Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE. I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.   The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels.    I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance?    I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other. Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related.  I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 
    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
    • Thanks so much dx. I really am grateful for your advice Billy  
  • 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

DG Solictors. Need Help


ppauls150
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6435 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

The bank does not have the right to decide where your money is to be deposited.

The court is not concerned whether the bank is owed money by the claimant in

other accounts- all they are dealing withis whether the money being claimed is a valid claim and if it is, then the money has to be repaid to its rightful owner.

 

As the bank has opted not to go to Court, then they have to make restitution to the claimant as if the case had been heard and lost by them. There is a form n242a

which you can apply for which makes the bank pay the claim into Court rather than pay you direct. And if you go to this url

PRACTICE DIRECTION*--- OFFERS TO SETTLE AND PAYMENTS INTO COURT*-- This Practice Direction supplements CPR Part 36

 

under paragraph 8.4 you will see "Subject to paragraph 8.5(1) and (2), if a party does not wish the payment to be transmitted into his bank account or if he does not have a bank account, he may send a written request to the Accountant-General for the payment to be made to him by "

 

 

So, send a strong letter to the bank giving them the option of returning your money

immediately by cheque, or you will apply to the Accountant General forcing them

to pay you by cheque. They will also incur additional costs because you will restart

interest charges and the cost of applying for form n242a

 

PS Bear in mind that as the bank have terminated your accounts, they cannot even use their

T&C's to give them the right of offsetting one account against another.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Time and time again, Bankfodder and the other Moderators exhort forum members

to read all the FAQS and as many threads as possible before beginning their

actions.

In most cases where settlement is offered, you would have seen that the bank

often states that the agreed sum will be placed in the relevant account, and had

you read any of those threads you would have seen that some members had

asked for [and received] a cheque instead. So it was down to you to stipulate,

prior to signing, how you wanted to be reimbursed.

 

Now that you have shown fuller details under which you signed, one can

understand why they were keen to offer you a settlement on their terms. You

could give them the choice of paying you a cheque on the grounds that the

settlement was not paid as you had assumed it would be. But if they refuse to

alter their stance, you will start a claim to have the interest on that part of the

£5500 {?} loan which was bank charges. I assume that you did not factor in

that interest in your calculations? That would amount to an extra £550 to £800 or so depending on the rate of interest charged and may give you some leverage to

come to an acceptable deal-including the default.

 

The other thing as well, is that every time DG respond to your requests and

counter offers etc, it costs the bank money, and they may well decide to cut

their losses and come to some sort of accomodation with you, just to get rid of

paying DG their probably extortionate fees.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to jump onto someone elses thread, but I am really interested in what has happened here as I want to avoid it for my own case. At what stage should the OP have stated that they wanted the refund in the form of a cheque /QUOTE]

 

After they have agreed to settle out of Court, but BEFORE you sign anything. Tell

them what you want out of the settlement. Eg paid by cheque and/or default

lifted. This is when you are in the driving seat.

 

Notice thet DG Solicitors said they had been to Court to challenge a similar situation

"We have recently been successful in arguing just this point before the County Court."[Aside to PPauls-it would be worthwhile asking DG to supply you with dates and which Court as well as any other relevant info on that case] So they were prepared to argue over a point of Law which they felt certain of winning, but not prepared to go to Court to argue over £3800, or any other amount from anyone else. I wonder why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, that letter is a bit garbled as it stands. If you haven't already sent it, let's

see if it can be crystallised though I am bound to say that we are all prety much

in uncharted waters on this one.

 

First, you have agreed to accept their offer out of Court. The only way that I think

you could challenge them on that now would be if they have not adhered to the terms of the settlement. Or the terms of the settlement as you, a layman, without the benefit of independent legal advice, understood them to be.That is why it is

important to know how they said they would repay you. [What were their exact words, as there may be an argument as to whether by paying off the outstanding

amount ,they have not paid you].

