Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for this – and thank you for the donation. You need to check your PayPal email address because that was the email which was used for it. It would certainly be nice to think that Hermes didn't know how to handle a claim for Conversion – but I'm afraid I think it is most likely that it simply escaped their notice – the whole thing. Anyway we'll see. There will be lots more conversion actions in the future and if and when they actually respond to them, will see how they deal with it.
    • Just to add, it may well be that the camber was slight – but coupled with the momentum of a vehicle, sliding on slushy ice, it doesn't take much to add that little bit of extra speed or momentum to a skidding vehicle   Also, you say that there was "not a lot of bend" at that site. Frankly I disagree. I think there is quite a pronounced bend and also the position of the van – which is roughly in the position of the white car in the image below – was pretty close to the band and if you imagine that it had started pulling out before the OP appeared and started to make its manoeuvre and was far enough in to the road to have a gap done its left-hand side that a Vauxhall Corsa could pass down, then I think that the bend was sufficiently aggressive to have been of concern to a prudent driver – who was parked on the wrong side of the road, who was trying to cross the carriageway to proceed on the other side of the road who had parked close to a bend and he was aware of the icy circumstances.     In fact if we take the width of the van at 72 inches – 6 foot. In order for it to be far enough out into the road to allow sufficient gap for a Vauxhall Corsa to pass down it, it must have been all of 11 foot into the road. The OP tells us that she lives there – and maybe she would be kind enough to measure the width of the road where the van was.  It is a narrowish  stretch of road
    • Yes I got the full amount back including compensation for the hassle and SAR that I requested as per the claim plus the court fees (£60 initial fee + £77 warrant fee). They had not adjusted it at all.   Am sure you're as surprised as I am that they didn't respond. But I do think they knew they had no defence against the conversion of property point, and backed by how quickly the judgement was issued by the Court. All positive and I hope whoever goes through something similar can use this as an example! It is your property and they are just providing a service regardless of the T&Cs!   Yes that donation is from me but not sure why it came from another email!   See attached the judgement with my details redacted.   All the best!     Hermes_GucciBag_Judgement.pdf
    • Thanks. Yes I found it a little difficult to express the whole thing. Also, after having seen the description of the van – and having checked on the Internet, it seems to me that the van is a Ford Transit Connect and the width is 72 inches – which as you say, is not exceptionally wide. However, the width of the vehicle is not crucial. It simply an element. In fact no single element is crucial – but taken together, it clearly adds up to a risk – an unnecessary risk which eventually led to an accident. I would venture to say that if it had not been close to the band then there would have been a clear line of sight from both parties. If the van had not been part facing the flow of traffic, then he would not have had to move out so prominently because he would not have been trying to cross over to the other side of the road. He would have had a line of sight in his door mirror. If you hadn't been so prominent then the OP would not have had to swerve onto the inside of him – but in fact could have swerve to the other side of the road where there was no parked cars and there might have been no accident at all. All of that. This I'm not at all confused about what I'm saying – but I may not have expressed it very well. However it is something that needs to be worked on. It certainly seems to me that there is no evidence of any analysis or detailed assessment of the situation by the insurer or anyone else. The OP has made a single statement using a telephone app to the insurer and the insurer has formed their decision on the basis of that. If there have been other statements from the van driver or anyone else, then we haven't seen them. Also, I'm well aware of the road conditions at the time and of course this will probably have affected things. The OP was required to take the conditions into account. We are really not sure what speech she was travelling at. That some point she said 30 miles an hour – which is probably too fast – but as far as I can see she has not said this at all in her statement to the insurer. Finally, not only does the OP have a duty to take the road conditions into account – but so does the van driver and every other road user.  
    • Bankfodder, you have made a number of assumptions, not least of which is that the van was a 'wide' vehicle. However, the pictures that the OP has provided show that it is a Ford Transit Courier, which is no larger than a medium size saloon car.   You question the OP's statement that the van was stationary but other statements that the vehicle moved out into her path. It is clear from her previous posts that as she approached the line of parked vehicles on her left, the van pulled out into her path and crossed into the opposite lane, but then stopped  at an angle in her path , at which point she attempted to swerve to her left to avoid it, clipping the offside front wing,    The affect of braking on the slushy ice and the impact sent her into the rear of the vehicle that was parked behind the gap vacated by the van. There is little camber and not a lot of bend at that site, (Your use of the word crest is associated with an incline, better description is apex for a bend)   I think you have probably confused your self which in turn will confuse the OP
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 27 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Helllppp - Honours Student Loans


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4329 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

they shoould have submitted evidence to you and the court 14 days prior. Have you got your bundle ready just in case, or are you still awaiting paperwork which the other party have yet to disclose?

