Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • See what the latest data on school suspensions tells us about the UK education system and early intervention.View the full article
    • The world's largest economy grew less than expected but rising inflation may delay a rate cut.View the full article
    • Hello, Following the submission of my defense, last night I received an email from DCBL indicating that the claimant intends to proceed with the claim (I've attached a screenshot of the email for reference) along with the N180 directions questionnaire. I'm unsure how they obtained my email, but I suspect it was through the courts' form when I completed the Acknowledgment of Service. This email almost slipped my attention. I have also today received a letter from court to state they have received my defense.  It appears they are requesting an online telephone hearing with the court. Could you please advise me on the necessary steps I should take at this point? Thank you for your assistance. Letter-Email 25-04-24.pdf N180 - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track).pdf
    • Default Amount £9237.88, all this started in 2006 Admitted debt £9075.65 Weightmans added £1515.01 immediately they became involved, no explanation The Statement shows when Marlin bought debt in May 2011 £10439.25 Their statements, not received until the SAR, are based on this. Cabot deducted £1515.01on their statements in January 2019, again did not find this out until SAR. Weightmans added in  2007 after the CH1 etc was confirmed by the court £741.50, made up of Process server fees, Court Fee (they tried for bankruptcy), Solicitors fee and Land Registry fee. Unspecfied Legal costs were added by Marlin in March 2015, again I did not know this until statements received with SAR I had been paying monthly, without exception until December 2018. I am minded to take the property charge, CH1 amount ,deduct all my payments and the subsequent fees, and request/demand a refund on the final payment made? I consistently disputed Weightmans balances, but they never responded. I also told Mortimer Clarke/Cabot that I disputed their amounts.  
    • Just follow this link and have read of some threads so your familiar with the process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5178739
  • 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
      • 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

Egg CCA - enforcable?


moobelle
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5750 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 having won my refund of penalty charges against egg I am now going for them for mis-sold PPI and for non-enforcable CCA.

 

here is my photo bucket link to the two images which I have scanned of the documents I got in response to my CCA request. Could someone who understands this better than me have a look and tell if its a good cca or not?

 

Many thanks as ever lovely Caggers :)

 

http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o455/moobelle36/IMG008.jpg

http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o455/moobelle36/IMG009.jpg

 

Oh I hope its a bad one and I can be nasty to a company that have made my life a misery with their escalating interest and hassle followed by termination of an agreement I had NEVER once defaulted on.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moobelle you are not blacklisted, more likely A-listed. ;)

Mod Steven4024 is the expert on the 5(?) criteria determining a valid enforceable CCA. He is busy patrolling many forums but no doubt will see this soon. Or you could draw his attention with a PM, but he will not reply to a question posed only within a PM.

 

Or you could SEARCH, ADVANCED SEARCH, and nominate poster as Steven4024, and insert keyword "CCA", and display as post, not thread.

There might be a problem re the shortness of "CCA" as a searchstring. If no joy specify "signature".

 

Your photobucket pic requires a double magnifying glass, might be better if you verbally describe what there is on it, in particular the signature and date.

 

Good luck.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah thanks Mistermind - you always end up rescuing me!!!

 

Only panicking as am on last day of job and then have no access to a printer (and funnily enough can''t afford to buy one LOL) to print all my demanding letters out so am trying to do as many as poss today...

Mmm will try and get the photobucket stuff magnified...

 

Onwards ever upwards surely!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I remember there is an issue about a CCA being on one piece of paper, two-sided if need be, presumably so that the likes of Arfur Daley do not insert a page separate from the signed page.

 

If your two sheets are the two sides of one piece of paper, do say.

 

PS. Whether a letter is printed or handwritten would not matter much I would think. Eggployees have clear guidelines on how to respond. :wink:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI again

 

the copy I have received is a photocopy so impossible to tell if two sided or not....

 

T&C's are a seperate print out as well if that makes any difference to its ligitimacy.

 

Moobelle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Egg agreements are considered compliant with CCA, so basically this IS enforceable.

 

Mod Steven4024 is the expert on the 5(?) criteria determining a valid enforceable CCA.
Till I came back ;)

 

 

S61(1)(a) CCA provides that, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, it must contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement and conform to regulations under s60(1) – see Q1.14.

 

Reg 6(1) provides that the terms specified in Sch 6 to the Agreements Regulations are ‘prescribed terms’ for the purposes of s61(1)(a) and s127(3) – see Q8.2.

 

8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect?

 

s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor – see Q1.21.

 

If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order.

 

 

8.3 What are the prescribed terms?

 

The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows:

 

* amount of credit – see Q8.

 

* credit limit – see Q8.5

* repayments – see Q8.9.

* rate of interest – see Q8.6

 

Sch 6 was not amended by the 2004 Regulations.

 

 

Also check out Peter Bard's excellent thread on the subject: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/103383-agreement-enforceability.html

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...