Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 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

Statutory Demand from CapQuest: **WON** + £425 COSTS


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4544 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

Received a SD from CapQuest re: a very old Egg loan from 7 and a half years ago. Was a bit worried, but then came across this site and all you helpful folks and great postings :)

 

I read scores of posts - and thus went to the court, and filed a SD set-aside request, that looked very impressive as it was an almost straight cut-and-paste from some wonderful post here!

 

It's the normal rubbish from CapQuest: statute barred for starters (no contact with them for at least 7 years); no CCA; CCA could be rubbish; no assignment; no default notice; don't admit the debt etc.. etc..

 

The hearing is set for mid-October.

 

So I'm hoping to put an expenses claim in and then make a donation here! Many folks are in a terrible situation, and my heart goes out to them.

 

But I have a few questions if I may - more to do with tactics. I haven't found the answer to these anywhere on the forum, and thus I hope they are a help to all members:

 

1. Should I issue CapQuest with a CAA; and then Egg with a S.A.R. - I think that's the right way round? (can't find an absolute answer to this here).

 

2. More importantly, would it be better NOT to issue them with these requests - incase they actually manage to come up with something? Not that I'm worried - they would be too old - but rather, does it not look better to the judge (and my expenses claim :D) that they have given me no paperwork at all??? Or would it be better to show that I had enquired with them??

 

3. If I don't ask for them; can they spring me with them on the day? That's assuming they turn up...

 

4. Can they submit stuff in advance to the court - and then I must be sent copies I assume??

 

5. From what I've read here, they are churning these out here and then not turning-up. But can they apply to the court in advance to have the whole thing canceled - ie: their request in the first place - thus depriving me of my expenses!!???

 

6. Am I correct in thinking that I should send my proposed expenses in advance to the court? I've seen a template on the forum - about 7 days in advance?

 

7. I can't really think of anything to add to my skeleton argument, unless I start including some of the long defenses I've seen on the forum with lots of case-law quotes - but these are more for County Court Summonses I think.

 

Many thank for all you help in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi susan

 

i have been involved in a thread on an sd where the application for set asside was refused

just one question which is the crunch

 

how did the dca give you the set asside

by

1st or2nd class post

or in person

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks postggi. I had not seen that thread - but have now read it in full!

 

I made a stronger case than the defendant in that case - indeed my case is much stronger. eg: the SD gives the date of the agreement as over 7.5 years ago; plus I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and have received no correspondence regarding it from CapQuest - apart from the SD etc..

 

In addition, the court have accept my request for a hearing and given a date. But I shall be sure to be aware of the points raised in said thread regarding non-compliance with with CAA and SAR requests.

 

That thread does relate to my question: am I better off applying for CAA and SAR? I mean I can't see that I'm going to turn-up at the hearing and if the other side appears they are going to just claim I owe money with no paperwork???

 

The SD was served on me by 1st class post. One of my points in the set-aside request was that the SD was made by "regular post" and therefore frivolous etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thought I'd post this here first - and then it can be moved to the WON section.

 

Won my set-aside case yesterday in the High Courts of Justice in the Strand! Took just 5 mins.

 

Normal rubbish from CapQuest - no evidence whatsoever; statute barred; and they send a silly letter rather than turn-up in person. ie: saying they could not proceed with the SD as they had no evidence! ...needed time to go and find it etc.. etc..

 

The interesting thing was, the judge seem to have no interest in what I had to say at all, and just scanned the paperwork. When I started quoting from my statement about SDs not to be used as a method of debt collection etc. he just said "...I wish I had a pound for every time I've heard that".

 

He just sat there in silence writing out the set-aside order and agreeing to my costs of £425 without asking one question. Job done.

 

Note that I did send a schedule of my costs to the court and CapQuest 7 days before the hearing.

 

The feeling I got was that the judges are sick of the behavior of the CDAs. I also felt that if my costs were £1,000 he would have agreed to that! You should claim the maximum - they can only reduce it, if they think it's too much!

 

I claimed 22 hours at £9.25 plus 2 half-days of loss of work at £180 pd etc.. etc..

 

So now CapQuest have 14 days to pay-up - or it's the bailiffs! Plus I will be sure to complain to the FOS so they get hit with a £450 fee.

 

Thanks to all here, I couldn't have done it without you!!! A donation is on it's way.

Edited by SusanSusan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations Susan! Very well done! You should be proud of yourself. I too was successful in getting my SD from Capquest set aside recently, only I didn't research anything about costs and so when the Judge asked me, I was taken aback and said I had none (even tho I had lost work to go there! Doh!). (CQ had written to the Court with a copy to me - letter arrived the day after(!) - to request the Court not to allow any costs!! Cheeky!) So top marks to you for being on the ball and again a big pat on the back!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well - got my cheque for £425 from CapQuest today!! Very funny - been showing it to by friends who are in disbelief and asking how they can get CapQuest to send them a SD!!!

 

I was actually a bit miffed they sent in so quick. Even before the hearing I sent them a "last warning before bailiff action"; and I had worked-out how to send the bailiffs in if needs be. Would have been very satisfying.

 

I've been fortunate - others here have had to make do with £25 and the like.

 

I'll be making a donation for all the help from this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Hi

 

 

Capquest have gone a little quiet now so think it is about time you reported them to the OFT if you haven’t done so already.

 

 

Please bear in mind that the template letter on the first page of this thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...=1#post3422496

 

may not be suitable for all and you will have to adapt it to your own circumstances I.E

You applied to get it set aside and CQ didn't turn up

You applied and CQ agreed to discontinue

You ignored and CQ did nothing

 

 

Today the OFT set out some new guidance and sending SD's as a debt collection tool is now frowned upon.

If you want to read it, here's the link

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer_leaflets/credit/OFT664Rev.pdf You can complain by email and the OFT will email you back a form to sign and post back to them for them to be able to add your complaint to their list.

 

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/contactus;jses...1D83BF0004F6EA

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...