Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yee I mentioned after the new regulations. Depends if the amount off to date will take that threshold below £50k
    • In short you never communicate with a Debt Collector, they have no power here at all. The snotty letter is only used to respond to a properly worded Letter Before Claim. The only time you would be recommended to contact the PPC is to send the snotty letter. You do nothing but keep the tripe they send you unless you receive a letter before claim.
    • Probably to do with the Creditor accepting the reduced payments claim as part of the IVA. - Thats my guess anyway.  As for the mount outstanding... 60k is incredible and im pretty sure a DRO wouldnt cover that much even after the new legislation.    For you @Alfy - Please stay headstrong and stop worrying. My viewpoint on debt with debt collectors is simple. You are a figure on a spreadsheet loaded into a database for them to run a collection cycle through.  They dont care about emotions or your situation, they just care about paying off their shareholders and trying to turn a profit.  They use varying tactics to increase the pressure on you to the point where you will break. People then fall for this an either cave in to DCAs before doing their own due diligence on the debts that are purchased or turn to IVAs like you have.    They are better ways to handle this and Im glad you feel better after a good nights sleep - I hope you can keep it up. 
    • Good afternoon,    I am writing in reference to the retail dispute number ****, between myself and Newton Autos concerning the sale of a Toyota Avensis which has been found to have serious mechanical faults.    As explained previously the car was found to be faulty just six days after purchase. The car had numerous fault codes that appeared on the dash board and went into limp mode. This required assistance from the AA and this evidence has already been provided. The car continues to exhibit these faults and has been diagnosed as having faults with the fuel injectors which will require major mechanical investigation and repairs.    Newton Autos did not make me aware of any faults upon purchase of the vehicle and sold it as being in good condition.    Newton Autos have also refused to honour their responsibilities under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires them to refund the customer if the goods are found to be faulty and not fit for purpose within 30 days of purchase.    Newton Autos also refused to accept my rejection of the vehicle and refused to refund the car and accept the return of the vehicle.    It is clear to me that the car is not fit for purpose as these mechanical faults occurred so soon after purchase and have been shown to be present by both the AA and an independent mechanic.   Kind regards
  • 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

Capquest Cca...any Advise!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5719 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 everyone,

 

Having difficulties scanning a CCA that I have received from CapQuest regarding a debt from Intelligent Finance taken over the internet back in 2001, I have reproduce word for word the document.

 

i would really appreciate your opinion and let me know if the CCA that they have send me is an enforceable CCA. I would like to add that they also sent me the application form of that debt.

 

Thank you very much:)

CCA 1.doc

CAC2.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like a document that has been typed up for the purpose of fulfilling your CCA request. The prescribed terms are there but not the Terms and Conditions and they should also have sent you statements showing what has been paid and what remains to be paid. You do not give the figures but check them to see if they are correct. There is a fundamental error right at the beginning in that the headline states " Credit Agreement regulated by the consumer act 1974" - the correct legislation is the Consumer Credit Act 1974 so the typist has typed this wrongly and no one has checked it. So they have sent you an alleged copy of an agreement regulated by legislation that doesn't exist. Is that the norm for Intelligence Finance credit agreements? Would they try to enforce this through the courts, where they would have to produce the original? I think not. Next - there is no address for the lender and "Halifax" is not a company - the company was Halifax PLC before it amalgamated with the Bank of Scotland. Next - a copy of any document mentioned in the copy of the agreement must be sent to you - you have not received a copy of the "intelligence Finance Conditions 2000" booklet mentioned in the third paragraph. Note that "intelligence finance" is in lower case twice in this paragraph - would a company ever spell it's name on a legal document in lower case? - I think not. In the rights section at the bottom the "consumer" in "consumer Credit act 1974" is also in lower case.

 

In my view this is not an authentic copy of a credit agreement, they have not fulfilled your request under the CCA 1974 in that the document sent is not authentic and all the parts required to fulfill the CCA request have not been sent. As it is a document supposedly regulated by legislation that doesn't exist, this in my view makes it totally unenforceable. Nice try, Capquest, but pathetic. I have had some dealings with them and devious is their second name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply,

 

The document that you see, I have typed it myself as I was unable to scan it, I was trying to reproduce it word for word. The Halifax Plc address appears on the agreement. They did sent me a statement of account and a booklet 2001 and not 2000 which is basically their terms & conditions for their bank account, credit cards, loan etc...

The document is indeed titled : Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Do you think it is still enforceable?

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have sent you the wrong booklet and no statements so they haven't fulfilled your CCA request. They cannot send you just any old Terms and Conditions - they must be the ones that pertained at the time of the agreement. The copy of the agreement itself has the prescribed terms and your signature but you must also have the Terms and Conditions. I recently argued with a DCA that they had sent me the wrong Terms and Conditions and I haven't heard a thing from them since. I personally would argue in a court that the agreement didn't fulfill the requirements of the CCA 1974 because the Terms and Conditions presented were invalid for the alleged agreement produced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you,

 

Can the CCA be unenforceable simply by sending me the wrong year of the Terms & conditions? they did send me a statement of account.

The 30 days is up on the 20th July, what kind of letter would I need to send to Capquest and justify that it is not a true CCA?

If I was in a position to offer a Full & Final Settlement, am I still allowed to go back to the original creditor (intelligent finance)and make an offer??

 

Lots of questions I know...

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, a court would probably rule it enfoerceable because the prescribed terms and your signature are there. I might stick my neck out where others wouldn't and for me it has worked but doesn't mean to say it would work for everyone. If you went back to Halifax, they would probably tell you Capquest is dealing with it and to deal with them. You could offer them a Full and Final.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...