Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all,        I really need to start my own thread on this Claim with Overdales/Lowell for a Cap One debt. but have already got to this stage .. My initial question for the moment - until replies come in - is that I figure my main stance is that a purchased debt cannot be claimed, debts can only be claimed by the original issuer of the debt .. but mediation is about coming to an agreement. So would I be acting in bad faith if I enter into mediation yet not seeking to come to a financial agreement? Also, I need to reject the scheduled time slot and ask for another as I'm not going to be free during those hours. The wording of the email gives the impression that I am given this one slot and if I reject it, then I am rejecting mediation - there is no mention of rescheduling, only of freeing up the slot for others .. although, I would have thought it would say so, if there were no possibility to reschedule.. Can I ask for another date without issue?   Anyway, if it's more helpful, I am happy to post up my defence and start a proper thread? I had a lot on at the time and had to do things right away due to the time limits, so didn't feel I had time to come here and go back and forth for info, so put my defence together from reading through relevant threads, late at night. CCA request appears to have been fulfilled (I'm still to check the accuracy of the documents). The other thing, asking solicitors about the particulars of the claim, hasn't .. although I forgot to ask for proof of postage and didn't send recorded post either (whereas the CCA I did), so not sure if I can pursue that easily ..?  
    • There is a plea guilty website...   Screenshot 2024-05-22 144200.pdf
    • Looking for a bit of assistance. I moved into a rented flat on 20th April 2024. I viewed it on the 14th April. Before I moved into the flat, the letting agency provided me with an offer sheet, in said offer sheet I made a number of requests and conditions related to me progressing with assuming the tenancy. These were: 1. A professional clean of the flat prior to move in date. 2. The hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet be replaced prior to move in date. These were all planned actions by the landlord when I viewed it. I could see the boxes for the hob and other items in the flat. I prepared to move in on the 20th April but none of the work mentioned in the offer sheet had been completed. The standard of the clean was abysmal - mouldy food left in the fridge, nothing wiped down, bathroom mouldy etc. The hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet were also not installed. I decided to not officially move into the flat as it was not in a condition as promised, my partner lives relatively close by so I lived with her initially. It was only on the 24th April that the hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet were installed. The cleaners visited again 2 weeks after move in date (3rd April) and attempted another clean of the flat. Again, it was a poor job. I resorted to cleaning the flat myself. I have numerous pictures of the things I identified during my clean and have sent this all to the letting agency. Because of the issues faced, I asked the letting agency that the rent be reduced for the initial month. Exactly halved - to represent the 2 weeks that I was not living at the property. The landlord and letting agency have responded by saying that they will be willing to accept 1 weeks rent as a deduction but not 2. My question is, am I in a strong position to insist on the 2 weeks rent returned or have I been fortunate that they have even offered a weeks rent as a deduction? I would like to insist on the 2 weeks. I have paid the 2 weeks only as my rent collection date passed 2 days ago. Thank you for any assistance. Any further relevant details required let me know and I will provide.
    • Fraudsters are increasingly using AI, but are people taking the problem seriously enough?View the full article
  • 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
      • 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

downsouth v Egg + Credit Solutions Ltd


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6504 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

Calling all you DCA experts;)

 

This is in connection with my defaulted Egg loan which I now know is partly made up of unlawful charges. I've been paying it off through CSL - the payments went to Credit Solutions Ltd and not Egg.

 

Now CSL are now in CCA default after 12 working days.

 

In the meantime, my DPA request to Egg has revealed that it certainly looks like Egg still own the debt. It appears therefore that CSL are acting as agents for Egg instead of having purchased the debt. Of course, neither Egg nor CSL send me statements any more, even though the DPA data included copies of statements bearing 'Payment received through DPA'.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that CSL have so far failed to provide the CCA information, am I within my rights to demand that any further communication is only with Egg(the owner of the debt), as CSL are right royal pains, phoning me at work, etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are 100% certain that Egg still own the debt, the CCA request needs to go to them. I appreciate that you've only found this out via a Data Protection Act request to Egg, but throwing CCA requests at DCAs who don't own the debt isn't going to achieve much.

 

So therefore, I suggest the following.

 

1. Send a CCA request to Egg (I'm sure you know how to do that, but PM me if you need the template).

 

2. Write the following to CSL:

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to you or your client.

