Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The latest polls say otherwise    Party support: 3 June 2024   LAB 45% (40-50%) CON 24% (19-29%) REF 11% (8-14%) LD 10% (7-13%) GRN 5% (2-8%) SNP 3% (2-4%) PC 1% (<1-2%)
    • Oh, one other thing. It may sound a silly question, but as they say - silly questions are better than silly mistakes. The correspondence address in the current case and the previous one is correct and current. I've never actually written to the banks to confirm my address, as is regularly advised, because I presumed if Moriarty/IDR/J&P are using that address, there would be no need to. So because both cases seem to have my address correct, should I still write to the bank or take it that there's no need in this instance?
    • Yep, that's it @dx100uk - thanks for the clarification. My bad... Cheers again for all your help 👍
    • Hi all Just coming back to this Forum, as it helped me so much a few years back with ADCB/Moriarty. So I've had the circulars from IDR chasing Emirates NBD debt. They've been on and off over past few years, seem to be a run of letters, emails SMS and then go quiet, then start again.   A few months ago, same started with J&P, just a basic letter, email, sms asking to get in contact. Then last week I saw an email from Emirates NBD saying J&P were acting on their behalf. Up to this point, the main thrust of the letter seems to be please contact us, or contact ENBD about payment. Then I received a letter - I can't scan/upload it at this time but I will as soon as I can - which appears to be similar to what I've seen on other threads. Namely giving bank details of ENBD, saying they've been "instructed to pursue action", and saying they've enclosed a copy of Information Sheet, Reply Form in compliance of Pre-Action Protocol They state I have 30 days from date on letter to reply, and "if you fail to do so our client may have no option but to pursue further action against you". I'm of the view, as per advice on other threads and my experience with the other lender/company, to reply as per thread #5 in the main thread. On the basis that I wouldn't wish to give them ammunition by not replying or missing the opportunity. I'm aware that on some threads, in similar situation, one poster had been advised by sols not to reply and apparently J&P didn't progress from there, other than sending same requests. I feel these things are always down to the individual's choice, and I'm keen to see what others may have done/may be doing so will actively read other threads also.   Please feel free to ask if I can help with anything, or share any opinions, and in the meantime I'll get the uploads done ASAP.   Thanks again for everyone's help in the past, and hopefully the future, and good luck to all
  • 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

Validity of claims management companies? Moved from "Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice"


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5184 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

by ML:

 

"Sadly, discussion in the forum is limited on this one as claims handlers are a litigious bunch, and the risk of handing them a juicy libel claim from some flippant comment sadly means discussion needs to be put on hold until we’re fully ready to publish."

 

No doubt one will be in a more enlightened position, once the list is published.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

by ML:

 

"Sadly, discussion in the forum is limited on this one as claims handlers are a litigious bunch, and the risk of handing them a juicy libel claim from some flippant comment sadly means discussion needs to be put on hold until we’re fully ready to publish."

 

No doubt one will be in a more enlightened position, once the list is published.

 

AC

 

That's what I was thinking when I read that this morning.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an outburst!

I simply posted up the Martin Lewis view...

 

Furthermore, I believe that the following sentiment is appropriate:

 

I know AC,

 

it wasnt aimed at you, but it gets me going when i hear the holier than thou arguments such as youve borrowed it pay it back stuff.

 

the claims management companies out there who are reputable are helping people they are not some diseased creature that needs to be kept away from and it annoys me to hear some of the comments coming out of the likes of Martin when it seems to say that these claims management companies are something to be avoided

 

the company i work with does not charge, they are fully reputable and they as i said before hold a consumer credit licence and are extremely ethical

 

they dont even touch any compensation thats awarded( if there is any)

 

With all due respect I would not expect you to be on ML's side being someone who works for a CMC type business... the bias is clear to see.

 

But what he has said is right... it is bringing genuine claims into disrepute. I'm no keeper of high morals... but if you borrow money you should really pay it back unless you genuinely have no way to honour it and I believe, in the main, that the CCA defence type argument should be used to DEFEND creditor action and not to make a "claim".

 

I have also seen NO company stating they do not charge money for attempting to challenge credit agreements so your company must be the exception ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

by ML:

 

"Sadly, discussion in the forum is limited on this one as claims handlers are a litigious bunch, and the risk of handing them a juicy libel claim from some flippant comment sadly means discussion needs to be put on hold until we’re fully ready to publish."

 

No doubt one will be in a more enlightened position, once the list is published.

