Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • and more positive change From next year, mobile phone, paid television and broadband companies must inform customers of any price rises at the point of sale. The changes, ordered by Ofcom, will come into force on 17 January and mean that any mid-contract price rises must be given “in pounds and pence” and in a “clear and comprehensible” way.   Taken a change of government to do it after years of bluster about it eh?   Mobile phone companies banned from hiking prices mid-contract based on inflation WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The new year plan ensures providers are transparent on prices at the point of sale  
    • Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? It depends which country, I imagine. Most UK banks want proof of address and ID, probably more. If your friend/partner can use the house address and provide bills that could help. You would need to look at various online banks and see what their requirements are. Or there are expat accounts but I haven't looked closely at how they work. Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage) I'd have thought the DWP would pay to a new account, as long as the person they're authorised to deal with asks them and provides details. The international pensions people in Newcastle are pretty helpful.
    • HB - he has certainly given me a challenge ! I set a plan in motion. A refinance plan that would have enabled me to take time to sell one asset and sort out another for him.   The bank account blockage has hindered the plan.  His partner seems to think I can do everything w/o paying anyone for anything.  I don't mind helping - but it's not normal to clear out 2 properties, organize storage or sale of possessions, get properties ready for sale/ rent - w/o being paid.  He has the money to pay for things and services - and for my help - but the blockage prevents that. If the refinance plan could still be actioned then at least I would have some time to sell one asset.  Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage)
    • It's a shame that your friend didn't take care of this while he had capacity and before he left the country, isn't it? He seems to have made your mission impossible. HB
    • HB - this form and process is as I remember it from handling relatives cases.  It's a timing thing.  Which has passed in terms of my friend
  • 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
      • 162 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

The Scarlet Pimpernel vs. Capquest/CrapOne

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5864 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

About a month ago I received a letter from Crapquest regarding an alleged debt to Crapital One. It interested me exceedingly, because the card had had a low limit, and was not much used, and never went overlimit.


When I moved I informed CrapOne, who demanded a utility bill as proof, and would accept nothing else. Since I lived in military accommodation at the time, I was unable to produce same; CrapOne were immovable. So, I wrote and told them that mail would not be forwarded after a couple of months; they had my new address, but if they chose not to use it, they must live with the consequences.


Due to the cursed HSBC failing to transfer all my direct debits when I changed accounts, the payments to CrapOne stopped. The huge intellects at Crapquest are now demanding some four times the original credit limit.


So, I CCAd them and today (within the twelve days) received a response direct from CrapOne.


Their letter says, amusingly, that although they are not obliged to supply it under a s.77/78 request, they've done me a favour and included a copy of 'the document signed by yourself and Capital One', together with some meaningless current T&Cs (complete with a newer address), an odd screenprint of something that doesn't identify an account or individual, and some example default letter templates.


I have formed an opinion regarding the enforceability of the alleged agreement. However, I'd be most grateful if others would cast their eyes over it, and let me know what they think.




That's it! Presumably CrapOne are hoping that I won't spot the heading ('Application form'), or that the bottom part appears to have been detached from another document - or that the prescribed terms are conspicuous by their absence, or that the terms are on another document entirely - that they've failed to supply.


Any suggestions for a feck-off letter appreciated...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go mate. This is a CB special Feck Off and produce a real CCA letter.


You may also wish to remind them of S175 and 189 of the CCA 1974 and their Legal Obligations


Dear Sirs,



Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxx




Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974



Thank you for your letter dated **********, the contents of which are noted


You attention is drawn to the fact that this account is subject to a serious dispute. On xx/xx/2007 I requested ********supply me a copy of the credit agreement covering this account pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78. To date ******** have failed to comply with my request and have totally ignored my written reminders sent via recorded delivery of this fact. Without production of the said agreement I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you or *******, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’ as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974



For the avoidance of any doubt I have included section 78(1) and 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which states…


78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.




