Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, all I can add is that I was a victim of a Backdoor CCJ from Capquest, my fault for moving and not writing to them with my new address.  It sounds counter intuitive but the Best and most important thing to stay protected is to let your creditors know you are moving. Always in writing too, good old fashioned Royal Mail.
    • Sorry to pile more of the brown stuff onto your head – but I think that this speaks volumes. You are not an "ex customer" of Currys. To suggest that you are is effectively accepting that Currys' responsibilities to you ended the moment that they took your money and you walked away with the cooker. Currys' responsibilities are ongoing for the reasonably expected lifespan of the item which you bought and this means that you continue to be their customer for at least that period of time.   If you can start to adopt this mindset, you will start to find yourself pointing in the right direction. We will help to keep you focused
    • In terms of their refusal to comply with your subject access request, you may as well sue them in a separate County Court action. If you'd like to do that then we will help you. It would be very easy to do. You are entitled to claim damages for distress and I'm sure that you are hugely distressed by their failure/refusal to supply you with your personal data and I would suggest that you might want to sue them for £100. These people seem to be pretty disorganised and lack any understanding of how to run a business. I suppose that they would try to defend a data protection action on some spurious grounds – but it would increase the pressure on them and the risk to you would be very low – only about £50 or so in the unlikely event that you would lose the case. In the event that you would win then you would get your court fees back as well as the damage you are claiming unless a court decided that there were grounds for reducing the value of your claim. Pretty unlikely in my view.  
    • I think I have to add some clarification to the advice which has been given by my site team colleague above. Firstly, the Consumer Rights Act does not replace the existing law of contract. It simply supplements it and adds some additional solutions such as the short-term right to reject – and the right to reject within six months after giving a single opportunity to repair. These remedies are meant to be solutions but in fact we are finding – especially with car dealers – that the law is simply being ignored and frankly from that point of view the Consumer Rights Act is not a great success. There really ought to be in place a punitive measure for retailers who don't respect the 30 day rule and the six-month rule. But there aren't. So what is left is that even after six months, the item which has been sold to you must be of satisfactory quality and must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. What is a reasonable period of time depends on the reasonable expectations of a reasonable consumer. If the item starts to develop problems early on in its life then I think it can be generally taken beyond doubt that the item has failed the test of "satisfactory quality" because it has not remained that way for a reasonable period of time. Where an item starts to fail towards the end of its reasonable life expectancy, then you have a more difficult problem and that is where as my site team colleague has suggested, that you would ideally have to find some expert evidence to show that the item had failed because there was an existing defect. You could do this by getting an independent inspection or else by finding other examples over the Internet to show that this was a known problem. My site team colleague is right that you would have to demonstrate a defect even if the item fails at an early stage in its life – but I think that if you are taking a cooker with a reasonable life expectancy of probably, say, eight years – then I think the fact that it has developed a serious defect in the first 12 months would be taken by any County Court judge as clear evidence that it had failed to live up to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act – that it was not satisfactory quality. If the judge accepted that failure as evidence, then it would be up to the retailer to counter the presumption with evidence that there was nothing wrong with it. So what I'm saying is that in the first instance, I think that the defect speaks for itself and the question now is how to proceed. I'm sure that we can help you and I'm sure that we can help you get a result. I have to say now that you've been here since 2015 and I'm extremely disappointed to find that you seem to be unaware of the fact that you enjoy ample statutory rights to deal with this and that you seem to be lamenting the fact that you didn't take out an extended warranty and that furthermore you seem to be prepared to rely on a so-called 12 month guarantee provided by the manufacturer. You are asking how these companies can get away ripping off "innocent people" and I suppose that you are referring to "innocence" in the sense that people don't deserve it. Frankly I tend to see "innocence" in the sense of a certain naïveté – especially when people know about this forum. I don't particularly understand why you have put up with this for a pretty well five months instead of coming here. If you want to take that as a slapped wrist – then please do. Also it's a message to other people who visit this thread. Can you please tell us about the price you paid and any exchange you had with Currys. I understand that they have simply knocked you back to the manufacturer? Are you surprised? You're dealing with Currys. Another example of innocence. Blesséd are the meek. I don't fully understand the fault. Maybe you could put up a picture of the fault – in PDF format please. It will help us get a better idea what we are doing. Also, have you had anybody coming to have a look and see if it is actually repairable?  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

If love is so blind why is lingerie so expensive...???


