Jump to content

RecTCat

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. Thanks BankFodder - Event and raffle run by volunteers in not-for-profit social group, proceeds of raffle pay for any prizes that were not donated, and fund things like printing entry tickets and flyers to promote future events. LG
  2. I won a prize in a Raffle operated by an organisation holding an event at a local venue. The prizes were displayed on video screens in the venue and on a printed list by the person selling the tickets. The prize I won was stated as "4 (four) weekend VIP tickets to Birmingham Pride" - I did not open the envelope until the following day - it contained 3 (three) vouchers for weekend "Premium" tickets to Birmingham Pride (Premium being a lower priced ticket than VIP). A friend who was at the event with me had the phone number of one of the organisers - there being no other obvious way to contact them - the person confirmed the prize was stated as 4 tickets, it was supposed to have been changed to 3, but that it had not been done. I considered that this was suspicious, I can accept it might not have been possible to change the wording on the video screens, but the person selling the tickets could have clarified this verbally, and could have altered the "4" on the printed sheet to show "3". As "compensation" I was offered free entry to their next event. That would be £7 per person (if they intended to include anyone else I was attending with) which in no way equates in financial or entertainment value of the Pride event, which has tickets priced £88.00, for two days of live acts including Marc Almond, Faithless and Human League. I would like to know if the offer of prizes as originally stated and the exchange of money for entry in the raffle constitutes an intent to create legal relations - and as such, that I am entitled to 4 (four) VIP tickets (not Premium) and nothing else other than a cash alternative of equal value to the expected prize. Incidentally, the vouchers state to send an email to an email address at birminghampride.com – which I did several weeks ago, but have not received any response. I assume even if the Pride organisers fail to respond, the raffle organiser is still liable.
  3. @ vjohn "LiP"?? If you'd have a look a second head would help, can you send me a phone number via private message and best time to call you. I *can not* meet Tues eve, Court is Friday 20 Nov. Thanks
  4. @ vjohn I'm sure there has been a default notice, but I'll have to look for it. There does not appear to be a copy of it in the Court Bundle, but it may be referred to in their statements. (I presume a default notice is the proper term for a letter they would have sent sepcifying the a/c is in default and what action they're going to take). ... and the original crditor has to provide evidence of the assignment? So that should be in the bundle then..? Cabot claim to be "licencesed" by the card company to issue the assignment.
  5. @ DebT Cabot are taking action ... I have not been thro papers thoroughly yet, they did notify interest before starting litigation and further interest ongoing added with court application paperwork. I will let you know what happens. ---- @ vjohn82 Thanks for that ... I assume we're all on the same track here and “Law Of Property Act (1925) s196" applies to card debts. If as you suggest the assignment "may be rendered ineffectual" I assume that won't actually prevent Cabot from further litigation. Even so - it is claimed to have been sent to my new address *before* they knew it ...
  6. @ DebT. Short version: 27 Dec 2000 - Opened card a/c. 23 Dec 2004 - Last payment made to a/c, balance £6,711.87. May 2006 - Letter from Moorcroft Debt Recovery 31 May 2006 - I requested further info - nothing further head from Moorcroft. 24 Nov 2006 - Cabot purchsed debt. 8 Dec 2006 - Date Cabot claim Assignment was sent to me (at my new address, that they did not yet know) despite me not having requested it as they had not written to me yet. Oct 2007 - First letter from Cabot 29 Oct 2007 - Assignment and Agremeent requested from Cabot. Cabot never referred to having already sent this. 11 June 2008 - Cabot eventually sent copy of 'an' agreement. 11 July - Letter from FIRE requesting payment (now £9588.44) 13 Aug 2008 - Litigation started
  7. @ DebT, Thanks, but I've had "disclosure" from Cabot as we go to court on Fri 20 Nov 2009, so making a SAR [http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/110--data-protection-act-1998-subject-access-request] is a technicality.
  8. @ Pinky69. Thanks ... I forgot to say: I genuinely never received the assignment they claim was sent 8-12-2006 - I had not even asked for one by that date! ... also, I asked for the assignment *before* the Regs were changed...