 

Please be advised that I have contacted your client directly and requested further information under the legislation contained within s.78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (S.77 (1) for fixed sum credit).

 

To this end I would like you to note that I will not enter into any further communications with your company on this matter, unless and until my request is actioned.

 

I also wish to make it absolutely clear that personal callers will be viewed as trespassers, and action will be taken, including but not limited to, Police attendance.

 

Yours, etc

 

Of course being a DCA they'll probably ignore that letter, or use it for toilet paper - but it's a start. If you need to take further action then at least you can reference back to that letter.

 

Hope that helps :)

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hmm further action might be necessary. It's over 31 days and they (CSL) have provided me with no proof that I owe them any money. Or indeed any correspondence.

They've phoned me at work 4 times now today so far. The first 2 times I just said 'nothing to say, as requested please communicate only in writing'. Just putting them on hold now for a bit of a game to see how long they'll sit there for. 2 and a half minutes so far before they give up and hang up - wonder if they'll hold on longer than that when they try again in half an hour:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm further action might be necessary. It's over 31 days and they (CSL) have provided me with no proof that I owe them any money. Or indeed any correspondence.

They've phoned me at work 4 times now today so far. The first 2 times I just said 'nothing to say, as requested please communicate only in writing'. Just putting them on hold now for a bit of a game to see how long they'll sit there for. 2 and a half minutes so far before they give up and hang up - wonder if they'll hold on longer than that when they try again in half an hour:confused:

 

Did you follow my suggestions and write the right letters to the right people? If so, CSL should be leaving you alone and Egg should have provided you with the relevent paperwork.

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I didn't see the need to. Egg had already supplied me with all the paperwork requested of them and it is them that I owe the money (which is partly made up of charges) to.

 

CSL received my CCA request (which contained my instruction to only communicate in writing) and I have the POD.

 

I am inclined not to deal with CSL anymore or make any more payments to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I didn't see the need to. Egg had already supplied me with all the paperwork requested of them and it is them that I owe the money (which is partly made up of charges) to.

 

CSL received my CCA request (which contained my instruction to only communicate in writing) and I have the POD.

 

I am inclined not to deal with CSL anymore or make any more payments to them.

 

Did Egg supply you with the documents you were after under the Consumer Credit Act? If so, why did you write to CSL asking for them? If not, you should have written the CCA request to Egg. If CSL aren't the legal owner of the debt then they'll just throw your letter in the bin. They have no statutory obligation to supply you with anything, they're just acting on Egg's behalf.

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK re-reading my OP I'll make it clear. CSL have been hounding me, and I have been paying them up to now when I have discovered the debt contains unlawful charges. The first thing I wanted to do was establish whether CSL owned the debt so off went the CCA request to them which they have ignored.

(I did this whilst awaiting for my DSAR from Egg)

 

You say that they are only acting on Egg's behalf. I have had no confirmation either from CSL or from Egg that this is the case.

 

So they can s0d off. I'll deal with the organ grinder thanks. After they have refunded me the unlawful charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you said that Egg still own the debt?

 

What did the results of your DPA SAR from Egg reveal - was there any of the information you'd requested from CSL under s77/s78 of the Consumer Credit act in there?

 

If you told CSL not to phone you, and they still are, then I'd write one more letter to them insisting they stop, otherwise you'll be forced to take further action.

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the DSAR information supplied by Egg happended to contain the main CCA item ie a copy of the original signed loan agreement together with statements up to date which include recent entries saying something like 'payment received through DCA', although there is nothing there about selling the debt to CSL or engaging them as a recovery agent. Hence I can only assume that Egg still own the debt.

 

If CSL keep calling me I'll have to send a letter quoting the Wireless & Telegraphy Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the DSAR information supplied by Egg happended to contain the main CCA item ie a copy of the original signed loan agreement together with statements up to date which include recent entries saying something like 'payment received through DCA', although there is nothing there about selling the debt to CSL or engaging them as a recovery agent. Hence I can only assume that Egg still own the debt.

 

If CSL keep calling me I'll have to send a letter quoting the Wireless & Telegraphy Act.

 

OK cool, makes more sense now. There's a thread somewhere around here about reporting harrassment, might be worth having a read of that if you haven't already.

If my reply or advice was helpful, please click the scales!

-------

DISCLAIMER: My opinions are strictly personal, and should not be taken as a substitute for individual professional legal advice on your own particular situation.

-------

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...