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

 

we submitted evidence attached to our N244. We have asked for legible copies of the agreements, notice of assignment and copies of default notice they say was made this year. We have asked for strict proof.

 

They keep banging on about providing us with info under the CCA but we asked for it under the CPR. They have admitted copies of agreements are not signed by both parties but argue this does not matter because copies are not evidence and we have not been prejudiced by the fact that they are not signed by the other party and that they can omit from copy documents the signature under consumer credit regs 1983.

They have also admitted that copies are not legible in places but are legible in all material effects.

 

Further in letters they claim a default notice was sent on xxx/08 but we have one from almost 6 years prior obviously they cannot issue two so are now only claiming one.

 

The default notice also includes penalty charges so would this not mean it is unlawful?

 

Thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have not provided anything under the CPR18, then request the judge to dismiss it.....

 

If they have admitted there are no copies, then the debt is unenforceable....you need to completely dispute the total debt !! statements aren't enough either as they can easily be falsified...I know of one cagger who put the opposition solicitors name and address using photoshop on some bank statements (not to defraud but simply to demonstrate that anybody can do it)....

 

Without a copy of the agreement with the prescribed terms they are stuffed...

PLEASE NOTE - I am not a legal expert, what is stated is my own opinion and from what I have learnt from this forum and my own experiences.

 

DEBT COLLECTION LETTER/SAR/AGREEMENT TEMPLATES ARE HERE - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?65-legislation

 

IF WE HAVE BEEN HELPFUL -PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO HELP US TO CONTINUE HELPING YOU

 

I AM HAPPY TO RECEIVE PM's AND I WILL RESPOND IF I FEEL I CAN ASSIST BUT WHEN YOU DO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD ON WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COMMENT - THANK YOU

 

IMPORTANT - 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.

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are/or could be seen to be inappropriate for posting on the main forum.Site rules explain this in more detail.

If you are approached by private message with a view to asking you to visit another website,please inform the site team via the report icon.

 

Forum rules - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forum-rules-please-read/9-forum-rules-please-read.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks :) They do have a copy it just isnt very legible. What they do not have a copy of is a notice of assignment though they provide an example of what one would look like rofl!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have also stated on their POC that they issued a default on xxxx and then in evidence admit to an earlier one within a 6 year time frame .. that means two default notices I know the CCA says a default notice can only be issued once but can't find the relevant part of the act grrrrr!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do agreements covered by the CCA have to be signed by both parties to be enforceable and if so does anyone know the relevant section of the Act? We have been provided with copies but only one is signed by both parties.

 

Also notice of assignment there is not one I assume this comes under the CCA too anyone know the relevant section.

 

Thanks :Cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do agreements covered by the CCA have to be signed by both parties to be enforceable and if so does anyone know the relevant section of the Act? We have been provided with copies but only one is signed by both parties.

 

Also notice of assignment there is not one I assume this comes under the CCA too anyone know the relevant section.

 

Thanks :Cry:

for an agreement to be enforceable, it must when placed before the court contain( Not embody) the prescribed terms per sched 6 col 2 SI1983/1553 and must be signed by the debtors or debtors if there are more than one

 

as long as the agreement conforms to this as a minimum that would be enforceable

 

with regards to the NOA, it is governed by the Law of Property Act 1925 and the law of Equity

 

i hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - I realised after I posted that I was after the Law of Property :oops:

 

As to the agreements they are pretty much illegible all 3 signed by the debtor but only one by the creditor. Had thought they had to be signed by both parties :mad:

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks - I realised after I posted that I was after the Law of Property :oops:

 

As to the agreements they are pretty much illegible all 3 signed by the debtor but only one by the creditor. Had thought they had to be signed by both parties :mad:

 

Thanks again

no probs, they may be also able to over come the illegibility issues by providing a typed copy if it goes to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Its in court tomorrow :shock:. They are saying it is on microfiche does this constitute an original?

