Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just received the defence response from Evri. I'm surprised they are saying they don't have the parcel details etc, I've kept copies of emails and their responses where the parcel ID is mentioned. Regards, J 502MC299-claim-response.pdf502MC299-claim-response.pdf
    • i think you mean applicant not claimant above? section 127(3). readme HSBC/DG Claimform - old Credit Card Debt - Financial Legal Issues - Consumer Action Group  
    • Hi Lolerz Thanks for replying to me, yes I've been ignoring her & will continue to do so. All she keeps saying is they want to come up with an amicable settlement. Keeps saying this to our receptionist she shouldn't be saying this to a receptionist or even me in the first place as they have given no proof of anything no IP addresses noting just keeps saying about an amicable settlement.
    • If a DCA supplies a reconstituted copy of the CCA what would be the next step? It seems that a reconstituted copy must be a " true copy " of the executed agreement, it must contain the Prescribed Terms. But given that there is no copy of the applicants signature surely it could be an agreement form with the details filled in. How can it be assumed that this " copy " represents a true copy that the claimant has supposed to have signed. Cabot have demonstrated a bit of sabre rattling when they say "Until we're able to provide this information , your account is unenforceable. This means we're not permitted to obtain a County Court judgement against you . Whilst we cannot pursue legal action, your balance remains outstanding ". I looked up a case... Cabot UK Ltd  v  Bachellier (2010) which might help, but it's tough reading, I'd prefer to plough through War and Peace. This particular case with Cabot is not huge , approx' £140, but the only other worry that I have is also with Cabot...£2100. They may try to make a point with lesser case.
  • 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

Swift Advances possession order stopped by Judge


jamie0035
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2055 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 All,

 

I have recently (in the last two days) been subject to a second hearing for possession of my home by Swift Advances. We've had two hearings.

 

First hearing the CC judge ordered that we investigate the excessive interest on our account and get clear explanation from Swift as to why they have charged an account management fee every month since the year 2007 to date--totalling £5267.00.

 

We investigated to the best of our affordability to no avail.

However, Swift advances made a statement over the phone to me (i quote) "We at Swift will never charge you a fee as long as you make a payment on the account" this obviously is not the case.

 

The judge at this first hearing was utterly confused how a £31000 loan can now be worth £52000 even after paying monthly for the best part of the last 10 years.

 

She challenged Swift's Solicitor asking him how they can justify a loan that can never be paid back within the remaining terms...he had no comment.

Hence her adjourning the case for 30 days to allow us to investigate.

 

Second hearing the judge still not satisfied with our investigation into the charges and the lack of knowledge of the charges from Swifts solicitor...has DENIED their possession order against us.

Stating it was unfair on their part. :-D

 

We have now contacted the FOS with the case and are seeking further legal advice to hopefully get all the charges rescinded.

 

You never know they may even force the close of the loan due to swift advances treating us unfairly in accordance with COBS.

 

Watch this space!!!!!!!!!

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done :) great news

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why its so important to bring any unlawful fees into play asap in a case

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

At last a knowledgeable DJ that questioned the make up of the alleged debt

 

. The legal profession is a cosy little cartel where no one rocks the boat but they have to listen to a Dj.

 

We can but hope that these Financial Parasites get thier asses kicked by other DJ when they claim extortionate amounts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, sounds as though you have a decent judge.

To go forward I believe you might be in a position to look at clause L in the terms and conditions on your agreement.

 

If you could post up what exactly your terms say we could then go through what it states and then people can give a view on how they read it.

 

I am hoping you have the same agreement as me and most others who have unregulated loans with this company.

Term L should be concerning the application of charges and they are on the reverse or second page of the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...