioned the fraud/stolen identity as an extra paragraph whilst stressing I firmly believe this to be SB but have not received any documentation in advance of my defence submission..

 

Thanks to all who have helped here so far

- much appreciated and I will be making a donation to this site..

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I submit the statement a few posts up I am happy to add a paragraph about potential fraud on the account and identity theft. Do I need to call out all potential issues in this initial defence?

 

My question is do I do this now as could be SB? If they prove it is not SB (even though I believe it is) could I still then raise the issues with fraud/identity theft in the future?

 

Yes...once your defence is submitted the claimant has 33 days to notify the court if they wish to proceed..if they do you will be submitting standard disclosure (evidence) and a witness statement in which you can particularise your defence further.

 

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Had a letter from Restons at the end it stated..

we are aware of your request made persuant to S77/78 of the CCA 1974,

we respectfully point out that non-compliance with such a request only renders the account unenforceable until such time that the request has been complied with. It does not mean that the claimant is unable to recover the debt indefinitely.

 

In any event we have been instructed to place the account on hold.

 

 

Once documentation has been received it will be forwarded to you.

 

 

Please bear in mind this can take some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well if the claim gets auto stayed

matters not what they sent ....

unless they pay to lift the stay

usual BS from rectums.

 

 

NO CCA NO PAY ...fleecers!!

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

Please bear in mind this can take some time.

 

Take as long as you wish :wink:

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...