Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
    • The streaming giant also said it added 9.3 million subscribers in the first three months of the year.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
      • 161 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

Please Advise Cobbetts defence (I've been blinded by science).


red1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6274 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

Received today from Cobbets, could someone please advise.

 

DEFENCE

1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the defendant's case that the Particulars of the Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the claimant to recover the bank chagres (and interest thereon) referred to in the particulars of claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the claim is not properly particularised then the defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

2. On allocation the Defendant invites the court to direct that there be a case management conference in order for the Court to consider the making of of appropriate orders to give the claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim.

 

3. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimants bank account.

 

4. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in ConsumerRegulations 1999 (the Regulations) and/or the common law, the Claimant is required to identify:

 

4.1 (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977),

(b) the regulations of The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (the regulations); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable; and

 

4.2 the contractual provision(s) that the claimant allege are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and?or the Regulations.

 

Until such time as these sections/regulation?provisions are identified the Defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in pragraph 4 above. The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

 

5 In relation to the case of the Claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (SGSA0 the defendant pleads as follows:

 

5.1 the claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant nd the Defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the Claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

 

5.2 Further, the claimant is reuired to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonabel; (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the Claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

5.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the Defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15.

 

5.4 In the circumstances (save as appears below) the Defendant is unable to plead to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 5.1-5.3 above are addressed.

 

5.5 It is the case of the Defendant that the contract between the claimant and Defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the service would be determined by the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the Claimant and the defendant.

 

^. If, which is denied, the Claimant is entitled to the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to claim interest at a rate of 29.80 %.

 

This letter frightens the life out of me. What should I do now???

Thanks inadvance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

I am sure somebody with more information will be along soon but my understanding of this is that they want you to identify why you believe the charges are unreasonable and state why you are charging them compound interest.

 

Somebody wll be able to advise you better but it might be worthwhile if you post a copy of your actual claim text.

 

Kind regards

Gemspan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Red.

 

DON'T PANIC

 

Read this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/10582-mcuth-rbos.html because it has all the elements you need to respond to that defence, which seems to be fairly normal.

 

Have a look at the defence I received also http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/28596-hydra-rbs.html. I haven't responded yet but will be using some of MCuth's work (after he grants his permission, naturally) to add to excellent work done by GlennUK and some of my own....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...