Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Include that in your witness statement along with that letter as an exhibit.
    • Yup, well so far they have lied to me about responding to a CCA,  are threatening me with a default notice that they don't have, produced a knocked up version of my NOA, sent me 29 pages of spew for an agreement. No wonder they pay 5 p in the pound for that crap.
    • Paragraph 2. I think there should be further down and also you should make the point that the payment to was made unilaterally and without the imposition of any conditions. Paragraph 3 – this is unnecessary because you are not claiming as an entitled third-party. This worries me because it makes me feel that you haven't fully read around because this is a paragraph which you would include where you were suing EVRi as a beneficial third party because you had actually made your contract with Packlink or some other broker. I think you need to revisit and do some more reading. I'm afraid I have a sense that you have simply copied this from somebody else's witness statement without understanding that it wasn't necessary. Please can you post the amended draft. Other than the suggestions above, it looks okay – but let's see it again for a further appraisal. In terms of the evidence, parties bundle, I think it might be an idea to start off with the correspondence with EVRi and then go onto the other evidence. You will have to amend the index page accordingly. You could shorten this bit. Take 19 is pretty well blank and you may as well miss it out also, there seems to be some repetition of emails and the email chain. I think will be worth going through and getting rid of duplicates if you can. 49 pages is a bit long and it would be a good idea to try and reduce the number. I have a feeling that 50 pages as the County Court limit anyway. The judge will be happier with you if the bundle is smaller. Maybe you could reduce the size of some of the images or messages et cetera. You have got several messages which straddle onto a second page so that things like sign off information and standard confidentiality information become orphans. A bit of manipulation and they could be joined to their parents I think. Page 31 as an example. So is page 19. You may only be up to shorten the whole thing by 56 pages – but I think it would be a good idea. 56 pages is, after all, 10%. If you can do more then so much the better
    • Investment by Dutch brewing giant will create 1,000 new jobs and reopen dozens of closed pubsView the full article
    • Qantas agrees to pay millions to settle lawsuit accusing it of selling tickets to cancelled flights.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

Morgan Stanley CCA- received Barclaycard terms in response**WON, THEN WON AGAIN!!!**


noomill060
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5460 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

or maybe I just tell them to go forth and multiply as I dont acknowledge any debt to them due to lack of agreement, and tell them to pay me what they damn well owe me?

 

(Which has naturally accrued another £80 of interest @ 26.8% compound, since I calculated it for the original schedule of charges. The magic of compound interest!)

Edited by noomill060
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I cannot understand why I have not seen this splendid thread before!

 

Whilst there is some merit in making these eejits let you keep the card, I think the potential for courtroom amusement (and subsequent bad publicity for Sharklays) is so great that you really should see the claim through. The prospect of watching their lawyer try to explain how his client has regularly taken money for PPI, yet denies doing so, and how, despite a premium being paid, no cover was ever provided, is wondrous. Then he can tell the judge why Barclaycard have tried to mislead and decieve by providing documentation that quite clearly doesn't relate to the agreement you may have had with another company - or was it two other companies? He might tell the court why his client decided, at the last moment, that in fact you were someone else, and sent you papers with personal details upon them - or maybe he'll just admit that his clients are in breach of the DPA 1998, as well as CCA 1974 and CPUTR 2008.

 

I have my diary ready for the court date...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most insulting part of all this, is that the microfish MSDW application form they sent me, relates to some cotton spinning Lancastrian! :eek:

 

I'm Yorkshire - born, bred and buttered- a woolyback Tyke to the core!

 

Lancashire- yikes! All that Accrington red brick, miles of it -as far as the eye can see :eek: - *shivvers*

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi noomill060,

 

This is a VERY interesting thread as I am just about to start the exact same path in the next few days, even my years and companies envolved match yours to! Just prey I have the same result. My only worry that due to advice of CAB I've been paying a nominal x to Goldfish for quite sometime but as you say Barclaycard have now taken over the Goldfish business and they promptly stuck me with the Mercer/Caulder route of inhouse DCA's.

 

Still I really hope I can enjoy some of the moments like you obviously are!

 

Thank you for supplying the light at the end of the tunnel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

img287.jpg

 

Hmm, theyre trying a different approach now and explaining more :)....

 

Yet if you request to see all documents under a SAR request, they *should* have to provide a real copy of the original document and not a true copy... yet I've read on this forum of the response coming back saying the agreement was sent back under the terms of a CCA request and the rest of the info will be under the SAR request which I'm sure the information comissioner would want to know about as it means the SAR is being defaulted on surely :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Embodying the terms"

 

"We do not class the account as in dispute...we will carry on collection services"

 

The drivel in this is highly entertaining- check out the thinly veiled reference to the Rankine judgement!

 

What planet are these muppets on?

 

We've seen this nonsense on many other threads and PT has torn it to sheds.

 

 

Jayzuz, the application form they refer to belongs to the guy in Lancashire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah yes, Mr Sefton,

 

He sent me the same letter on behalf of a client, how kind of him to try and tell us what the law says, after all we are only a firm of lawyers but ho hum. any way, he finished telling me why he was not obligated to supply the signed document

 

only problem was, he had sent a copy of the original, no other docs, no terms and conditions and the document he did send was grossly illegible

 

so i sent him a nice letter asking him, since he is so schooled in the CCA and the regulations, would he mind going and reading regulation 2 of the Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and copies of Documents Regulations 1983

 

Youve gotta give them credit for trying though

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am getting closer and closer to just sending a letter saying "Have you got a copy of my original signed agreement, or haven't you? If you have and you can produce it at any court hearing, why can't I see it now? If you are not letting me see it now, I can only assume you believe it to be unenforceable."

 

I know that is not the 'right' way to proceed, but when I see this stuff.....

 

DDxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that must be the thread I remember reading your comments on, PT.

 

I've rejected their offer to settle the monetary part of the claim only, so lets see what their defence brings. They have until the 28th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, Mr. Sefton has rather shot which he himself in the foot;

Regulation 7!

 

Also, the case/judgement to which he refers has been, is considered faulty by several barristers...it is only a matter of time before it is overturned.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...