Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My understanding is that they won't provide the name to me whether the investigation is Live or Closed, & I have no legal rep as I didn't have P.I. Cover on my policy, & am intending to claim using OIC.org.uk, but remain completely stuck as they 100% cannot open a claim on the portal without both the Reg. No. & Name of the other driver.  
    • thanks again ftmdave, your words are verey encouraging and i do appreciate them. i have taken about 2 hours to think of a letter to write to the ceo...i will paste it below...also how would i address a ceo? do i just put his name? or put dear sir? do you think its ok?  i would appreciate feedback/input from anybody if anything needs to be added/taken away, removed if incorrect etc. i am writing it on behalf of my friend..she is the named driver  - im the one with the blue badge and owner of the car - just for clarification. thanks in adavance to everyone.       My friend and I are both disabled and have been a victim of disability discrimination on the part of your agents.   I have been incorrectly 'charged' by your agent 'excel parking' for overstaying in your car park, but there was no overstay. The letter I recieved said the duration of stay was 15 minutes but there is a 10 minute grace period and also 5 minutes consideration time, hence there was no duration of stay of 15 minutes.   I would like to take this oppertunity to clarify what happend at your Gravesend store. We are struggling finacially due to the 'cost of living crisis' and not being able to work because we are both disabled, we was attracted to your store for the 10 items for £10 offer. I suffer dyslexia and depression and my friend who I take shopping has a mobility disability. We went to buy some shopping at your Gravesend branch of Iceland on 28th of December 2023, we entered your car park, tried to read and understand the parking signs and realised we had to pay for parking. We then realised we didnt have any change for the parking machine so went back to look for coins in the car and when we couldnt find any we left. As my friend has mobility issues it takes some time for me to help him out of the car, as you probably understand this takes more time than it would a normal able bodied person. As I suffer dyslexia I am sure you'll agree that it took me more time than a normal person to read and understand the large amount of information at the pay & display machine. After this, it took more time than an able bodied person to leave the car park especially as I have to help my friend on his crutches etc get back into the car due to his mobility disability. All this took us 15 minutes.   I was the driver of my friends car and he has a blue badge. He then received a 'notice to keeper' for a 'failure to purchase a parking tariff'. On the letter it asked to name the driver if you wasnt the driver at the time, so as he wasnt the driver he named me. I appealed the charge and told them we are disabled and explained the situation as above. The appeal was denied, and even more so was totally ignored regarding our disabilities and that we take longer than an able bodied person to access the car and read the signs and understand them. As our disabilities were ignored and disregarded for the time taken I believe this is discrimination against us. I cannot afford any unfair charges of this kind as I am severely struggling financially. I cannot work and am a carer for my disabled Son who also has a mental and mobility disability. I obviously do not have any disposable income and am in debt with my bills. So its an absolute impossibility for me to pay this incorrect charge.     After being discriminated by your agent my friend decided to contact 'iceland customer care team' on my behalf and again explained the situation and also sent photos of his disabled blue badge and proof of disability. He asked the care team to cancel the charge as ultimately its Iceland's land/property and you have the power over excel parking to cancel it. Again we was met with no mention or consideration for our disability and no direct response regarding the cancellation, all we was told was to contact excel parking. He has replied over 20 times to try to get the 'care team' to understand and cancel this but its pointless as we are just ignored every time. I believe that Ignoring our disability is discrimination which is why I am now contacting you.     I have noticed on your website that you are 'acting' to ease the 'cost of living crisis' : https://about.iceland.co.uk/2022/04/05/iceland-acts-to-ease-the-cost-of-living-crisis/   If you really are commited to helping people in this time of crisis ..and especially two struggling disabled people, can you please cancel this charge as it will only cause more damage to our mental health if you do not.  
    • I've also been in touch via the online portal to the Police's GDPR team, to request the name of the other Driver. Got this response:   Dear Mr. ---------   Our Ref: ----------   Thank you for your request which has been forwarded to the Data Protection Team for consideration.   The data you are requesting is third party, we would not give this information directly to you.   Your solicitor or legal team acting on our behalf would approach us directly with your signed (wet) consent allowing us to consider the request further.   I note the investigation is showing as ‘live’ at this time, we would not considered sharing data for suggested injury until the investigation has been closed.   If you wish to pursue a claim once the investigation has been closed please signpost your legal team to [email protected]   Kind regards   ----------------- Data Protection Assistant    
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • Hi everyone, Apologies for bringing up the same topic regarding these individuals. I wish I had found this forum earlier, as I've seen very similar cases. However, I need your help in figuring out what to do next because we've involved our partners/resellers. I work as an IT Manager in a company outside of the UK. We acquired a license from a certified reseller (along with a support agreement) and also obtained training sessions from them. The issue arose when we needed to register two people for the training sessions, so we used an external laptop for the second user to keep up with the sessions for only a month. During this period, the laptop was solely used for the training sessions. After two weeks, my boss forwarded an email to me from Ms Vinces, stating that we are using illicit software from SolidWorks. Since this has never happened to me or anyone we know, I went into panic mode and had a meeting with her. During the meeting, we explained that we were using an external laptop solely for the training sessions and that the laptop had not been used within the company since her email. She informed us that for such cases, there are demos and special licenses (though our reseller did not mention these types of licenses when we made our initial purchase). She then mentioned that we had utilized products worth approximately €25k and presented us with two options: either pay the agreed value or acquire SolidWorks products. We expressed that the cost was too high, and our business couldn't support such expenses. I assured her that we would discuss the matter with the company board and get back to her. After the meeting, we contacted the company reseller from whom we purchased the license, explained the situation, and mentioned the use of an external laptop. They said they would speak to Maria and help mediate the situation. We hoped to significantly reduce the cost, perhaps to that of a 1-year professional license. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. The reseller mediated a value €2k less than what Maria had suggested (essentially, we would need to acquire two professional lifetime licenses and two years of support for a total of €23k). This amount is still beyond our means, but they insisted that the price was non-negotiable and wouldn't be reduced any further. The entire situation feels odd because she never provided us with addresses or other evidence (which I should have requested), and she's pressuring us to resolve the matter by the end of the month, with payment to be made through the reseller. This makes me feel as though the reseller is taking advantage of the situation to profit from it. Currently, we're trying to buy some time. We plan to meet with the reseller next week but are uncertain about how to proceed with them or whether we should respond to the mediator.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