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4007 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

Just been looking at "costspart2". Bit presumptious of them to assume they are gonna get judgement, and imply they can use all those enforcements, and nearly choked when I read under Order for information, "interrogation will cover" INTERROGATION?????? Didn't know courts now interrogate the good people that come before them!!!! Bunch of jokers. Anyway, good luck, will follow thread to see how things are going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The whole thing strikes me as an attempt to get cash. Standard template stuff.. for instance, i didn't see any requests from them previously under the Civil Procedure Rules. Therefore that recent comment is not applicable to you.

 

I would state that the tone and content of their inaccurate letter is highly intimidatory, offensive and purposefully misleading and contrary to OFT Debt Collection Guidance in that:

 

2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner.

 

b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it

creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors'

lack of knowledge

 

False representation of authority and/or legal position

 

b. falsely implying or stating that action can or will be taken when it legally cannot, for example, referring to bankruptcy or sequestration proceedings when the balance is too low to qualify for such proceedings or claiming a right of entry when no court order to this effect has been granted

 

...Amongst others.

 

I would call their bluff myself. Ask when the Court papers will be issued and the ask for information under the CPR yourself. Put them on the back foot.

 

There is also this aspect of OFT Guidance:

 

Physical/psychological harassment

 

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

 

h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are

disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

j. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either

deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting

correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox,

thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

I would take photos of the envelope and the 'legal docs' stamp and make a complaint to the ICO and OFT.

 

I would also, update (or start if you haven't done so) a complaint with SRA.

 

Don't forget to add your updated invoice for your time £££.

 

In a complaint letter to TS i would state that using the term 'interrogation' for as fedup says, that's totally misleading and and IMO against the spirit of the OFT Guidance above:

 

"b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it

creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors'

lack of knowledge"

 

I would be of a mind to email the Court and ask them if, under the above circumstance indicated by Turnbull, if that is officially classed as an 'interrogation'. I am figuring the answer is no therefore include that responce you get in writing to all and sundry when you complain.

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS. Have you received a Default Notice of any kind?

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Davey, the documents are misleading in their content and their wording, and are definately worded in such a way as to cause alarm and distress, and mislead the recipient. If you go to HM Courts Service website, on tghe leaflets and guidance, information on an order to obtain information is provided. It simply says, "you will be questioned under oath" It does NOT say "you will be interrogated" In fact, I bet if you actually go through HM site, you may even find HFO/Turnbulls have copied, then re worded some of the info on the leaflets. This, in my opinion, is done purposefully to cause alarm and distress, and to mislead you, and as Davey says, is agaisnt OFT guidelines.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Any updates firewalka?

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Hey Davey...

 

Loooonnggg time no speak....

 

Have been out of the country for a while and the interesting thing is there has been no mail from Turnbulls**ters and as my ex misses changed the phone number as well there has been no phone correspondence either...

 

The other delight I had on my return is that she has decided to go bankrupt and has decided to hand the keys back of the house so has moved is into rented accommodation...

 

Just as a matter of interest as a consumer are we bound to give out correspondence address or tell creditors where we are living...???

 

Your thoughts would be appreciated...

 

TTFN...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

Sorry i missed your last post.. all change here and haven't been very active.

 

I suspect there is a 'duty' somewhere (might even be in the credit agreements?!) that says you should inform the creditors of a change in circumstance (including address).

 

But to be honest if you are stressed out and can't pay and they haven't listened to your demands for information etc etc then its understandable (in my opinion) if you were to forget to inform them of a move. ;)

 

I guess that's why we have Statute Barred legislation at least, in part, in situations where the creditor looses touch with a valued customer.

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind though that if they really really really wanted to track someone down.. they could. DVLA sells drivers details to any creditor that pays a small fee. And you have to register your car to a new address in Law which you can't get away with not doing.

 

But it's all about what assets they think you have, the strength of their case against you and value of debt as to whether that's all worth while for them... or not.

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...