Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • if you have YOUR bank statements totalling who you paid and when regarding this debt.... and you have proof that unlawful fees/sums have been added to the sum adjudged in court from the HFC SD that you've now paid.... i would be putting all that evidence together and demanding cabot refund said figure in 14 days else you'll raise a court claim...but don't bluff. dx  
    • have you proved at what house was it left outside of & stolen from ...yours or the neighbours? the fact it was for a warranty return means nothing. neither does it that the repairer/retailer have special instructions with DPD for them not to leave a parcel outside unless specified by a customer ..you might have overruled them with your instructions on the DPD website, you stated, neighbour/safe space?? if it was left outside your door, which you appear to indicate RE: i can't see you winning this...you created your own problem with what you put on the DPD website?    
    • oh well i wonder what new fake documents they have made up then...for them to try this.... just to check nothing funky like Link have filed an n244 to lift the stay and strike out her defence....she hasnt moved since last court comms has she?   is this an n24? bit unusual for a 13mts stay to just be lifted... has she not received anything from link/kearns in the last fw weeks like a docs bundle? bit like this thread... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466576-lc-assetlinkkearns-claim-form-2-mbna-cc/?do=findComment&comment=5256397  
    • if the agreement was taken out jan 23, then she has not reached the 1/3rd mark so the car has not become protected goods under the consumer credit act.  this puts her in a very very vulnerable position regarding ever keeping the car....whereby once they have issued a default notice they can legally send a guy with a flatbed (though they are NOT BAILIFFS and have ZERO legal powers) to collect the car.  if the car is kept on the public highway then they can simply take it away and she will legally owe the whole stated amount on the agreement AND lose the car. if it's on private property i'e like a driveway, ok they shouldn't take it without her agreeing, but if they do, it's not really on but its better than a court case and an inevitable loss with the granting a return of goods order. are these 'health reasons' likely to resolve themselves in the very short term (like a couple of months?) and can she immediately begin working again ? i'e has she got a job or would have to find one?  answer the above and we'll try and help. but she looks to be between rock and a hard place . whatever happens she will still have to pay the loan off...car or no car....unless you can appeal to the finance company's better nature using health reasons to back off for xxx months.
  • 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

downsouth v Egg + Credit Solutions Ltd


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6485 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...