 

You expected them to pay you as if you had won the case in Court and would

therefore have been able to stipulate that you wanted to receive a cheque. Had

you known that they were not going to pay you direct, you would not have

accepted their terms.

That's point one.

Following on from there, by their own admission "We have successfully applied to have judgements set aside where this has happened in the past" they are taking

advantage of the lack of knowledge of those entering into these negotiations,

to secure better terms than they would have had the Court had the final decision.

This cannot be equitable. The terms are therefore unfair to the claimant and the

contract should be regarded as such, and should be set aside.

Moreover, as the bank cancelled your accounts with them two years ago, you are no longer bound by their

T&C's as far as offsetting one account against another.

 

On the subject of the original debt. From your first post, it seems the amount was around £5500-was it, and did they convert it to a loan, and what

was the rate of interest? Also, the £3800 odd you asked for, was that all charges

[plus Court fees] or was the 8% rate included?

 

What I am getting at here is that initial debt minus the lump sum and the monthly payment [5500 -3851-2400 {2 years}=£751 in credit], not £900 still outstanding.

so if all else fails, it appears on these figures that as the charges should not have been levied in the first place, then the debt should have been around £1800 which

you have more than paid, so the default should not now stand. Or did they force you to take out insurance payments on the £5500?

 

PS Still unclear as to the negotiations involved with the default-how did they word it

so that they could not tie it in with the settlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have had a result.

You originally set out to get your unlawful charges refunded, and the default

erased. OK you actually wanted £3800 in cash and carry on paying the £100 a

month. But this way, you are almost £1000 better off. Not sure why they would do this if they felt they were on solid ground. They don't give a stuff whether you are unhappy or not.

 

On the plus side, you are now £100 a month better off, your whole debt wiped

out,plus it will have to be recorded with The Credit Agencies that the matter is now

resolved.

And you can still pursue a new claim to have the default erased anyway.

 

It's up to you. Do you know any reason why they would pay you the extra £950?

There may be something we are missing...............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good letter.

The more I think about it, the more I have a nagging feeling that there is something

else going on.

 

They seem reluctant to remove the default, which as far as I am aware, would

cost them virtually nothing, apart from some time, and some correspondence with

the Credit Agencies. And instead, they write off almost £1000, and still leave

themselves vulnerable to having to remove the default. In fact they have probably

increased the likelihood of its removal by them erasing the debt.

 

I am pleased to see that you are taking legal advice, since to continue your action

all the way to Court having been offered more than you originally asked for, money

wise, might not be too well received by the Court. I am aware that you want the

default removed, and may well have been misled or misdirected over it, not to

mention further possible misdirection that you cannot proceed with your claim

now that you have settled.

 

I am not saying that you shouldn't pursue them to remove the default, rather that

it may be better to bring a new action than push your luck in Court now. Whatever you decide, good luck, and don't forget to keep all their correspondence for at

least 6 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's different for you, but from the outside looking in, you can't help but

laugh when they informed you that they would mark the debt as being satisfied.

What else could they do? Leave it on your credit report as it stands?

 

Just bear in mind that though the debt has been written off, it still exists on an

account somewhere in the bank. Yes it will be tax deductible, but maybe in a few years from now, they may be able to farm it out to one of the sleazy debt collectors

to attempt some sort of recovery from you. Without your current correspondence, it might be hard to disprove the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading your post on the other thread it occurs to me that had you taken

your own advice on this thread, you would have probably already had the default removed, but would be £1000 worse off.LOL

 

As it stands, you look as if you are on course to get the default removed anyway.

I take my hat off to you. From getting hardly anything you wanted out of the

original settlement, you are looking good to have almost everything you wanted.

God knows how many precedents you have set. DG must be looking at you as their

best fee raiser this month- they will miss your income when you finally get the default removed.

What's next? You still want that £3800 cheque, don't you? LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6435 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...