MBNA/Restons claimform - old A+L Card **WON+COSTS**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5257 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 FB!

 

Heres the email i sent to restons

 

Dear Mr Bouchier

 

Further to the offer i now refuse it and point out that the amount outstanding is £1601.39. Otherwise I will see you in court on Friday

 

I will accept if you change part iii to

(iii) You repay the outstanding balance under the credit agreement of £1601.39 by monthly instalments of £12.00. The first instalment to be received hereby 31st August 2009. The rate of repayment to be annually reviewed with an expectation that it should increase should your financial circumstances improve

 

Please respond

ASAP

 

Great, that's more like it I think.

 

If they agree, then that's it sorted more or less.

 

If they don't agree, then that will tell you they were indeed after that £11.2k admission of Debt, and suggests they were indeed planning on nailing you with it.

 

If that is the case, you have no real option but to go to Court to bring the matter to a head. Call their bluff.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

in my case i agreed to £20 a mth but it cannot go up as it was set by a judge but i am now going 4 a set aside as fraudulent docs where used

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello FB!

 

Ok Ok nearly made a boo boo there. Emailed them and phoned them just to confirm i will be in court on friday unless they accept the £1601 figure.

 

Phew, you had me worried there!

 

OK, if they agree to the £1.6k figure, fine tune the actual wording to say you agree to pay them £12 a month, and stop it there.

 

Don't give them a right to start bothering you, or else they will just hassle you for the next 11 years to try and get the payments raised.

