Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Mint - what a load of rubbish they've sent !

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5098 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi all,


CCA'd Mint, and recd a reply today, couple of days after 12&2 timing.


This was originally an RBS Advanta card, which was changed by RBS to Mint, during their rebranding.


As you will see from their covering letter, they have said that they have provided generic credit agreement terms, from the time my card was taken out, interestingly it quotes 2002 in it, but my RBS was before this !! They also say that they don't have to provide an actual signed copy of my agreement. (which I know is true on a basic CCA request).


They have also included a copy letter, not dated, and I have no copy of this in my records either, which is discussing the issuing of replacement Mint card, also has T&Cs attached, which appear current, but I have no idea really as nothings dated!!


Interestingly the credit limit quoted in this letter, which has had to be be blanked out, is my current limit ... I haven't had a recent card, so really have no idea what going on here either...!


Finally, copy of most recent statement, which seems ok ... phew !!


Guys, have a look at the docs, any comments on what they've sent??


Also, is my next best move to SAR them? Will they have to give me a copy of my signed/executed agreeement on a SAR request, or will they try and wriggle out ... as I don't think they have anything, from looking at what they have sent me!


Thanks all ... !!!

Mint cover letter.pdf

Mint generic CCA provided.pdf

Mint supplementary letter and t&cs.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

You can either send the dispute letter, or try and get a copy of a signed agreement using the following letter:


Dear Sirs


Account number


I write with regards to the above account with your organisation.


I respectfully request that you provide me by return a copy of the credit agreement which bears my signature. I require this as i have reason to believe that there may be discrepancies within the agreement which may leave it improperly executed.Additionally i require the underwriting sheet or other document showing any commissions paid to you by the broker or by you to the broker


(If you have any other reasons why you need the agreement such as misselling of PPI Add it here)


obviously if the agreement is improperly executed i would be entitled to ask the court to consider the agreement and make a declaration of the rights of parties to the agreement.


I must stress this request is NOT made pursuant to section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 but is made pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules ( Pre action protocols and Part 31.16) and therefore unsigned copy will not suffice, only a copy of the original contract in its unaltered form will suffice in these circumstances


Please confirm if you still hold a copy of my signed agreement and that you will provide me with this document.


I do not view this as an unreasonable request given that by supplying the document which i have asked for it will allow me to assess if my case has merit and will help to resolve matters possibly without the need to involve the court and will undoubtedly save costs on both sides


I look forward to your reply and wouyld ask for a response by 4pm on XXXX Date ( Give 21 days to respond)




Link to post
Share on other sites

Right you are .... thanks for the headsup on this, and also to Clemma who kindly posted the letter for me.


Will post off today to the little blighters ... and give an update as soon as I have one .....


Thanks again x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have recvd reply back from Minr/RBS this week. I sent a SAR January rcvd 6 yrs worth of monthly payment slips!!, a copy of my application form and a copy of latest t & c`s. Sent dispute letter and recvd same again and letter stating they have complied with data requirements.


I wonder if Mr Brown et al know that a government owned bank is not complying with its own and previous governments legislation?

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Spart, as far as I'm, aware an application isn't (by nature) a agreement ... so would be a good idea, if you need any help, to post up the application form, so the fab experts can have look and give you advice ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have sent off above CPR today, so they have until 5 April to respond. Quick Q - can they still refuse to supply the signed agreement even after my CPR letter?


Just want to get a bit ahead of the game really.


Thanks guys .. !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have sent off above CPR today, so they have until 5 April to respond. Quick Q - can they still refuse to supply the signed agreement even after my CPR letter?


Just want to get a bit ahead of the game really.


Thanks guys .. !


The only reason they would refuse to supply it is if they did not have it ;)


If they had a copy, and they want you to pay, then they would send it to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Clemma, thanks again for the letter ... big hug xox


I know I'm jumping the gun, but if that happened would I just send them the normal dispute letter, saying that it's in dispute as they have refused to comply with my CPR request? And then see where that takes me....


Thanks again xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, ermmm, I would presume so. I haven't had to find out for anyone yet. It would probably just be a case of jiggling the letter to suit. Will look into it :D


SCRAP that - have a read here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/173201-why-you-shouldnt-use.html


Your next letter would be:



CPR part 31.16


Dear Sirs


Account number


On XXXXX i wrote to your organisation requesting that you supply me a copy of the agreement for my account. My request extended to the full agreement which bore my signature. Additionally i require the underwriting sheet or other document showing any commissions paid to you by the broker or by you to the broker {ONLY USE IF RELEVENT AND INCLUDED IN THE FIRST LETTER}


I enclose a copy of the letter which was sent should for your information.


