Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • hi dx, thanks for helping just re-reading everything this morning and I must have missed this one from uncle in his thread "What you should not do, is not contact the Banks and simply default on payments. "  are you in disagreement with this based on your last sentence?
    • Thanks for the reply and clarification, that might just explain why in my case contact has pretty much ceased. Though with such companies it doesn't mean they won't ever threaten to return to court as a tool to force one's hand if they feel they are not self informed on their chances etc.  But concerning how last year they tried to use the CCJ to get a charging order and the court granted an intirum order on our mortgage using the CCJ that would have been a good 2-3 months beyond the 6 years, should the court not have checked the age of the CCJ in the first case or would they always grant an interim order simply off the back of a CCJ being produced without even checking the age of it?.  Had I not defended that action at the time they may well have got a default using a CCJ older than 6 years which could be a concern going forwards. At the time when I contacted the court to question the paperwork for a final order application the clerk suggested people don't get informed when companies apply for interim charging orders, they are automatic if a claimant has a CCJ and people only get contacted once a date for a final order application goes through. kind of begs the question if such companies can continue a seemingly backdoor method to attempt default action if un-defended if the initial application doesn't need to check the age of a CCJ?.
    • Hello!  Wondering if someone can help with this.  I suspect not but worth a go.  I appreciate the "contract is with the seller" line, which is what Evri has fed me but wanted to see if someone with experience in these things could suggest anything else I could do here.  I appreciate there are many topics about lost parcels - My parcels weren't lost, until the driver walked up to my door with them and then decided to make them lost/stolen... I'll summarise what has happened.  Wednesday of last week - Evri delivery driver stole / walked off with 3 of my parcels.  -  Arrived outside my properly, took photos (3 separate photos as its 3 separate deliveries) of the tops of the parcels (pointlessly zoomed in on just the labels, couldn't see anything else, other than a small piece of the pavement and a little weed, which doubly confirms it was outside my door as I can see the same plant), marked the order as delivered and walked off with them.  He's marked on the Evri GPS marked that he was outside.   -  3 different deliveries, from the same company (same boxes etc.), but 3 separate tracking numbers. -  Went through the Evri bot which opened a case on each tracking number.  I then phoned them and left a voicemail explaining what had happened. -  24 hours later had a canned response asking me if the packages had turned up and to check around etc..  I responded explaining again what happened and that they've definitely been taken. -  4 days later,  this morning, I get a response telling me to ask the merchant to refund me. I've responded to this message with a long email, repeating what I said, that I believe the driver has stolen these packages and that he took those suspicious top down shots of the packages, marked them as delivered without ringing or knocking etc.  I've said that I expect them to investigate further, but I gather they won't. In my several messages to them initially and later, I told them I don't care about a refund and wanted the parcels.  They contain some sentimental stuff, nothing of high monetary value, hence me going to this trouble.  I only paid £25 for the contents. I did contact the merchant when this first happened and they asked me to wait a few days.  They ended up refunding me despite me asking them not to and that I wanted them to escalate it with Evri because this appears to be a case of theft.  They didn't seem bothered - Refunded me and told me to go back to Evri and escalate it with them? So - Is there any way to compel Evri to conduct a proper investigation with this driver?  Search for my parcels? I have quite a lot of deliveries handled by Evri (not out of choice) - They used to have a fantastic chap and I rarely had any issues.  He has been replaced by a new guy and I believe the route is handled by this same guy who I believe has taken my packages.  Naturally, I fear this is going to happen again in the future if no investigation occurs. Appreciate any assistance - Thanks for reading. Al.  
    • its not a good thing or a bad thing its ongoing. mines gone the same route. these new notifications are equally meaningless.
    • Shein has been linked to unethical business practices, including forced labour allegations.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

Locked in car park


Patma
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4646 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

Hello Patma!

