Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Locked in car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3324 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

Is it just me or are there two or three different conversations going on here:confused:

We're just letting off steam about the LD letter that came today, Bedlington.

Don't worry we're just being silly. :rolleyes::D;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We're just letting off steam about the LD letter that came today, Bedlington.

Don't worry we're just being silly. :rolleyes::D;)

Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

 

Good things come to those who wait...

The REAL Axis of evil: Banks, Credit Card Companies & Credit Reference Agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Patma.

 

Witness statement part 8 final sentence. Oh dear.;)

 

Look at the date of the lecturers incident statement then look at the date of the other incident statement and then re-read the final sentence of the second statement. Should it read 'has been identified' or 'will be identified next week' as......:D

The photo of the sign was taken at the same time as the other photo they sent (door open plywood leaning against frame) . Notice they don't give the game away by showing the new barrier, still Fred already has a copy of other photo which does have the new sign and the new barrier and he has a photo of the old sign and the new barrier just to really make it interesting should there be an issue over this point.:eek:

 

(Oh man we're going to have a field day tomorrow when we go through the statement objectively, told you the best thing they could say was 'nothing').

Edited by Toulose LeDebt

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
Fair enough, but don't forget there are many of us who are desperate to know what's going on but accept that we can't because it may jeopardise Fred's case.

You can read the letter which came because it's posted on P69 and the only other thing which arrived today is the LD court bundle which is woefully thin.

Other than that we're waiting for the Police legal unit, who are being very helpful, to finish their investigation.

And we're also waiting for the results of the applications we filed with the court and complaints to the court manager about the conduct of the claimant sent about a fortnight ago. We know they were with the judge on Friday, so it shouldn't be long before we hear something.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Patma.

 

Witness statement part 8 final sentence. Oh dear.;)

 

Look at the date of the lecturers incident statement then look at the date of the other incident statement and then re-read the final sentence of the second statement. Should it read 'has been identified' or 'will be identified next week' as......:D

The photo of the sign was taken at the same time as the other photo they sent (door open plywood leaning against frame) . Notice they don't give the game away by showing the new barrier, still Fred already has a copy of other photo which does have the new sign and the new barrier and he has a photo of the old sign and the new barrier just to really make it interesting should there be an issue over this point.:eek:

 

Durrr! Foiled again. They just can't help dropping themselves in that stuff BRW keeps going on about can they?:D

As to the photos...all I can say is "bollards" to them.....that's a clue TLD...(SORRY Bedlington, all will be revealed, promise)

Link to post
Share on other sites

False statements

 

32.14

 

(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth)

 

(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only –

(a) by the Attorney General; or

 

(b) with the permission of the court.

Oh dear someone has been digging themselves in deeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have spent the last week reading this amazing thread and have at last got to the end. I wish Fred the best of luck and can not see how he can possible lose with all the help here.

 

 

 

The important part to take from this is that both parties to this subrogated claim are in the position to have reclaimed VAT against their losses. This is not normal as Bedlington hs already highlighted and it means that the amount of VAT being claimed on the POC is not valid and should be removed from the claim.

Either the insurer should have paid the claim gross and then reclaimed the VAT or the insurer should have paid the claim net and the claimant should have reclaimed the VAT.

In the scenario presented to the Court neither the insurer or the claimant is admitting to having reclaimed the VAT against their losses.

I find this situation implausible, one or the other must have reclaimed this VAt and it's just as likely to be the case that both insurer and claimant have reclaimed against the same amount (That paid by US (UK) ltd).

 

 

With regard to the VAT issue it is my understanding that Insurance Companies are unable to reclaim VAT, and this is the reason they always deduct VAT from claims if the Policyholder is registered.

 

Regards

SC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to hear more detail on how PCAD are claiming that Fred admitted criminal damage at an early hearing, when the transcript shows that he didn't?

 

No problems if you don't want to give any more detail just yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny how anything in French sounds far more stylish!

 

I do prefer the Anglo-Saxon "fart" though!

 

Nearly a thousand years since the Norman invasion an Englishman can still fart, rather than errr...péter!

 

*waves defiant cardboard and string longbow across the Pas de Calais* :-)

 

Taisez vous mes enfants!:p

 

Sorry, Sir. :-(

 

Pssst, Noom, see you in the playground:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/215475-fart-p-ter-question.html#post2371811

 

;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have spent the last week reading this amazing thread and have at last got to the end. I wish Fred the best of luck and can not see how he can possible lose with all the help here.

 

Well done for persevering, Staying Calm and thankyou so much for your good wishes:D

 

 

 

 

 

 

With regard to the VAT issue it is my understanding that Insurance Companies are unable to reclaim VAT, and this is the reason they always deduct VAT from claims if the Policyholder is registered.

 

Regards

SC

Thanks for that too. The insurance angle is a bit out of my depth, but we do have it in writing from the insurers that the claimant told them they were not registered, so perhaps that's why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible to hear more detail on how PCAD are claiming that Fred admitted criminal damage at an early hearing, when the transcript shows that he didn't?

 

No problems if you don't want to give any more detail just yet.

My guess is that because the caution is pretty much all they have left, they're trying it on.

I've no idea other than that.

