Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

VOLVO v Rockwell DC(Marks & Spencer) Personal Reserve Account


volvo
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5156 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

Hi All

 

I sent a CCA request to Rockwell on 26/5/07 for the above assigned M+S

account.

They responded on 10 July 2007 with a large amount of statements and a almost unreadable copy of the 'agreement' which i dont think has the prescribed terms etc., which in those distant days i took at face value and agreed to continue my reduced monthly repayments to them, thereby acknowledging the debt i suppose.

 

Having had time to reflect, can i now reissue a new fresh CCA request to them or is there a limit on how often i can request this.

 

I really would like to start the ball rolling again on this one, as i am pretty sure what they will supply will not meet the CCA requirements.

 

Grateful for any advice.

 

VOLVO

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would need to wait one month from the previous request before sending another one from the date that they originally complied. However, they have not complied with your original request as the copy of the agreement needs to be legible.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally 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

An illegible copy of the agreement is not compliant with Regulation 2 ,Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) and is not enforceable.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally 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

The fact i reinstated payments will not make any difference i assume as by not being legible they have not complied fully with the cca request, so no need for a new request, just to advise their non-compliance.

 

So i can cancel the payments forthwith, yes.

 

VOLVO

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact i reinstated payments will not make any difference i assume as by not being legible they have not complied fully with the cca request, so no need for a new request, just to advise their non-compliance.

 

Yes
So i can cancel the payments forthwith, yes.

Yes, you can legally withhold payment.
  • Haha 1

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally 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

  • 1 month later...

Hi

 

Pse see attached correspondence received today from Rockwell DCA

regarding my complaint dated 28th Jan 2008 relating to illegible CCA

supplied with also lack of Terms ans Conditions.

 

Anyone like Curly or Rory able to offer advice on what and how to respond?

 

Thanks

 

VOLVO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could a MOD move this to the Debt Collection Industry area, Please.

 

Done :)

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally 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

If this is the best copy that's available, then it's pretty useless... whatever it is. Are you able to make out anything on there ?

 

Personally, I wouldn't respond to their letter for now. Its content suggests that it's an Application anyway....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just about make out a lot of it from the copy they sent me but i cannot see any prescribed terms etc.

 

My letter of 28/1/08 to them was a "Formal Complaint" but there response i received yesterday has not included any thing about their complaints procedure at all.

 

Really want a nice letter to respond to them with as a complaint.

 

Should i pass this to the FOS as well or instead?

 

VOLVO

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have nothing further to say to them.

You have already sent them a The Library's formal complaint and said what further action you will take.

Time to take this to Trading Standards for action.

 

Give Consumer Direct a call for starters and they will forward your complaint to TS for action.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't forget the FOS too as they seem to have given you their final response on this matter.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally 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

  • 1 month later...

Received a reply a few days ago from Rockwell that they had returned the account back to original creditor and had closed their file on this.

 

Fingers crossed M&S dont sell it on to another DCA

 

VOLVO

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

UPDATE

 

Hi all

 

Today i received in the SAME envelope the following from Lowells.

 

This account had been passed by M&S to Rockwell DCA on 4th aug 2003 to whom i had been making token payments until i did a CCA request to them on 26th May 2007 who could only obtain a illegible copy of an agreement (application form) minus prescribed terms on 10th July 2007.

 

I told them this and complained to FOS and to Rockwell who then returned the account to M & S on 24th April 2008.

 

Quite surprised to receive this today from Lowells.

 

Is ther a template response letter and should it be to M & S or Lowell, or both??

 

Grateful for any help

 

 

IMG-6.jpg

 

IMG_0001-3.jpg

 

Thanks

 

VOLVO

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...