Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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

CMC charges capped at 20% by law effective July 2018


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1932 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 fact the new regulation is even more interesting than the post above suggests.

 

There is a cap of 20% – but in fact the rule is that the CMC's are only allowed to charge "reasonable" fees are not only that they are required to provide a detailed breakdown of the work they have carried out so one can then decide what is reasonable.

 

I'm quite sure that many CMC's will simply charge the – 20% of recovered premiums. If you discover that in fact that they only send one or two letters and did very little else than I would suggest that 20% would normally be very excessive.

 

I think it is now possible to hold CMC's to account and refuse to pay the bill until you have a complete breakdown of the work they have carried out.

 

What a shame that this is come so late in the day – when the arbitrarily imposed time limit for claims is next year.

 

Incidentally, in terms of the time limit for claims, this simply relates to claims made directly to the lender and then to the FOS. In fact if you find that there is some good legal reason for saying that the PPI was mis-sold to you then you may well have good case to go to court – and it could well be worth doing.

 

For instance, if you have evidence that the PPI was sold to you because you were misled into it then you probably have six years to bring your claim in the courts from the date that you became aware or should reasonably have become aware of the misrepresentation.

 

1. Financial Guidance and Claims Bill: interim fee cap

 

On 21 November 2017, a Government amendment was passed in the House of Lords at Third Reading of the Bill providing for a cap on fees that CMCs and legal services providers can charge claimants for claims management services in relation to PPI claims.

The Government has decided to legislate for a cap in advance of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) taking over responsibility for claims management regulation and to set this cap at 20% (excluding VAT) of the claim value. The intention is that the cap would be introduced two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent which, subject to Parliamentary approval, is expected to be by March 2018. This interim cap would remain in place until the FCA exercises its own fee-capping duty under Clause 17 of the Bill.

The fee cap will be enforced by the CMR in respect of CMCs and the legal service regulators in respect of law firms. The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill will now be passed to the House of Commons for consideration. The progress of the Bill can be followed on the Parliament website where you can sign up for email alerts.

 

.

2. CMR consultation response: rule changes to be implemented from April 2018

 

On 15 November, we published the consultation response in relation to proposals first outlined in 2016 to place restrictions on the level of fees that regulated CMCs can charge for financial services claims.

The report explains how the responses received informed our conclusions, and announces the intention to implement the following measures via changes to the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2014:

 

 

  • Fees must not be charged to a client prior to the conclusion of a PPI claim. Fees for any other financial products and services claims must not be charged prior to the provision of any regulated claims management services (excluding advertising for, or otherwise seeking out) to the client.
  • A ban on any charges to a client where it is identified that the client does not have a relationship or relevant policy with the lender(s) for which a claim is submitted on their behalf.
  • CMCs will be required to ensure all charges are reasonable and to provide clients with an itemised bill setting out details reflecting the work undertaken and what the charges relate to where a contract is cancelled after the 14-day ‘cooling off’ period.
  • Amended Client Specific Rule 16: A business, unless subject to Regulation 8 of the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013, must permit the client to cancel a contract at any time. Any charge to the client must be limited to what is reasonable and must reflect work undertaken by the business. Where there is a contract for a financial product and services claim the business must provide the client with an itemised bill that evidences the regulated claims management services provided and how the fees have been calculated before obtaining payment details and before any payment can be taken.

The new rules will come into effect on 1 April 2018. All CMCs offering financial claims services in England and Wales are required to adhere to these rules as a condition of authorisation in accordance with Regulation 12(5) of the Compensation (Claims Management Services) Regulations 2006. Failure to adhere to the rules would be subject to enforcement action.

Further guidance will be issued in due course on the implementation of the interim fee cap and the above rule changes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new rules are not retrospective so they only apply to contracts agreed with a CMC after the start date which is apparently 10 July of this year – 2018

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...