 

Well, well, well, look what pops up on the OFT CCA Search when you type in the Postcode for Universal Security (UK) Limited...they are/were Debt Collectors and a CRA:

 

Public Register

 

Licence Number: 0524185

Licence Status: Lapsed on 15/08/2007

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business Name - Company Registration Number

 

Universal Security (UK) Limited - 4220085

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit

Consumer hire

Credit brokerage

Credit reference agency

Debt adjusting/counselling

Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises: Yes

Issued Date: 15-Aug-2002

 

Legal Formation:

 

Body Corporate (incorporated inside UK)

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

Name - Position

 

Mark Alan Gibson - OFFICER

Peter John Naylor - OFFICER

Current Address(es):

 

Address Type - Address

Principal Place Of Business

 

City Business Park, Somerset Place, Plymouth, Devon, PL3 4BB

Registered Office

 

64/66, Ebrington Street, Plymouth, Devon, PL4 9AG

I wonder what links they may have to the PCAD Director of Finance and Business Development.

 

It's amazing what you find under them when you start to lift up rocks.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

These kind of problems often arise when a company who is used to doing work for public bodies (where the person signing the cheque is paying with somebody elses money) submits an invoice at their normal grossly inflated costings and then the invoice is passed on to an individual for payment. It's a nice arrangement the security co have with the council etc. but ask a member of the public to pay those 'very special rates' and you have a problem justifying the cost. I bet a pound to a penny that when the manufacturers details are supplied as per the court order we shall find that the total cost of a replacement motor is less than £300 net and it's a two hour job tops to replace. Ignoring the fact that Fred did not break the barrier the college have been grossly over quoted fotr the repair and subsequently overcharged for a new barrier.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who'd have thought that a DCA would come crawling out of the woodwork. Good sleuthing BRW :)

Now our friendly solicitors appear on the scene........PCADletter6a.jpg

Edited by Patma
put letter out of sequence
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, they are all DCAs:

 

...even the College! :eek:

 

Public Register

 

Licence Number: 0612726

Licence Status: Current

 

Current Applicant / Licensee:

Business Name - Company Registration Number

 

Plymouth College of Art and Design

 

Categories:

 

Consumer credit

Consumer hire

Credit brokerage

Credit reference agency

Debt adjusting/counselling

Debt collecting

 

Right To Canvass Off Trade Premises: No

Issued Date: 23-Jan-2008

 

Expiry Date: 23-Jan-2013

 

Legal Formation:

 

Charity / Trade Union / Other

Current Individuals that run the organisation:

 

Name - Position

 

Amanda Armstrong

Carolin Stokes

George Dexer

Lynne Staley Brookes

 

Current Address(es):

 

Address Type - Address

Principal Place Of Business

 

Nature of Business:

 

Educational Services

 

Current Address:

 

Principal Place Of Business - Plymouth of Art and Design, Tavistock Place, PLYMOUTH, PL4 8AT, United Kingdom

This gets better and better!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
URL didn't work!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, they are all DCAs:

 

...even the College! :eek:

 

Public Register

 

This gets better and better!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

:D:D

 

The security company have no registration with the ICO for anything concerning cctv but they do have this:

 

Purpose 5

 

Trading / Sharing in Personal Information

Purpose Description:

The sale, hire or exchange of personal information.

Data subjects are:

Customers and clients
(Yeah and I bet they know all about it)

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Family, Lifestyle and Social Circumstances

Employment Details

Financial Details

Goods or Services Provided

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves

Business associates and other professional advisers

Suppliers, providers of goods or services

Survey and research organisations

Traders in personal data

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 2..... and I don't know what this means about their collective conditional fee agreement but note they are working for Royal and Sun Alliance at this point

PCADletter6aa.jpg

Edited by Patma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 2..... and I don't know what this means about their collective conditional fee agreement but note they are working for the insurers at this point

 

 

19.2(5) was removed from CPR practice directives on 6th April 2009 as part of the 49th update.

 

Yes apparently they were but they appear confused in this matter as proceedings were issued in the name of PCAD.:-|

 

Funny how they know what the CPR is when it suits them.

 

So £1500 became a £3500 interim payment????? Where will it end?????

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside if I were a partner in a firm of solicitors and found such childishly written letters emanating from my office I would be very, very worried.

 

Fred has done his prospects the world of good by entering into dialogue in this manner. He has asked fair questions and been treated contemptuously at all times.

 

I see he was in touch about insurance fraud much earlier than I first thought. Interesting........

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the above letter , where they mention the photos of warning signs, these were actually only recently taken, after the ones which Fred took himself showing no such signs. These can be seen on page 5 of this thread.

Fred must have been getting a bit fed up with them when he wrote this last one.:mad:

PCADletter9.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see he was in touch about insurance fraud much earlier than I first thought. Interesting........