 

They have no notice of assignment or any real proof of purchase of the debt. They just refer to this is an example of what would have been sent!!

 

Also, they should have submitted evidence within 14 days of hearing to both parties but this only arrived today!

 

They have put in an N244 to amend their POC due to admin errors but have made admin errors on the N244!

 

argggghhhhhhhh :rolleyes:

 

PS They have also claimed to have issued TWO default notices within a 6 year period - is this not unlawful too?

Edited by xray2
added question
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

Its in court tomorrow :shock:. They are saying it is on microfiche does this constitute an original?

 

They have no notice of assignment or any real proof of purchase of the debt. They just refer to this is an example of what would have been sent!!

 

Also, they should have submitted evidence within 14 days of hearing to both parties but this only arrived today!

 

They have put in an N244 to amend their POC due to admin errors but have made admin errors on the N244!

 

argggghhhhhhhh :rolleyes:

 

PS They have also claimed to have issued TWO default notices within a 6 year period - is this not unlawful too?

 

they would only need to issue a notice of assignment if the debt was sold to another company other than the original creditor

 

it is not unlawful to issue more than two defaults either, the 1974 act allows that where a default is served and the breach contained within the default is remedied then the default is taken to have never happened, so it follows that they would need to issue a second, third fourth etc depending upon how many breaches there have been and how many times its been remedied

 

they can over come this issue of failing to provide the evidence quite easily and the judge would most likely just allow it as this is not an uncommon thing that happens , plus if it prejudiced you in any way it could be over come by an adjournment to allow you to read the evidence before the hearing is restarted

 

what admin errors have they made?

 

it seems that much of what you have put forward is easy to over come and would not place their claim in any real difficulty

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first default was not remedied and a second issued therefore I thought this breached the DP laws? Also, penalty charges have been added and interest accrued on them all included in default notice.

 

The original creditor did indeed sell the debt but we have no notice of assignment of that debt and it would appear neither do they.

 

In the N244 the solicitors have ticked they are the claimant - does this mean there are now two claimants or is this another admin error. On there order they have asked to change dates they had made in error but they have also changed the amount too. The POC do not conform to para .3 of Practice Direction 16 of the CPR in that it does not contain account numbers, methods calculated, copies of agreements and default or proof they own the loans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What if the signature is illegible or blacked out?:?
Well, tricky one

 

if it is illegible and cannot be shown as being your signature then you may have an argument, however, if i were counsel for the claimant i would seek under cross examination to show that there is , on the balance of probabilities, sufficient evidence to show that the signature was infact yours

 

there are many ways in which this can be done and remember lying in court would put you in major difficulties;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, tricky one

 

if it is illegible and cannot be shown as being your signature then you may have an argument, however, if i were counsel for the claimant i would seek under cross examination to show that there is , on the balance of probabilities, sufficient evidence to show that the signature was infact yours

 

there are many ways in which this can be done and remember lying in court would put you in major difficulties;)

 

 

So virtually all credit card agreements are likely to be held to be enforceable then? They don't actually have to produce a signed piece of paper containing the prescribed terms anymore ? All they have to do is say that on the balance of probabilities you would have signed that reconstructed agreement or illegible copy which they have kindly provided the court a transcript of that just happens to contain the prescribed terms? So the Creditors are right with the stance they are taking on the Basil Rankine case inn that executed agreements begin as the Credit Agreements which are sent to cardholders when they receive their credit cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So virtually all credit card agreements are likely to be held to be enforceable then? They don't actually have to produce a signed piece of paper containing the prescribed terms anymore ? All they have to do is say that on the balance of probabilities you would have signed that reconstructed agreement or illegible copy which they have kindly provided the court a transcript of that just happens to contain the prescribed terms? So the Creditors are right with the stance they are taking on the Basil Rankine case inn that executed agreements begin as the Credit Agreements which are sent to cardholders when they receive their credit cards.
with all due respect, that is not what i said at all!!!!