 

If you shake hands with this lot, do count your fingers afterwards.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that not without prejudice he cant bring it up in court?

 

 

Good point

 

However i think that "without prejudice" is not as simple and all encompassing as one would believe it to be and certain things cannot always remain without prejuduce even if the document is so headed (worth googling it and reading some references)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to realise that the WITHOUT PREJUDICE only covers these offers while they are being negotiated behind the scenes.

 

IOW, they are hiding behind this while a deal is being negotiated.

 

I really doubt they will head any confirmation letter WITHOUT PREJUDICE...that will be dropped on the acceptance letter for FB to sign.

 

That's what they want, an OPEN LETTER/Agreement, with FB's signature, that says he will pay them £11.2k via small payments that can be increased.

 

Roll forwards a few months/years when FB has missed a payment (either by accident or by design on their part), and they will roll straight into Court to enforce the new £11.2k Signed Agreement made in August 2009.

 

Danger Will Robinson!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Tripe-O
Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is that FB case is based on proving that the second DN was issued after the agreement was terminated. Is the agreement itself not enforceable? Are we sure that FB has enough material in his defence to prove the termination before the second DN?? I agree, the fact that they made this offer may signal FB is with a winner case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I nearly had a blue fit when I saw you had agreed to repay the £11,000 and not the £1600 as you had originally requested:eek: So glad that others managed to get to you quickly to rescind the offer;)

 

Gosh:shock:me too FB:shock: Hang on in there ! I've been to court today under quite different circumstances and it can appear quite daunting but the Prosecution Barrister and the Judge and the (don't know what they're called) persons on either side of him, only appear to 'judge the case' on the law by the book, to the very letter. So I got the impression that if one can defend oneself by the book and to the very letter, then they all seem to nod and agree between themselves:rolleyes:.

 

:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is what they have now sent. Looks like i will see them on friday. Shall i respond to his email?

 

Without Prejudice

I refer to your recent telephone conversation with my colleague.

The Bank will not agree to merely accept £1601.39 in settlement of this account.

The executed credit agreement – containing the prescribed terms – is within the Court papers and it is enforceable. I am not sure why you have been advised it is not. Are you able to explain why the agreement does not comply with the CCA?

It is clearly open to the Bank as a creditor to serve a new default notice and claim the full balance. If the earlier default notice did not comply with the CCA or regulations made under it as you allege then the agreement could not have been terminated and the fact you have received correspondence indicating the contrary is immaterial. In any event termination of the account does not mean that the liability disappears.

The Bank is still prepared to reach a sensible conclusion on this matter.

Yours

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is what they have now sent. Looks like i will see them on friday. Shall i respond to his email?

 

Without Prejudice

I refer to your recent telephone conversation with my colleague.

The Bank will not agree to merely accept £1601.39 in settlement of this account.

The executed credit agreement – containing the prescribed terms – is within the Court papers and it is enforceable. I am not sure why you have been advised it is not. Are you able to explain why the agreement does not comply with the CCA?

It is clearly open to the Bank as a creditor to serve a new default notice and claim the full balance. If the earlier default notice did not comply with the CCA or regulations made under it as you allege then the agreement could not have been terminated and the fact you have received correspondence indicating the contrary is immaterial. In any event termination of the account does not mean that the liability disappears.

The Bank is still prepared to reach a sensible conclusion on this matter.

Yours

 

best ignored IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is what they have now sent. Looks like i will see them on friday. Shall i respond to his email?

 

Without Prejudice

I refer to your recent telephone conversation with my colleague.

The Bank will not agree to merely accept £1601.39 in settlement of this account.

The executed credit agreement – containing the prescribed terms – is within the Court papers and it is enforceable. I am not sure why you have been advised it is not. Are you able to explain why the agreement does not comply with the CCA?