I note that to date i have not received a reply from your organisation nor have i received a copy of the agreement which i requested. in view of the circumstances i do not feel it unreasonable to ask for this document to be disclosed, it is not commercially sensitive nor is it a restricted document and should be easily accessible for an organisation such as yours. therefore i would ask that you provide me with a copy of the contract which bears my signature, i require the complete document with all its parts .


the reasons why i require this information are clearly set out within my original letter dated XXXXX , but for clarity i require this document for the following reasons


1.I require this as i have reason to believe that there may be discrepancies within the agreement which may leave it improperly executed


2. Because i believe that the Payment protection insurance was not correctly incorporated within the agreement


3.because i believe that there was a commission paid in repect of this agreement which has not been disclosed to me and therefore is a breach of agency law


4. ...................







since this matter is likely to be subject to proceedings and gioven that your organisation is likely to be a defendant in any action which would be brought by me, i must draw your attention to Civil Procedure Rules part 31.16(3)©&(D) which gives the court the power to order you to disclose this document to me.


The disclosure of these documents will allow me to consider any claim i may have against your organisation and will allow for the matter to be dealt with possibly without the need for costly litigation. Therefore i again ask that you provide me with the documents which i have previously requested . I don't not consider this request unreasonable and therefore if you fail to comply with my request i will be left no option but to make an application to XXXX County Court for an order made under the provisions of CPR 31.16 ordering you to disclose the documents which i have requested.


additionally i will ask the court to make an order for my costs in bringing this application and reserve the right to disclose all communications in this matter before the court should such an application become necessary


Please confirm by no later than 4pm on XXXXXXX that you will comply with my request or if you will not comply, please provide your reasons in writing





second letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all,


Mint have until Monday to reply with the copy agreement, after I sent the original CPR request.


I had originally asked for a copy of the agreement, as I wanted to check how they applied interest, and why it wasn't reducing in line with the recent changes in BOE rates (which I'm stating as my basis for requesting agreements for all my ccards) - but all Mint provided was a generic agreement from the time.

Anyhoo, can I have an opinion if the above letter kindly posted by the lovely Clemma is the best next stage of proceedings?


Mint by the way have called a couple of times when I stopped payments after they sent the generic docs. However, I advised them that as the acct was in dispute, payments had been temporarily suspended until the matter was resolved.


They seemed to be ok with that, and I haven't had a call for a good 2 weeks - also no chasing letters received ..... yet !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent account in dispute letter, no response and then account in serious dispute (thought they might shake in their boots;)). Got usual standard reply pay us arrears or DCA involved, now im shaking in my boots.


Think putting in a complaint to everyone is the next step.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You go for it ..... !!! But, why waste a stamp .... they can't proceed down the (undisputed) court route and the will know this....


My plan will be to let them issue court proceedings (if thats how they play it) and get them struck out (think thats what you say, if they are the ones in the wrong ?).


Keep in touch on this my fellow Minter !!! :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a cheesy group from the 60`s, Abby, Sparta & The Minters!

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well I wrote again to Mint to say that I hadn't recd a reply to my CPR31 letter.

They replied today, they said that it had been referred to their legal department, who are satisfied that they application I signed, which later formed the agreement,, is fully compliant with section 61 of the CCA, and as such the debt is recoverable.


They have gone on to say that due to the passage of time since 2001, they are unable to locate the original agreement, but that they are satisfied that I legally owe the money, and do not accept my unreasonable requests I have made (which was for a copy of the signed application, together with cesation of chasing the account whilst in default).:eek:


They do not agree to cease reporting to Credit Ref agencies, as when I signed the agrement I gave them authority to do so.


They have agreed to stop phone calls, but will continue with chasing letters, and possibly a default if I don't bring the account into order.


Well then .... what do we think of that ... ??


Advice please on how to proceed next, without a signed agreement of any sort, not even a scanned copy, how do I stand ?


All advice and guidance v greatly received .....:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've admitted that they haven't an agreement, so keep that letter safe.


They & their puppet lawyers may well be satisfied that you legally owe the money, but with the absence of a legally enforceable agreement they would have a hard time convincing a judge to allow them to collect it. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I CCAd Mint in October and have received nothing in reply.


Being an ex employee of part of NWB, I can fully understand the behind te scenes mess that organisation is. Too much time spent chasing the Golden Goose bringing in turnover and profit through the front door whilst it appears the back door has been left well and truly open with said turnover and profits disappearing twice as fast!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...