 

If the signature is illegible, then, and lets not forget the fact that a signature is normally quite illegible anyway by virtue, counsel would first off ask you "is that your Signature?" yes or no. if you say you are not sure, then the next question is going to likely be " do you have any thing which we can compare them to?" now its likely that you will have signed something and /or the counsel will have something with your signature on it to compare to and all im saying is that the other side may be able to tip the scales to convince the judge that it is your signature

 

now on the other hand if the signature is just a black blob then of course the other side are indifficulty that goes without saying

 

How many times do i need to say it,in fact i have counsels opinion that supports this, Rankine is a judgment which was made without care and in error on so many points

 

In a QC's opinion, it is easily distinguished and the fact that rankine was a serial debt avoider didnt help insofar that it clearly annoyed the judge who went out of his way to hammer him

 

I shake my head when i hear people say Rankine this Rankine that

 

ARGH:mad:

 

It is a poor case, period and may i point out that it does nothing to overrule Wilson et al which were made in the Higher Courts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

My husband is in court today arriving there from his place of work. Postie has just delivered a letter from claimants solicitors which is a statement of costs 'by way of service' for the forthcoming hearing and is dated yesterday. Is this not intimidation they haven't even won the case yet? Is there no protocol on this? Should I get this letter to my husband so that he can show it to the judge?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would advise getting this to him so he can take it to court and query this with the judge straight away. You don't want his silence to be viewed as acquiescence by the claimants.

Nationwide-A&L-Halifax 1-Student Loans Company-NatWest-Virgin Media-Link-Capital One ALL WON!

Thames Credit -statute barred sent 13/11/08

BCW- prove debt letter- 14/08/08

Apex- CCA 14/08/08

Redcats UK- SAR 14/04/09

Call Serve- CCA 14/08/08

Littlewoods- no CCA letter 03/09/08- Lowells now

Wescot- CCA 19/9/08

Capital One/Debitas- now with Lowells

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All information has been obtained from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Emma :) I think they are really trying to intimidate. They had not lodged ANY evidence in the required 14 days and yesterday one day before the hearing it all turned up in a big A4 file but they have simply submitted our evidence - we now this because one of the letters had my hubby's rantings scrawled on it - they have submitted it as if there own the numpties!

 

Felt really calm when I got up too :(

 

Thanks again :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason to stop being calm- they are just playing silly b******s.

 

I think the judge would like these tactics (and probably some contrived fees for photocopying your husband's evidence) brought to his attention.

 

 

Good luck.;)

Nationwide-A&L-Halifax 1-Student Loans Company-NatWest-Virgin Media-Link-Capital One ALL WON!

Thames Credit -statute barred sent 13/11/08

BCW- prove debt letter- 14/08/08

Apex- CCA 14/08/08

Redcats UK- SAR 14/04/09

Call Serve- CCA 14/08/08

Littlewoods- no CCA letter 03/09/08- Lowells now

Wescot- CCA 19/9/08

Capital One/Debitas- now with Lowells

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All information has been obtained from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok feeling better now thanks guys. The numpties made an error on their POC so they made out an N244 to amend said POC which btw we have not heard anything about from the Court (we only knew they had done this because the solicitors told us but when we filed ours we had to hand a copy into the court for the solicitors so a bit odd) Anyway they have admitted the POC was an admin error on their part yet have added charges to the costs for the N244 and for serving it of almost £200 even though they admitted this was an admin error they were responsible for!! If the Court were allowing their N244 to be heard would we not have had confirmation of this?

 

Right am off to get ready to meet hubby with this letter :)

 

Will let you know how we get on, thanks to everyone on CAG over the last few months don't know where we would have been without you all :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd know this Modus Operandi anywhere. It's Cabot and Hodson's Fool I'll wager. They do all of this...late supply of bundle...last minute costs to frighten. It has Cabot/Hodson's written all over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...