It is clearly open to the Bank as a creditor to serve a new default notice and claim the full balance. If the earlier default notice did not comply with the CCA or regulations made under it as you allege then the agreement could not have been terminated and the fact you have received correspondence indicating the contrary is immaterial. In any event termination of the account does not mean that the liability disappears.

The Bank is still prepared to reach a sensible conclusion on this matter.

Yours

 

 

If he bothers to read my statement its all in there!!!

 

As for the DN's they are snookered, how many do they need?

 

The termination seems pretty final to me.

 

The bank is prepared to reach a snesible conclusion, no they are not. well see you on friday and make sure Dianne from MBNA is there.

 

They caught me at weak moment. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you FB - even if Friday's decision comes down on their side, you have called all the shots and you have absolutely nothing to lose now..... you were even prepared to pay their £11000.00! They are playing a mind game by contacting you at this last minute;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

FB, It seems they are getting all this BS in now to try and make you fold. Go over your arguments again, try to keep a clear head. get back to the basics of your case now that you know what buffer was up to in getting you to admit the debt. Get the details right in your mind, IE for additional charges, DN incorrect and wrongful termination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was i thinking, i nearly wavered if it wasnt for you guys (and gals) The DNs are both invalid (one admitted by them and 2nd wrong amounts and no n/address of creditor) and the CCa is not enforceable not complete. In boucher statement he submitted it said that they are allowed to vary the t and c but in CCA they are using nowhere does it say they can. it is refered to in another document and they have never produced it. He has assumed it is complete. Loads of 'deletes on comms log' from mbna which needs explaining by them. Plus got a letter of termination from managing director of Restons saying its temrnated, so how can they issue further DN's?

 

Roll on friday !!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the earlier default notice did not comply with the CCA or regulations made under it as you allege then the agreement could not have been terminated and the fact you have received correspondence indicating the contrary is immaterial.

 

Rubbish and they know it.

 

Failing to issue a correct default notice does not prevent termination, it just makes it unlawfull.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was i thinking, i nearly wavered if it wasnt for you guys (and gals) The DNs are both invalid (one admitted by them and 2nd wrong amounts and no n/address of creditor) and the CCa is not enforceable not complete. In boucher statement he submitted it said that they are allowed to vary the t and c but in CCA they are using nowhere does it say they can. it is refered to in another document and they have never produced it. He has assumed it is complete. Loads of 'deletes on comms log' from mbna which needs explaining by them. Plus got a letter of termination from managing director of Restons saying its temrnated, so how can they issue further DN's?

 

Roll on friday !!!!!!!!!!!

 

havnt read the whole thread FB but IMO is IS important that you make the point to the court that has just been made:-

 

the faulty DN does NOT mean that the termination cannot be made- but that it is an unlawful termination and that you have accepted their unlawful termination therefore a legally binding contract no longer exists upon which a default notice can be issued

 

(sorry if has already been pointed out)

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this any use:-

 

In*Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha*[2007], Lord Bingham said:

 

'The repudiation of a contract by one party ("the repudiator"), if accepted by the other ("the injured party"), brings the contract to an end and releases both parties from their primary obligations under the contract. The injured party is thereupon entitled to recover damages against the repudiator to compensate him for such financial loss as the repudiator's breach has caused him to suffer. This is elementary law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Restons have sent another email !!!! see text in blue

 

The executed credit agreemnt that they have produced does not have a para 10 and no where in there does it say they can vary the terms there loads of little references in the agreemnt to see later paras but they have never produced the whole agreement.

 

They have sent a set of generic terms and conditions that they say apply but no where in original agreemnt does it give them the power to do that. because they have not produced the whole original agreemnt

 

and anyway para 10 also says they should write to me to terminate if it for something else other than a breach and they havent.

 

And they dont have to rely on the DN. You have to laugh

 

The Bank cannot accept only £1601.93.

You will note in your terms and conditions par 10 that the Bank has the right to contractually terminate the agreement at any time - if it does so you are liable to repay the outstanding balance. In other words the Bank does not have to serve a default notice which is only required if the Bank wants to bring the agreement to an end because of a failure to pay arrears or some other breach.

