Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by meagain

  1. Perhaps I should have put a big red flashing notice at the top saying "DON'T COPY THIS JUST YET!" One of my many concerns is that it backfires and I wind up with a CCJ for the balance when they counterclaim and "magically" produce the original documents in court.
  2. Long story short - I wrote to Aktiv telling them they have no right to collect anything from me, and that I'd dob them in for harassment if they didn't stop. All I got back from them was a copy of the OC's refusal to comply with a S10 notice, "I hope this makes our position clear to you". I am now planning to file at Court (serving the documents myself, with a covering letter stating "I hope this makes my position clear to you"), and have drafted the following PoC, cobbled from various places. I am wondering if they are suitable: The red parts are uncertain, and probably won't survive to the claim form. Otherwise, any thoughts?
  3. In theory, nothing is exempt from the Act - as that would make them exempt from the law. As I understand it (and I may have misunderstood it), you cannot serve a notice of default pursuant to the Act unless there is an agreement, and either there is an agreement or there is not an agreement. If there is an agreement, then they must provide it to you. If there is no credit agreement involved, they have no business recording information with credit reference agencies. Any part of this post, including this sentence, may be incorrect.
  4. Bugger. Allocation hearing this morning. My main point for defeating mediation was crushed when I couldn't unleash the direct quote - Mr. Bond (somewhat correctly) claimed the conversation was without prejudice, so it went unsaid. Substitute DJ suggested a costs implication for refusing mediation, citing a case involving what was then Railtrack, in which an appeal was successful but the appellants were ordered to pay all costs from the commencement for refusing mediation. I felt at this point I had to accede to mediation, as since the judge had pointed out a risk of costs I'd have looked pretty stupid rejecting this and then using the risk of costs in an argument supporting SCT. I pointed out that I would require protection but may agree in principle to mediate - will resubmit proposed orders to the court later this week, noting them as a "necessary precondition" to my going to mediation. Otherwise, stayed for 6 weeks.
  5. The judge certainly seems to overestimate the OFT (who happily allowed this farce to continue for 20 years), but besides this he raised some very valid points. Tom had been paid in excess of the highest conceivable value of the specified parts of the claim, had not proved the unspecified parts, and since there was no longer a relationship between him and the bank any declaration would, from a judicial perspective, be nothing more than an end run around the OFT's action. Paragraph 36 of the judgment suggests that Tom may have missed a trick by not invoking s.32 Limitations Act by alleging concealment. Other than this, once everything else is stripped away, all that is left is the principle, and the courts are generally against cases proceeding on principle alone (para 56). Ultimately, with the possible exception of the bank's decision to forcibly close his account, Tom's personal claim had already been satisfied. All in all, this isn't as bad as it might sound, since while we don't have the extra ammunition it doesn't adversely affect other individual claims in the slightest (the judge states several times that other similar cases still need to be decided on their individual merits). Still, kudos to Tom for a valiant effort.
  6. This bit is complicated. When I started working there, we were dealing with information from 01-02 to match up to WFTC details from the changeover during 02-03, and I've certainly seen NTC paperwork dated from before April 03.
  7. I don't think there's any way you could interpret that as consensual processing. Might be worth referring a complaint to the ICO?
  8. Random thought on free trials. Signed up with CreditExpert (directly, no affiliate). Was told "we'll send you a second key by first-class post", around a fortnight before the postal strike. The thing eventually arrived around 3-4 weeks after signing up. By the time I get online, I have email saying they were unable to debit my card, and it seems my 30-day free trial was over before it had even been started. Cue nastygram...
  9. They can also argue that you have a regulated agreement - the actual bit of paper you signed will be headed something like "Equipment Hire Agreement - regulated under S80 Consumer Credit Act". Of course, you can't have it both ways - it can't be a credit agreement when they say it is and not a credit agreement when they say it isn't. In my case, I'm taking them to court for the removal of two defaults - one of which was supposed to have been removed when I threatened them the last time as part of a pre-action settlement.
  10. This is all covered by the Direct Debit Guarantee, which (as we all know) is worth slightly less than the electrons it's carried on. On a more serious note, it's a damn good argument for insisting they give the money back - it's unfair to you specifically because your not paying by DD has come about not by your choice but by their mistakes. The whole non-DD fee is still a grey area (thanks to the incompetents at the OFT who gave out a figure, the incompetents at OFCOM who gave their approval, and the incompetents at TS who won't touch it with a barge-pole), but you being made to pay for their mistakes is cut-and-dry extortion.