They may not have seen a transcript, and be relying on what their representative at the directions hearing has said. All along they've not had any regard for the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to think that win lose or draw any chance Lyons Davidson ever had of getting costs awarded in this case went flying out the window last friday afternoon.

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
My guess is that because the caution is pretty much all they have left, they're trying it on.

I've no idea other than that.

They may not have seen a transcript, and be relying on what their representative at the directions hearing has said. All along they've not had any regard for the truth.

 

From what was written earlier on in the thread, it seemed to me that they were claiming that Fred had made an admission of criminal damage independent of the caution. If this had actually happened, then it would become important evidence for them. And evidence that might survive the caution being struck out. If they were planning on getting such an admission on record, then that could explain why they didn't have the caution in their case from the beginning.

 

Is it possible that they could be thinking along these lines?

 

Step 1: Get Fred to admit, on record, to the existence of a caution.

Step 2: Rely on reasoning that a caution is only given if the offence has been

admitted at the time of the caution.

Step 3: Claim that Steps 1 and 2 add up to an admission in court of criminal damage.

 

I'm no lawyer, and this is just empty reasoning. But if I were involved in the case, I'd go over their new claim, and the transcript it's based on, VERY VERY carefully. And look for any loopholes like the one above which might not be immediately obvious to the unwashed masses, but might be used by a clever and skilled lawyer.

 

I'd like to think that win lose or draw any chance Lyons Davidson ever had of getting costs awarded in this case went flying out the window last friday afternoon.

 

Can you explain your reasoning further?

 

I don't mind at all if you don't want to explain more in a public forum just yet. As I've said before, I'm a very patient person.

Edited by Annoying Twit
Link to post
Share on other sites

PCAD incident form 06/03/06

 

'snapping'!! What's that all about?

 

PCAD incident form 06/03/06

 

Contrary to claimants claims in WS part 3 the member of staff simply identifies Fred as the person 'raising' the barrier, there's no mention of Fred damaging it.

 

Witness statement sec 5 - Crikey that's going out on a limb especially when the cctv footage clearly shows it wasn't.

 

Sec 8 Freds photo of the sign in Summer 2009 clearly establishes the chronology of the signs. The unpainted area around the latest sign does not exist on Freds first picture with the new barrier and the 'no parking' sign proving that was taken prior to the claimants picture which I think is a lot more recent than they would have us believe. This puts the witness in a bit of a corner having made that statement in the final sentence.

 

10- Did they really? Thought it was fait accomplit.

 

Will you be scanning and sending over all the evidence they've provided later today Patma? I've looked through what you sent yesterday and there doesn't actually seem to be any proof of damage or evidence the barrier needed repaired or replaced in their bundle. This is odd because I'm sure Fred put them to strict proof of the damage caused right back when he filed his original defence. It appears the only proof they've entered is the say so of an accountant who watched the cctv footage. :confused::confused:

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
Will you be scanning and sending over all the evidence they've provided later today Patma?

That was it yesterday, TLD.

 

I've got an update for you now.

An order has just arrived from the court and Fred has read it out to me over the phone.

 

"IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMANT DO REPLY IN WRITING TO THE FOUR APPLICATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, DATED 6TH AUGUST, ON OR BEFORE 28TH AUGUST 2009.

UPON RECEIPT OF WHICH THE FILE WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR HIS CONSIDERATION."

 

That's it

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Can you explain your reasoning further?

 

I don't mind at all if you don't want to explain more in a public forum just yet. As I've said before, I'm a very patient person.

 

 

It's a CPR thing AT, failure to comply with the overriding principles can cost you dearly.

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
That was it yesterday, TLD.

 

I've got an update for you now.

An order has just arrived from the court and Fred has read it out to me over the phone.

 

"IT IS ORDERED THAT THE CLAIMANT DO REPLY IN WRITING TO THE FOUR APPLICATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT, DATED 6TH AUGUST, ON OR BEFORE 28TH AUGUST 2009.

UPON RECEIPT OF WHICH THE FILE WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR HIS CONSIDERATION."

 

That's it

 

 

That is more than enough.:D:D

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
Oh good.Fred was a bit puzzled by it and I didn't know what to make of it either.

:D

 

It means any hearing in this matter might not be exactly the type of hearing Lyons-Davidson intended. Fred has made certain applications and provided substantial evidence in support of those applications. The claimant is now quite rightly being given a chance to provide their side of the story.

 

Knowing what those applications were and what evidence was filed at Court in support of those apps would you like to be the one who has to try and convince the Judge that Fred is wrong and provide the evidence to prove it????

 

I wouldn't that's for sure, especially when you consider that half the evidence provided the Court in support of Freds apps originated with the claimant as purported evidence of their claim. Which would you go for, dozens of pages of carefully researched evidence including expert testimonial, photographic evidence, documentary evidence, video evidence or the hearsay of an accountant and a stand in member of staff because the head of dept. didn't want his name appearing at the bottom of the paperwork??

Edited by Toulose LeDebt

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

Ok thanks I understand that, but Fred wasn't invited to respond to their app to amend their POC. It was just accepted.

I can see how they're going to struggle to have anything useful to say though.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3324 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

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...