Yes he was suspicious about it from the outset apparently, but unfortunately he didn't manage to get the complaint taken seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After the previous letter , they went quiet until this one.

PCADletter8.jpg

 

 

Let's just analyse this letter?

 

Para 1 We are writing to you regarding the above incident and outstanding payment overdue.

 

What above incident? There is no mention of it neither is there stated any sum above.

 

Para 2 As a result of your actions damage was caused to our clients property....

 

Oh no it wasn't because as you do state 'above' your client is Royal and Sum Alliance and Fred was nowhere near their property at the time of the incident.

 

para 2 'Which you are therefore legally responsible for the reimbursement of repairs required to rectify'. Dreadful English.

 

para 3 The incident was captured on CCTV thus identifying you as the responsible party.

 

Yes it was caught on CCTV but it actually admonishes Fred from any liability (See JonCris's anecdotal post)

 

Then they waffle about not being permitted to use the car park which we all now know to be untrue.

 

More waffle about not heeding the sign yet they knew that the sign was only erected when the new barrier was fitted. Maybe if they say Fred broke it often enough he will start to belive it that's all I can think of. They say he broke the mechanism the quote mentions motor and gear linkage the engineer says the motor casing was broken.

 

Who to believe eh?

 

Some more waffle involving imaginary sums.

 

Then the it must be you 'Liability cannot be denied based on the amount of physical evidence against you'.

Well Fred has clearly asked to see this 'physical evidence' and to date not one iota has appeared.

 

This letter is puerile childish rubbish!!

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sooo impressed with your latest plan TLD I can't wait to get it winging on it's way. I think you've excelled yourself this time. I was speechless when I read it.

I'll put it to Fred tomorrow and hopefully it can be put into action asap.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, they are all DCAs:

 

...even the College! :eek:

 

Public Register

 

This gets better and better!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I'm trying to understand why on earth a local authority college would need this.

I followed the link and it's there in black and white but why?:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let me get this clear in my head and thus play devil's advocate for a sec, it's all very welll all patting one another on the back, but I'd rather clear all niggles just to make sure noone has missed anything, ok? ;-)

 

- The original claim was a "direct" one for nearly £1k, yes?

- On Fred's refusal to pay, the college then gets the job done on the insurance and presumably get hit with the excess. So the college is out of pocket by the £2.5k excess. And the insurance pay the £1k, but are effectively not out of pocket at all since the college pays an excess which is higher than the cost of repairs. But if the college had taken the hit instead on claiming on the insurance, they'd only have been out of pocket £1k, not 2.5.

- LD get hired by... who? I get confused, the college or the insurers? on a no win no fee basis (conditional arrangement) and claim for unless I am mistaken, the cost of the repair + the cost of the excess + their own fixed costs. The interim payment part is in case they win, they would then seek to get their NWNF paid for by Fred as well. Considering that they already levied a fixed fee of £80, I am a bit confused about that too, actually.

 

It may be the NWNF which makes the lightbulb go off in my head, but I have just realised that LD's behaviour and bluster seems to me to be no different from any ambulance chaser piling on the threats to try and scare someone into paying. Come to think of it, the 3 years taken to sort this out match too. Anyone read about the Lyons-Davenport saga about pursuing people for "illegal" downloads, whether they had done it or not? Sounds suspiciously on the same line. I wonder...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone read about the Lyons-Davenport saga about pursuing people for "illegal" downloads, whether they had done it or not? Sounds suspiciously on the same line. I wonder...

 

Bookworm you beat me to it, I was just going to mention this.

 

It might be useful to get as much information on the practices of Lyons-Davenport as possible - know your enemy as it were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone read about the Lyons-Davenport saga about pursuing people for "illegal" downloads, whether they had done it or not? Sounds suspiciously on the same line. I wonder...
That's Davenport Lyons, not Lyons Davidson. I have to admit that I did a double take at first.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Me and Kiptower were doing some searches by inputting a couple of names.....what came up was quite staggering.

Unfortunately cant post here but I am sure everyone will have some ideas.!

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. 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.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I know that. But we CAGgers also know that the hydra has many, many heads indeed... ;-)

 

And Martin, it is "Kiptower and I", not "me and Kiptower". :-D

Edited by Bookworm
Correcting Martin - again... :-D
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4646 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...