Paragraph 10 allows the Bank to terminate the agreement for any reason i.e. not a reason based on a breach of the agreement.

In other words the Bank does not have to rely on the default notice.

The Bank will prepared to settle amicably by agreeing a total figure which is less than the balance but cannot accept what has been offered thus far.

Edited by fairbyblue
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fairbyblue

 

What a load of cobblers there giving you.

I've got an MBNA Credit card agreement when i took the card out in 2002, and Paragraph 10 don't say anything about the bank can terminate the account at any time.

Paragraph 10 on mine says ( Loss, theft or misuse ).

 

Good Luck with your case tomorrow.

 

 

Gaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fairbyblue

 

What a load of cobblers there giving you.

I've got an MBNA Credit card agreement when i took the card out in 2002, and Paragraph 10 don't say anything about the bank can terminate the account at any time.

Paragraph 10 on mine says ( Loss, theft or misuse ).

 

Good Luck with your case tomorrow.

 

 

Gaz

 

I have the latest set and par 10 does say

 

We may end this agreement at any time if we write to you first to tell you that we are going to do so. If we have a valid reason we may end the agreement immediately and write to you as soon as we can afterwards, to tell you why we have done so

 

My argument is they cant use latest set as the have not produced the full original agreemnt it is incomplete and only goes upto para 3b and no where on that agreemnt does it allow them to vary the terms and conditions.

 

If they manage to get to this set of t and c they have not written to me as i have comms log, and what reason are they giving and why is it not in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello FB!

 

They should have a couple of problems with this.

 

Any Clause that says they can Terminate and ask for full payment at any time, is highly likely to be seen as an Unfair Term. You may have grounds to rebut that via UTCRR alone:

 

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

However, the facts appear to be that they regarded you as being in default, and issued a Default Notice...the clue being in the name.

 

In a claimed Consumer default situation, the Act requires that they follow the steps outlined in s87 and s88 if they wish to end the Agreement and move on to enjoy the benefits of s87:

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

If they wish to claim they can Terminate another way, then what way, exactly, would they be claiming they can do this that is compatible with the Act? It's a Regulated Agreement remember, and that binds their Client to behave in a certain way, or suffer the consequences.

 

I think they are perhaps trying to say they can rely upon s76 or s98. There are no other ways to jump out of a Regulated Agreement that I am aware of, other than s76, s87/s88 and s98. Spot the ones not to be used in a default situation!

 

Two small problems there, namely: s76(6) and s98(6). Those sub-sections confirm that neither Sections are to be used in a default situation. At that point wave the Default Notice in the air, and point out every single mention of the word default in any letters, or threats, or if stated in their POC or any Witness Statements. Smile at the Judge and then wink at the opposition.

 

In other words the Bank does not have to rely on the default notice.

 

If it waddles like a default situation and quacks like a default situation, then it's a default situation and they are obliged to follow s87 and s88 if they wish to end an Agreement and then enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

Was their latest email WITHOUT PREJUDICE too?

 

If not, then first thing you do is mention how the Claimant has tried to intimidate you before Court.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Two small problems there, namely: s76(6) and s98(6). Those sub-sections confirm that neither Sections are to be used in a default situation. At that point wave the Default Notice in the air, and point out every single mention of the word default in any letters, or threats, or if stated in their POC or any Witness Statements. Smile at the Judge and then wink at the opposition.

 

 

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I have such a good mental picture now of FB with an OHP pointing all the times DEFAULT is shown anywhere in a very ott am dram type way, then winking Betty Boop stylie at the bank's sols:D

 

Is that close to how it would be? Please say yes:lol:

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have such a good mental picture now of FB with an OHP pointing all the times DEFAULT is shown anywhere in a very ott am dram type way, then winking Betty Boop stylie at the bank's sols:D

 

Is that close to how it would be? Please say yes:lol:

 

I might even do a powerpoint !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...