Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Howard Cohen Court Claim .**WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5746 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

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Your first inclination is the correct one.

 

Don't talk to them on the telephone, ensure all communications are in writing. it is very easy to tell lies over the phone, much less so when your letters can be produced in court.

 

When and if they get in touch in writing, CCA them to establish who they are and what they want.

 

Until then, have a nice day!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, you're correct ,DO NOT call these people, ever.

 

Personally, I would ignore this until you here from Viking.

 

I would then start by sending a CCA request to Viking(You can use template letter N from the library here)

Making sure that the line "I do not acknowledge any debt to your company or their representatives" is clear (Bold and Big). Send letter recorded delivery, and keep the slip that you get from the Post Office safe. You can track the delivery to them online these days.

 

Once the letter has been signed for, wait 12 days.

 

If , after that period (12 days from date of receipt by them) expires and Viking have not sent you a true copy of the original agreement (with the terms and conditions, and signed by you) , they cannot enforce the debt.

 

At that stage the debt is in dispute.

 

If you like, you can let them know that they cannot enforce the debt and should not legally attempt to collect any monies. If they continue, update this thread and you'll get help with the next stage.

 

They may fob you off with 'it takes time to process blah blah' - Ignore that. The law is the law and the time limits allowed are fixed.

If a further calender 30 days goes by without them sending the original agreement, they commit an offence under the Consumer Credit act.

 

Hope that helps.

Struggling_Simon vs Cabot - WON

Struggling_Simon vs Abbey - WON

Struggling_Simon vs HBOS - Pending

--------------------------------------------

IF I HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit

Somper in excretia,som solem profundus variat.

 

 

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Name & Registered Office:

VIKING COLLECTION SERVICES LIMITED

6 AGAR STREET

LONDON

WC2N 4HR

Company No. 00508834

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gif Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 13/06/1952

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

6523 - Other financial intermediation

Accounting Reference Date: 31/12

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/12/2006 (DORMANT)

Next Accounts Due: 31/10/2008

Last Return Made Up To: 09/11/2007

Next Return Due: 07/12/2008

Last Members List: 09/11/2007

Previous Names: Date of change Previous Name 22/10/1992 BURTON GROUP PERSONAL ACCOUNTS LIMITED

Link to post
Share on other sites

Registration Number: Z5750831

Date Registered: 13 September 2001 Registration Expires: 12 September 2008

 

Data Controller: GE CAPITAL GLOBAL CONSUMER FINANCE LTD

 

Address:

6 AGAR STREET

LONDON

WC2N 4HR

Other Names:

WELBECK FINANCIAL SERVICES

DRS

 

no mention of viking there :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had alot of dealings with Viking back in 2003, it was either letters from them or from Eversheds, this was connected to house of fraser card, again part of the ge group.

 

These people wasted no time at all in getting a ccj against me, its satisfied now and comes off next year:D

 

Give em one from me please:rolleyes:

 

cm

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, Hi zarren.

 

The letter yesterday should be ignored completely.

 

You need to wait until you get a response to your CCA. Expect this 12 working days after they recevied it, or less.

 

They have a further 30(weekedays) to answer fully.

Expect that they will say 'we need to get that info from the original creditor .. .. .. .. blah blah'.

 

Nothing to do except photocopy it twice for 'your bundle'.

 

Easy Now.

Simon

Struggling_Simon vs Cabot - WON

Struggling_Simon vs Abbey - WON

Struggling_Simon vs HBOS - Pending

--------------------------------------------

IF I HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit

Somper in excretia,som solem profundus variat.

 

 

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

second of all,

 

@C00kiemonster

 

Mate,

 

Always a pleasure, never a chore.

 

Eversheds are reputable. Not sure about Viking so much, though.

 

As an aside, just how much did you pay for 'Charges'.

A SAR(Subject Access Request) will tell you.

 

Each 'charge' should carry a cost no more than £12 per occurence nowadays -if it's more than that you can clam the balance back , +8% for the duration of the contract plus ...

Struggling_Simon vs Cabot - WON

Struggling_Simon vs Abbey - WON

Struggling_Simon vs HBOS - Pending

--------------------------------------------

IF I HAVE HELPED PLEASE CLICK MY SCALES

 

Vigilantibus non dormientibus æquitas subvenit

Somper in excretia,som solem profundus variat.

 

 

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm also sure Consumer Direct / OFT / would be interested to know that they are using a premium rate number too !!!

Section 2.2 on the OFT Debt Guidance...

 

h. asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate

telephone numbers

 

Actually you are quite lucky that you get to deal with a mickey mouse DCA !!! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...