Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks very much Bank. I have topped and tailed my LOC and printed off a copy which I shall post tomorrow by First Class post at my local post office and also obtain a proof of postage. I'll also email them a copy. I've opened a MoneyClaim account, and shall now begin work on my draft Particulars of Claim which I shall post here for your thoughts. And I shan't be using the Moderation service.
    • Yes, it struck me this morning that I'd got it wrong    - no involvement of UKPPO in any previous Tesco thread    - there would have been an entrance sign to a Tesco car park    - CCTV isn't something associated with Tesco car parks. Presumably whoever runs the car park has put CCTV at the electric, and probably BB, areas, done absolutely nothing to stop abuse, and then rubs their hands in glee every time the CCTV catches a motorist out. You can pay £60 and this will go away. Or you can defy UKPPO and rely on their non-respect of POFA, consideration period, etc., should they be daft enough to do court later down the line.  We would support you all the way.
    • thats not the way to do it sorry. sorry so what is your problem? that vanquis paid the £560 or that they are now chasing it? how old is this debt? dx  
    • If you visited Qatar you could be detained at the border, if the debt has been notified.  If you are only in transit and do not seek to cross border into Qatar you might be ok, but you may want to seek formal advice about this.
    • Howdy, I had a short lived credit card with Vanquis that I did not need. I paid it off in full and called them and closed it with the person at the other end. 2 months later they started sending me messages about late payments, I called them and to find out that the card had not been closed in error and 6 weeks after it should have been closed they paid a google debit of £560. I hit the roof and made a formal complaint that took them well over a month to respond to. They agreed they were at fault, refunded all late payments fees and offered me £100 in compensation. However they said the debit amount stood as 'I had benefit from it' and I should get a refund from google. I hit the roof again but they have stuck to their guns. The debit from google is a genuine one but I wanted to dispute it with google so closed the card so they would have to engage with me. But surely that's neither here nor there surely? What is the next step? Ombudsman takes forever doesn't it?  thanks in advance
  • 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 
        • 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

Egg Agreement Received


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5802 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

Having sent DLC a cca request for an egg agreement, the issue was passed to ARC (Europe) Ltd who have now come up with (what looks like) a credit agreement.

 

When I've scanned it in I'll post on here.

 

In the meantime, assuming it is an enforceable agreement, is there a possible argument if:

- i didn't receive a default notice?

- i didn't receive a notice of assignment to either DLC or Arc??

Link to post
Share on other sites

technically, if they haven't issued you with a default, they shouldn't be enforcing the debt as you aren't (technically) in default yet

 

were there any other DCA's involved prior to ARC who couldn't find the CCA when asked, or are ARC the first DCA who've contacted you re: this account?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question which instantly comes to mind is:

 

If DLC were unable to find the enforceable CCA, why and how have ARC been able to provide it?

 

To say "be more than a little suspicious" is a major understatement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What they have sent you is not a true & executed copy of a CCA

 

I

 

tbh i'm not 100% the 2nd page relates to the 1st page! there certainly appears to be something missing after the 1st page...

 

can you elaborate on why it's not a true & executed copy? Need to send a written response maintaining that i do not recognise the debt...

 

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sirs,

 

Account Number: XXX

 

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of your companies current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a "true copy" of the agreement.

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

 

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, "the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form." This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues

 

Yours faithfully

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

crikey that's a long one... but i like it! thanks for that drob.

 

just for clarity, which page are you contending is just T&C's - the first page? I think i may omit the "current" from your first paragraph of the letter body as it is dated in 2002??

Link to post
Share on other sites

over a year ago! just received this week. obviously i only have 10 days to respond....:rolleyes:

 

I'm pretty sure someone told me that if the CCA request hasnt been fulfilled, after 12 months they cannot do s***.

 

Someone with more know how may want to clarify this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sirs,

 

Account Number: XXX

 

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of your companies current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a "true copy" of the agreement.

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

 

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, "the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form." This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

 

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues

 

Yours faithfully

 

Thats a good letter, although IMHO, I wouldnt tell them you'll await a true copy of the agreement. I would accept what they've sent as being an original CCA, however, it is unenforcable in a court of law. Dont tell em why.

 

Just my penny's worrth.

 

Also, how old is this debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure someone told me that if the CCA request hasnt been fulfilled, after 12 months they cannot do s***.

 

Someone with more know how may want to clarify this.

 

This isn't correct. They can enforce the agreement at anytime after they have responded to the cca request up until 6 years after you aknowledged the debt inwriting or made a payment

Link to post
Share on other sites

EGG always pay up.

 

You may wish to send the S.A.R letter and start to reclaim your charges.

 

Jogs

 

I've just calc'd from old statements that there is £80 in charges... there's always the option to reclaim these, but to be fair I suppose they would just reduce the alledged outstanding balance...

 

debt is 3-4 years old...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...