Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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

Lowell claiming - old Very CAT debt***Claim Dismissed with Costs***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1884 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

Could anyone from the site team let me know if there's a way to edit posts? I've noticed I've got identifying info on the post at 11.13 today. I was stressed and rushing and must have posted the non-redacted version in. I have reported it in case there's no way to edit myself...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

done

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

You could email a copy to the Lowell Sols...dont leave it to the day.

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

Either...as long as you have proof they got it: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

If they had not sent their WS five days late, I would have had more time to get my skeleton argument together after all. Hopefully that will count for something if it comes down to them complaining about dates.

 

Did you think it was alright in the end? Felt very rushed and stressed, wish I had had more time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its wasn't a typical skeleton argument...more like a supplemental as I have already stated...but as long as you addressed and countered all the new evidence thrown up in their WS it should suffice.

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 guess I can only hope so.

 

I have no real idea of what a skeleton argument should be. I only had time to read one previous thread which you advised on and I thought it was quite similar in style and content. But obviously one thread is insufficient research, this is what I mean about being rushed. Oh well.

 

Is it too late for the Tomlin Order now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they offered a Tomlin ?

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, a while back. See post 73 from me on this thread. At post 80 you advised..

 

'Its really your choice if you can deal with the hassle and taking a gamble...but from past experience Lowell Cat claims are very rarely proceeded to trial and normally end up discontinued after exchange of statements and disclosures ...but we cant guarantee molly.

 

Probably prudent to decide if they pay the hearing fee and they actually serve you with their statement/evidence.'

Well they only served the documents last Friday (postmarked the day before).

Found out that they paid the hearing fee yesterday.

 

 

The Tomlin thing itself had a 14 day expiration on it which will obviously have long since lapsed.

It was for £2k at £20 pcm repayments.

Edited by dx100uk
format
Link to post
Share on other sites

can you scan up the exhibits from their WS please...

 

cca at post 17 says signed online 07/08/2013

 

POC says opened 31/01/2010

 

urh>> which is correct?..

 

theres no transactions prior to 2013 on the statements and then why didn't you use it for 3yrs..

.you had several Shop Direct accounts under differing trading names they used.

 

.have they used the info from another account as fake documents for this claim..check the account number on the POC..does it match ALL the docs in the WS they sent esp the agreement.

 

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

I will scan up docs right now but in the meantime, I've checked the date on the agreement they've exhibited and it's the same as the one posted up above. However, the very statement says opened 2010?

 

theres no transactions prior to 2013 on the statements and then why didn't you use it for 3yrs..

 

NB if you recall the beginning of this, it is my partners account and all this happened long before we ever met. However it was my bright idea avoid mindlessly paying DCs once it got to that stage. And now here we are... I will have to ask him if he recalls. The statement says it only includes transactions for the last 6 years, which I assume is why it goes back only to 2013?

 

.you had several Shop Direct accounts under differing trading names they used..

 

As above, I don't know. I don't think so though, he's never mentioned this. Will check and update if I'm wrong.

 

.

have they used the info from another account as fake documents for this claim..check the account number on the POC..does it match ALL the docs in the WS they sent esp the agreement.

 

Will double check everything this morning. I have previously checked account numbers and not noticed anything amiss. However the discrepancy with dates as above had escaped me. I'll get on it and update...

 

 

Here's their first exhibit (CH1).

 

Contains credit agreement, t&cs and 'all about your very' document.

 

Credit agreement 'signed' 07/08/2013.

 

I have checked this against the copy provided by Shop Direct themselves in response to SAR (same date) and the CCA request I sent them back in 2016 when this all first came to light. From that we got a letter which stated the account was opened in Jan 2010 however the accompanying agreement also has the date 07/08/2013.

 

As to what has been sent by Lowell in response to CCA and CPR, both of these are also showing the date 07/08/2013.

 

I am kicking myself for missing this beforehand.... or have I inadvertently done myself a favour, in that it will be too late for them to go back and change the dates on this clearly fabricated paperwork so they match up? Crossing my fingers it's the latter...

 

One question. I can't see account numbers anywhere on this agreement. Have I missed them or is that normal?

 

Will get on with the rest of the exhibits now...

 

Exhibit CH2 is the statement I uploaded yesterday, repeated here for ease of reference. Account number matches that on the claim form. States date opened 31/01/2010.

 

Last one.

