Jump to content

theghost

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by theghost

  1. Well when we say 'medical evidence' I don't think we are talking about raw data - as you say what good would an MRI scan be for a DCA. We are talking about a summaried letter from the GP or Hospital to say Mr Smith cannot work at the moment - and maybe go into details or not depending on the circumstances. Proving copies on income and incapacity benfit is probably worth more to a DCA anyway because it may give a better indication of whether you can afford to pay. As to whether people on the sick have more important things to do than deal with DCAs - I think it realy depends on each situation. I know people on disability benefits that sit at home all day and have a more relaxed life than I do.
  2. Presumably the DCA really cares about whether you have money or not - not whether you are disabled and why you can't work or whatever So I would suggest sending a more detailed financial breakdown showing you can't afford it would probably be more sufficient.
  3. Just tell the court what you have said here - I would be looking at getting proof from the repair peopel about when the TV was sent to you as that is a significant part of your case.
  4. Presumably though that is only when things get official and a court case starts? What about the months before where the DCA is hounding the debtor?
  5. As I say, they cannot demand anything - but I daresay the regulators and courts will take little sympathy when they ask the debtor why they didn't want to provide any proof at all of a medical condition if one existed - and the answer is coz someone on a forum told me I didn't have to. Yes you don't have to - but if you have a medical condition that may get a DCA off your back I don't see why you wouldn't evidence it.
  6. Ask but not demand - i.e you don't have to give it. If you owe a debt and are claiming you cannot pay due to medical problems then I do not think its totally unreasonable to provide some evidence. I also think its reasonable for a DCA to ignore your claims if you are totally unwilling to provide ANYTHING. I would have thought a detailed letter from a GP would have sufficed though.
  7. Legally speaking - I am guessing 'impliy' isn't the same as lying. However, if he wasn't with your mobile company at all then might be worth reporting to Consuemr Direct? What did he actually say, if you can remember.
  8. As mentioned in the other thread. There are EU Directives and EU Regulations. The CPUTR originates from an EU Directive (the UCPD). What the EU said is, here is what we want and you have til December 2007 to enact it in your own country. It appears the UK was 5 months late as the CPUTR came in on May 2008. Although to be fair the CPUTR repealed a huge amount of legislation and introduced all sorts of new stuff into UK law. So up until the deadline passed the UCPD was not technically a REQUIREMENT for EU countrires. Furthermore the UK prosecuting authorities CANNOT prosecute with Directives. They prosecute with UK law so there was no way a UK prosecuting authority could do anything about any breaches outlined in the UCPD until the UK CPUTR was introduced. If you look at the UCPD you will probably fidn it doesnt mention much/anything about offences as it is upto each country to decide what the penalties for non compliance are AND to decide who the enforcing bodies are -in this case the OFT and TS. There is probably a seperate and legal arguement about what happens if the UK never implements a Directive, and in this case there was a gap of 5 months. I dunno the answer. I think there might be some situations where if the EU lays down a law that gives PEOPLE rights and the UK doesnt enforce it then the PERSON can take action against the EU. But the CPUTR doesn't give any rights to PEOPLE - just public regulators. Having read your letter it appears that - you had a valid complaint - they looked at whether they could take action and they decided not to - the CPUTR 2008 was introduced and created *new law* - this new law meant that they could have taken action against the DCA if it occured post May 2008 but because it happened before they couldn't.
  9. Just come across this after our discussion last night. Not sure what your post means as you are linking to somehting 3.5 years old..... I think the leter is consistent with what we discussed anyway - in that the UK authorities couldnt do much until the CPUTR 2008 were enacted in the UK.
  10. Can you clarify what you actually want to achieve? The Court can only work o nthe law and I think you have the law mixed up. The CPUTR 2008 do not give you any rights as a consumer to take a company to court. It gives Trading Standards and the OFT power to prosecute a company. Secondly the UTCCR do apply when there is a unfair term - the laws apply to specific terms that a company uses - what terms are you reffering to? What the legislation does it cancel any unfair terms. As I say, I cannot see what you are trying to achieve - if it is to make the company sell you the product at the advertised price you won't achieve it with either of those laws IMO.
  11. Not sure if the small claims court can throw thingso utb efore they reach the cout stage but if so they might dofor this as I cannot see any valid legal claim. If not then you will just turn up the court and the Judge will tell you to get lost!
  12. Hmm, I think you are onto a loser. What do oyu hope to achieve? The court cannot force them to give you the product. And it is upto Trading Standards to make sure the shop complies with the legislation. Be interested to see what happens tho
  13. Refusing to identify themselves or hiding their number will probably be a breach of some regulation or another. By being vague they are trying to ensure that they do not reveal they are a DCA and therefore breach the DCG by embarassing the debtor. Of course, there is nothing to stop the call reciever doing their own research and finding out they are a DCA/finance company but the company cannot be held liable for that. Its a bit of a hole in the system but will always exist as long as trace activity is legal.
  14. With regards to WFS not giving their full name perhaps it has something to do with not wanting the person picking up the phone not knowing they are calling about a debt related issue until they have spoken to the account holder. Chances are if they said they were a DCA then people would complain that privacy is being breached by the mere name of the company (i.e x must owe money because a DCA called him)
  15. Report it to Consuemr Direct. Assuming it is the same company calling each time for the same debt they should stop calling once your MIL confirms she is not the person they want.
  16. Obviously they cant damage proeprty. Give them a ring in the first instance and see what they say.
  17. I spose MPs are morel ikely to have sway with public bodies than they are with private companies. Private companiesl ike DCAs can tell the MP to get stuffed - whats he gonna do? If your main complaint is unwanted contact from a DCA then surely ignoring them is counter productive? All it means is that they will continue to write and call due to a lack of feedback - they will just assume the person is hiding.
  18. There is no harm in writing to an MP and if you think it will help then by all means go for it - I just wouldn't expect or rely them to be able to change your position - but it would be a bonus if they could do so. They don't really have the power to force anyone to do anything in general terms as far as I know). In one of my previous jobs at a Council we recieved letters now and again from MPs on behalf of their constituents who didn'tl ike somehting we had done. It made no difference at all, we had made our decision (most often decided by law anyway) and an MPs letter couldn't make a difference. I also know of a situation whereby an MP wrote in on behalf of their constituent who was being prosecuted by the Council and suggested that they were not prosecuted and it was a waste of the Councils time. Of course he was only going on what his constituent had told him and probably had no idea of the whole story. As Op already has contact with TS over this matter I would be inclined to see what they can do.
  19. i think this is covered by this alw - Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 you will have to do further reading - but it doesnt sound good for you.
  20. One wonders why millions of students havent used the HRA to get free University education..
  21. wouldnt expect your MP to be able to do much to be honest. What did TS do i nthe end? What is this latest debt for? Is it the same as the previous ones?
  22. Ignoring them won't necessarily stop them from contacting you. I would just keep posting them the letter you have explaining it is not your debt. I would be inclined to call BG until they sort it out. They can take you to court, but if you have al lthe evidence you say which proves it probably isn't your bil lto pay then they won't win.
  23. OP needs to clarify whether it was a B2B transaction or whether they are a consumer. All elements of the SOGA can be restricted in B2B contacts apart from having the title to goods I think.
  24. If the goods were damaged in the post then you should go to RM and ask for compesnatio nas your contract is with them (or you coudl send to seller if you trust him). It is the DSR that says it about looking after goods but you will ahve to read the legislaiton to see what that duty stops.
  25. Report them to Consumer Direct - the compalint will go to both your local TS and the OFT.
×
×
  • Create New...