Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  1.       The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: - a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 7.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation                  that the money is owed. 8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
    • Paint is a free programme on any Windows PC. But don't worry, the choice here is not either perfection or nothing. As you say, use your scanner, save the file ... and then use the "choose files" option when you post to CAG to add the file. We can do all the redacting and converting to the correct file type at this end.  The important thing is just to get the info to us. Why not do an experiment this afternoon and see if the above works?  
    • I see they're trying to round up asylum seekers and lock them up for about three months so they can be put on planes to Rwanda. I'm a bit surprised that this is legal.  
    • thought for the day "Prime ministers need a big strategy that tells you where you’re going, you need a bunch of tactics that get you there, and you need the ability to take everybody else with you."   Now I know you are all thinking 'why is the  UKs destination Rwanda ???
  • 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

Digi-bill, RHF Productions, Wescot


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5772 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, I've just had a "Final notice" letter from wescot about a debt from digi-bill, it started in February when I had a letter from digi-bill saying " when you registered with us you indicated that you would make payment by credit card. Unfortunately this transaction was unsuccessful and the latest reason given was DECLINED".

It then went on to ask how I was going to pay, the letter looked poor giving no indication to what I had bought, a date or invoice number, one address in Jersey and another po box in scotland, also it gave no amount.

I decided to ignore it, then in March I had another exactly the same letter, except for the heading was from RHF productions.

I have now had 4 letters from them, and 2 from wescot, wescot put the outstanding balance as £35.94.

So after googling I found it's likely to be for adult films from sky, there are 2 sky boxes in the house but I don't watch them, I've asked my family and no one admits to it.

The thing is the letters look poor, if I hadn't looked on the internet I would still have no idea what it was for, why did they give whatever it was if the credit card was declined.

Am I responsible for it because sky is in my name? None of the letters mention sky.

I know it's not a large amount but I don't want to pay for something I've not had.

I've came to this site via google, and found this thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/129233-debt-demand-wescot.html

Should I send the letter that N.P posted?

I could just leave it and see if they send me to court, I've never been to court and it'll be interesting, though I'll have difficulty getting there.

Gees this is a long post, hope someone reads it and can advise me.

 

Thanks

riget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if the payment did not go through, then the film would not have been shown? If that is the case why are they chasing you?

 

I don't know, and I don't see why I should pay for a phone call to find out.

I don't know if I should carry on ignoring it, or send a letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could try this letter

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Account no:

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. In not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to the trading standards department and consider informing the OFT of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

(Your Name) Print do not sign

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, still not sure if I should send a letter or not, seems a lot of effort, time, and postage for a £35 bill.

I can see a lot of people just paying to end it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I never sent a letter, and have now had another letter from wescot, this is for another amount £17.97, the digibill ref no is the same but with -A after it, the wescot debt no is different.

I've not had a letter from digibill or RHF for this amount.

The letter says:

If you ignore the instructions and fail to take action by 20/06/2008

This may result in one of the following:

1. Legal proceedings being automatically issued against you in the county court/sheriff's court-which could result in:

A county court judgment or decree against you

Your possessions being seized

Your debt increasing because of court costs

2. A debt collector being instructed to visit your home and collect the debt personally.

 

Do I keep ignoring these or should I now do something?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On balance you are probably better to send the letter that Saintly posted for you.

First it is a lot cheaper than paying them £35 or whatever.

Second if you keep ignoring them they will continue to write and hassle. On top of that once you have put them in the picture and they continue there is a chance you can offload them on to Trading Standards etc to get rid of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Ok just got this letter from Wescot:

 

We can confirm that as a consequence of the query you raised, the above account has been returned to our client.

No further action will be taken by wescot to recover the above account.

 

Looks like the letter worked, Thanks for the help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...