Clearly as no agreement was supplied on request, this in no way complies with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and I now draw your attention to section 78 subsection 6 which states If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;


Clearly this is a situation as described in s78(6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the debt is unenforceable at this time. In addition, I draw your attention to section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states


127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).


This is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.



To clarify s61(1) states


(1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—


(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

© The document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible


In addition the prescribed terms referred to in section 60 CCA1974 are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following—


1.Number of repayments;

2.Amount of repayments;

3.Frequency and timing of repayments;

4.Dates of repayments;

5.The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable


Therefore based upon the Consumer Credit Act 1974 this debt as it stands is unenforceable and should this proceed to litigation, a court is precluded from making an enforcement order under section 127(3) unless a true copy of the signed agreement is produced..


At the point where this account entered into the default situation as described in s78 (6) CCA 1974 no other charges are allowed to be added until such time as ********* become compliant with my request. As ****** are still not in compliance with my request I insist that the following takes place with immediate effect

  • All charges levied since ******** 2007 be removed from the account and further charges cease until such time as ******* comply fully with my original request or such time as a court makes an enforcement order
  • All entries which refer to missed payments be removed from my credit file
  • All collection activities by your company cease with immediate effect until ******** comply with my request from ********* 2007 or such time as a court makes an enforcement order

In addition, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection


The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states


2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:


h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment


What I Require.


I require that you send me a true copy of the executed agreement as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If you are unable to supply the requested documentation because no such agreement is in existence I require written clarification as such.


I require that you comply with my request within 7 days of the date of this letter. I will not correspond any further with you until I either receive a copy of the requested documents as laid down in section 78(1) CCA 74 or clarification that such agreement doesn’t exist. I am advised that should you persist in pursuing this debt ignoring the above information you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well


No other correspondence will be accepted


Should you attempt litigation it will be vigorously defended and the failure to supply documentation under the CCA 1974 is a complete defence to any legal action and your actions will be vexatious and unlawful



I trust this out lines the situation



Link to post
Share on other sites

how about one that says thanks for your letter heres my response . ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

or something like that .

CAG v dca




Link to post
Share on other sites

You're one of the few people on here SP I wouldn't like to face in a court of law !! even I can tell that this is completely unenforceable....


What about this one next ?


Thank you for your response to my request under the Consumer Credit Act section 78.


I am pleased to see that you confirm this as a true copy of the original agreement executed by yourselves on the 26th July 2007.


As you must realise this agreement does not conform to sections 60(1) and 61(1) of the Consumer credit Act and is therefore unenforceable under section 127(3) of the same act.



You had until (date here) to provide me with the true copy I requested. After that date you entered into default of my request. Whilst the account is in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, make any further charges to the account or pass the account to anybody else. I would also like to note that as from the (12+2 working days + 30 calendar days) it becomes a criminal offence.

Please note you may also consider this letter a statutory notice under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies including any defaults. Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data. It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’, you must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.


Should you fail to respond within 21 days, I will expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'd forgotten to update this thread.


I received a letter from HL Legal, in which they threatened legal action. I then sent a formal complaint on 31 March to Crapquest - that they were already aware that the account was in dispute, and that as Crap One were in default of my CCA the HL Legal template was an unlawful demand for payment.


Yesterday I received two identical letters from Crapquest, to the effect that my complaint was being investigated with Crap One.


Today, I received another letter telling me that their investigation is now complete, and they have closed their file.


No doubt Crap One will now pass it to some other lowlifes, but I take some encouragement from the fact that Crapquest realise it's unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This morning, a letter from Crap One to tell me that 'Capquest are no longer dealing with this matter' - no sh!t, Sherlock - and that they'll be managing it themselves from now on.


How tedious. I have penned a short missive to the effect that my position was clearly set out in an earlier letter to Crapquest, and has not changed. I've added any demand for payment is unlawful, and if they persist, I will ask TS to prosecute them under CPUTR. Oh, and since they appear to be either unable or unwilling to comply, they owe me a quid!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...