  11. DJ declined to remove the stay, citing that "defendants are willing to mediate", and "given the commercial implications" he is taking submissions on "why the case should not be allocated to Multi Track". I have written back pointing out that Virgin have requested mediation not to reach a agreeable compromise but (direct quote from David Bond @ VM Legal) "in the hope the mediator might persuade you that you have no case", seeking clarification on the "commercial implications" (I didn't expect that having to act fairly and lawfully was supposed to be such a stretch ...), and making the usual arguments for Small Claims (no points of law to argue, the piddling sums of money involved, defendant frustrating).
  12. I can confirm that this is indeed the same number that has called my phone 15 times in the last week. Also known to use (01244) 861600. IIRC (ICBW) they have 30 days from assignment to notify you. My notice of assignment was head-dated 27 days after the date they claimed to have bought the debt. Again, ICBW but failure to notify the debtor within 30 days of assignment is a defence.
  13. The name you may be looking for is not Active but Aktiv. Thought about CCAing them myself, and then remembered I'd already sent two prior requests (both defaulted) for the same alleged debt.
  14. Filed mid-August (having fixed the various mistakes in the PoC, such as noting the DPA failure but then not claiming anything about it). Acked on day 14, defended day 28. VM's AQ missed the deadline (going by my call to the court at 3.45pm that day), but was accepted anyway. As predicted, they requested the 28-day stay for settlement (despite several unambiguous statements insisting they will not be paying) and requested mediation. I will be writing to the court to say that mediation won't work where one side has nothing to gain and nothing to lose from the process, and requesting the short stay be removed due to the aforementioned unambiguous statements (nothing ventured ...).
  15. This date seems strangely familiar. It may have come up while I was looking to see when the major events (of the shut-down-the-entire-city-centre variety) were happening. It may also have come up randomly in a conversation of no relevance whatsoever, though.
  16. Biggest pile of BS I've ever heard from someone not working for a bank. J D Wetherspoon plc practically rewrote the book on cost-efficiency for the licensed trade. Low-maintenance furnishings (many tables wipe-clean), huge-scale bulk buying (better rate for pub, better NPV for brewery), no music (saving up to 700 x £700 in royalties to PRS), no sound on TVs (apparently means they pay Sky a good deal less) - lots of small cost savings across the board add up to very big cost savings, all of which is why they can afford to vastly undercut the opposition (by as much as £1/pint in some cases - most usually the posh clubs filled with pretentious and wannabe-pretentious types), yet still turn a healthy profit. Nothing to do with buying substandard product, though a bad batch will hurt them more than most others. In my long experience, anything substandard at a JDW pub tends to originate within the pub (such as taking a well-laid out chocolate cake and ruining it in a microwave).
  17. Pretty much. "I don't like it but I'll have to go along with it." Not to be confused with "Call me a taxi, I'm late for my plane."
  18. Right, but - the all-important thing I'm trying to get at here - what can you do about it?
  19. They're the same thing. At least, that's the format I've had my results each time for the last 7 semesters. Yes, because we don't have any other choice. If the university decides not to award you a degree, you have no recourse whatsoever. So, how would they be in breach by not awarding the degree? By the terms of your contract, you paid for tuition, and they delivered it. Both sides have performed the contract. There is no contractual provision in respect of the award or otherwise of a degree between you and the university. They retain ultimate discretion on the degree. They have to, it's part of what gives a degree its perceived value. If there was a contract which stipulated "at the end of your course, we give you a degree", it would be impossible for them to exercise their discretion, as all possible controls would unavoidably turn up in Schedule 2 of UTCCR.
  20. As far as I am aware, they cannot withhold the information about your results, since that is covered by DPA, which is why the OFT ruled that Kingston withholding such information because of a debt was unfair. The problem here is that the notion of withholding a degree for non-payment of a debt, regardless of how that debt was incurred, may initially seem unfair, but must we must simply accept it - we can't fight unless we have some basis on which to do it, and that would require that there are specific circumstances under which a university is obliged to award a degree.
  21. I am assuming what the OFT is referring to is withholding of a student's end-of-year transcript
  22. That looks like a WORKSFORME here as well. Of course, now that there's a single sign-on I can't log in to the account I created on the wiki in the first place, but that'll be my fault mostly.
  23. Bugger. I'm in London (I think) on the 14th. The good news for travelling members, the Prince is about 30 seconds' walk from Central station. The bad news is that there is a Travelodge a short walk away.
  24. Substitute getting a "poor" result for not turning up. Remember that the university would be the sole arbiter of what constitutes an "acceptable" result, which would make it an unfair term (Sch.2 UTCCR). There is no doubt that a student would be dealing "as consumer". It would therefore make sense that there is no contractual relationship in respect of the award of a degree, as there would be no way for the university to lawfully refuse a degree to a candidate that has submitted to assessment if there were.
  • Create New...