 

Exhibit CH3 is the screen shot DN. It's the same as previous copies we've received and the stated account number matches.

 

Exhibit CH4 is the reconstituted NoA and another letter introducing lowell. These account numbers match up too.

 

Exhibit CH5 is various other letters. The first one of which states that the account was taken out on 30/01/2010. Well, there are no credit agreements, reconstituted or otherwise that reflect that date. I've been through everything now and I'm quite sure.

 

So, in summary:

 

Particulars of claim, very statement and letters referring to the alleged debt including those from Shop Direct themselves all state the account was taken out on 30/01/2010.

 

However, the reconstituted agreement provided at numerous stages along the way (CCA from Shop Direct, SAR from Shop Direct, CCA from Lowell, CPR from Lowell, Disclosures with the WS) all show 07/08/13 as the date it was 'signed'.

Claimants WS.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
sorted pdfs.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not necessarily have to have the account number on a reconstituted version but in Carey the judge also provided that the following information needs to be included in the reconstituted copy agreement (assuming of course that it was present in the original):

 

1. Heading: Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

2. Name and address of the debtor

3. Name and address of the creditor

4. Cancellation clause applicable to the executed agreement.

 

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

name showing on letter in both letter uploads

hidden

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

so m'lud

why didn't I use the account for 3 years and didnt signup online for 3yrs even though the original creditor says I opened it in 2010...

 

your thread here

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?470156-Initial-advice-on-partner-s-unsecured-debts

has some hidden documents that you upload without redaction

i'm gonna do those and pop them up.

 

edit they are here in post 17 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

God, I really am **** at this redacting / uploading business. Will correct my errors, AGAIN!

 

But the gist of things as it stands, (I think) is that thanks to Dx's eye for the detail which is considerably keener than my own, things are looking brighter?

 

It would seem that judging from the paperwork they have presented that either :

a) my partner took out the account in 2010 but there is no credit agreement to document the terms or indeed make any debt enforceable

OR

b) he took out an account in 2013 (as per the agreement which has been reproduced many times) but there is no evidence as to purchases made / payments / balance etc etc.

 

In likelihood, the account is from 2010 and the 2013 agreement has been copied from elsewhere?

In any case, the procedure hasn't been correctly followed for NoA and DN either.

Have I got that right?

 

In light of the delay to the trial date, I have not sent my skeleton argument to Lowell today.

I assume that was the right thing to do?

Can do so nearer the new date, which is still TBC.

 

As it stands, the dates discrepancy is not highlighted anywhere on my WS or skeleton argument.

Am I right in thinking that ideally we would not bring this to their attention prior to the trial date because what is stopping them simply fabricating a new document?

 

Evidently they have not noticed that the dates don't match.

If so is this something we will have a chance to bring up on the day?

Or should I be thinking about some further supplementary WS / addition to skeleton argument in light of the extra time available and this new development?

 

Thanks so much as always, for your patience with my questions.

 

I wish I could buy you all a drink.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

if we take it in a nutshell, the POC take out date of the agreement [2010] is wrong, they could simply say this was an admin error

but why send a CCA return stating the correct take out date [2013] and then issue a claim some months later using the wrong date?

 

puzzles me.

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

if we take it in a nutshell, the POC take out date of the agreement [2010] is wrong, they could simply say this was an admin error

but why send a CCA return stating the correct take out date [2013] and then issue a claim some months later using the wrong date?

 

puzzles me.

 

The 2010 date appears on other documents also though - the statements from very most significantly so, as well as various letters. In fact there is nothing, apart from the reconstituted credit agreement, that uses the 2013 date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See check things carefully:whoo:

 

That sounds good.

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

  • 2 months later...

Hello and Happy New Year!

 

So the new trial date is next wednesday, 23rd.

 

As things were left, I had sent the skeleton argument to the court, but not to Lowell.

 

AFTER I sent it, Dx pointed out the discrepancy in dates on the various documents described in the post above, so this is NOT highlighted in the skeleton argument.

 

What is best to do?

 

1) send the SA as is to Lowell and be prepared to point out to the judge on the day the discrepancy in dates

 

2) update the SA and send new copies to both court & Lowell with discrepancy pointed out.

 

I am leaning towards 1) as 2) surely gives them the chance to claim admin error and produce 'the correct' document?

 

Or is the another option that I'm missing?

 

Thanks in advance to all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pers I would not be tipping lowells off

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...