  9. I would appreciate comments on the following - (1) Cabot's solicitors are claiming that: "The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs 2008 ( 28 May 2008 ) repealed CCA section 78(6) (b) from the word 'and' meaning it is no longer an offence for a creditor to fail with a debtor's statutory request (for copy of assignment). It follows that ... all the creditor need to do, at some point in time, is to comply with the request, making the agreement enforcable." My request was dated 29 October 2007 (before the change to the Regs) , Cabot responded on 2 & 5 November 2007 saying they were not obliged to provide a copy of the assignment, but would request the document from the lender. On 20 November 2007 Cabot sent a copy of 'a' credit agreement and a statement of account, but not the assignment. The credit agreement has the date printed as '09/06', the original agreement was in 2000. A further copy of 'an' agreement is included in the Court Bundle that shows: 'Print date DEC03', still after the actual contract date in 2000. ------ (2) In one of the statements from Cabot it points out that a statement from the card lenders dated '15/12/04' is a typographical error and should be '15/11/03'. It is clear from the balance carried forward / brought forward from previous statements do tie up - however - is there any benefit I can get from this mistake. ------ (3) In one of the statements, solicitors refer to an item in the Court Bundle being a 'representation' of the assignment: "sent to defendant on 8 December 2006. Cabot is licencesed by Monument to send such notices...". The document referred to is undated, but a handwritten note on the copy of the document in the Court Bundle claims it was sent on "8-12-2006". The address shown on the document was my new address, I moved in 2006, BUT, it was not until 31 July 2007 (when I got a phone contract with "Three Mobile") that my new address was recorded with Experian, and Cabots own notes show "18-10-2007 ... Information letter from Experian with contact from the consumer and new address". So Cabot *could not* have written to my new address on 8 Dec 2006 (although I had moved there) because they did not know that address until 18 Oct 2007. From my correspondence it is clear I had not received the assignment (as I asked for it subsequent to the date it is now claimed it was sent), and at no time until sending the Court Bundle has Cabot referred to having sent the assignment. I feel this *proves* Cabot to be dishonest. Will / should the Judge consider this perjury, and will / should this result in any sort of penalty for Cabot or be grounds for dismissing the case? ----- Thanks, in anticipation of assistance.
  10. Does anyone know the relationship between Moorcroft Debt Recovery Limited and Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited? A number of years ago Moorcroft wrote to me a couple of times (can't remember details) about a credit card debt. They stopped pestering me, but a few months later Cabot started harassing me. Had Moorcroft re-sold the debt, would that be legal? Are they related companies and passed on the debt / data, would that be legal? Or is it likely the original lender changed their agent and got the debt transferred to Cabot?
  11. I will check the details - but ... There is a difference betwen a Housing Benefit Overpayment (paid in error or after a change of circumatances) and a back-dated lump sum payment. If Housing Benefit was delayed and paid in a lump sum, the tennant could have already paid that amount in rent, so it is their money...
  12. I don't know the exact details, so this is partly hypothetical. A council tennant has a credit on their rent account of over £500. The tennant has asked for about half to be refunded, but the council have refused. Part of their rationale is that the tennant is not paying any rent - obviously becaue they have such a large credit. If the credit is due to an earlier over-payment of rent can the council refuse a refund? If the credit is due the bulk payment of housing benefit that was delayed or previously underpaid can the council refuse a refund? If the tennant has suffered financial difficulty (charges, interest etc on items they could not repay) due to the late payment of the housing benefit, or subsequently suffers financial difficulty due to the credit not beint refunded, could they take the council / housing benefit service to court? Any reference to case law precedent would be appreciated.
  13. Castlebest >> I have already asked (as you suggested) how my financial affairs had been compromised, how the bank knew and what they are going to do about it - they will not say. This is partly understandable if there is an ongoing investiogation, but I didn't ask them for specifics... HSBC sent me a "Final Response" reply letter - presumably just to shut me up, anticipating that I wouldn't take it further. Wrong! I have - my complaint is now with Financial Ombudsman Service.
  14. Thanks johnnymitch and freakyleaky, As I mentioed, I was careful to not give any further information to him as he had not verified his identity, but not everone is so careful. I have written to the bank and stressed my concerns verty strongly and asked what precautions they are taking. I was not satisfied with their response, so have been waiting since 28 Jan (when they confirmed receipt of my letter) for a reply to my second letter. That's why I was asking how other banks deal with this issue... I appreciate a phone call is more immediate - but they could have been more professional and handled it in a manner that did not cause suspicion. Of course, they've done it to me twice now ... but no matter how strongly I word my complaint, they will just carry on at their own pace!
  15. Slighly off-topic, but nonetheless important. On 4 January 2008, I received a telephone call from a man who claimed to be from HSBC. I was immediately suspicious. The individual told me that a number of HSBC debit cards had been “compromised” and mine was in the batch affected. He said my card had not yet been used fraudulently but advised me to “cut up” my card while a new one would be sent in “seven to ten days”. I was careful to not give any further information to him as he had not verified his identity. The fact that he knew some of my recent transactions did not make me confident that he had a genuine reason to have the information. I telephoned the usual HSBC contact number and they confirmed the caller had been genuine and that my card had been cancelled and a new one would be sent in seven to ten days. I have written to HSBC as I feel the system for notifying people of potential fraud in this way does not seem very professional. I had a second similar phone call exactly a month later. Although they did reply to my first letter I had to write again as they are being evasive. Currently it seems my card details as still in danger of being compromised. Has anyone had a similar experience with HSBC? If you are in Birmingham I would particularly like to know, but I don't want any personal details. Has anyone had a similar experience with any other bank, how do they handle this type of situation?
×
×
  • Create New...