 

AC

 

Don't hold your breath, for a consumer champion Martin seems to have

been surprisingly reticent to get involved in any way with the whole issue of challenging credit agreements despite the act it ha sben discussed here for years.

The excuse about possible libel claims is very convenient, a bit like claims companies being unable to show written evidence of debts wiped out due to confidentiality and the data protection act.

The truth is that however he started out Martin is now very much a product of the media and as such he has to toe the line like all the media do and blowing the lid on this would not be at all a good idea for him

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't hold your breath, for a consumer champion Martin seems to have

been surprisingly reticent to get involved in any way with the whole issue of challenging credit agreements despite the act it ha sben discussed here for years.

The excuse about possible libel claims is very convenient, a bit like claims companies being unable to show written evidence of debts wiped out due to confidentiality and the data protection act.

The truth is that however he started out Martin is now very much a product of the media and as such he has to toe the line like all the media do and blowing the lid on this would not be at all a good idea for him

 

Just out of curiousity, have you been genuinely threatened with court action by your creditors? Such as being served a stat demand/CCJ or suchlike?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With all due respect I would not expect you to be on ML's side being someone who works for a CMC type business... the bias is clear to see.

 

But what he has said is right... it is bringing genuine claims into disrepute. I'm no keeper of high morals... but if you borrow money you should really pay it back unless you genuinely have no way to honour it and I believe, in the main, that the CCA defence type argument should be used to DEFEND creditor action and not to make a "claim".

 

I have also seen NO company stating they do not charge money for attempting to challenge credit agreements so your company must be the exception ;-)

 

Lets say that when you took out a loan for 10k you expected to pay back 10k plus agreed interest and the lender expected the same thing.

Further down the line it transpired that you had messed something up and the lender was now entitled to 20k plus interest -do you really thing they would say no no you just pay us 10k plus interest and we will be happy with that .

Yeah right

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just out of curiousity, have you been genuinely threatened with court action by your creditors? Such as being served a stat demand/CCJ or suchlike?

 

This isn't normal practise, as they know where they are going if they do.

 

Usually, the debt is passed on to a reticent DCA that doesn't give up and makes your life a misery until the debt is repaid out of pure desperation. (Usually by those who don't know their rights)

 

The whole reason these types of threads come around is the consumer backlash. It's time we all stood together to be counted and made the change.

 

(Anyone for a revolt?)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just out of curiousity, have you been genuinely threatened with court action by your creditors? Such as being served a stat demand/CCJ or suchlike?

 

I don't see what difference it makes but yes I have several ongoing at the moment,written evidence available on request along with a copy of my latest bank statement showing my parlous financial position

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This isn't normal practise, as they know where they are going if they do.

 

Usually, the debt is passed on to a reticent DCA that doesn't give up and makes your life a misery until the debt is repaid out of pure desperation. (Usually by those who don't know their rights)

 

The whole reason these types of threads come around is the consumer backlash. It's time we all stood together to be counted and made the change.

 

(Anyone for a revolt?)

 

Maybe its not normal practice but I have 2 with MBNA and they have issued on both despite me telling them that their agreement did not include all the prescribed terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't hold your breath, for a consumer champion Martin seems to have

been surprisingly reticent to get involved in any way with the whole issue of challenging credit agreements despite the act it ha sben discussed here for years.

The excuse about possible libel claims is very convenient, a bit like claims companies being unable to show written evidence of debts wiped out due to confidentiality and the data protection act.

The truth is that however he started out Martin is now very much a product of the media and as such he has to toe the line like all the media do and blowing the lid on this would not be at all a good idea for him

 

 

Well his website is full of all sorts of offers & loans from credit card companies and banks so I guess he is probably not as unbiased as CAG in this area.:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With all due respect I would not expect you to be on ML's side being someone who works for a CMC type business... the bias is clear to see.

 

But what he has said is right... it is bringing genuine claims into disrepute. I'm no keeper of high morals... but if you borrow money you should really pay it back unless you genuinely have no way to honour it and I believe, in the main, that the CCA defence type argument should be used to DEFEND creditor action and not to make a "claim".

 

I have also seen NO company stating they do not charge money for attempting to challenge credit agreements so your company must be the exception ;-)

 

Err vjohn, pt did not say that he works for a CMC business, he actually stated that, he works with one. I would presume that whichever firm this is, they work on a; no win no fee basis.

 

Many consumers have valid reasons to challenge their consumer credit agreements such as myself. I personally, do not wish to be tarred with the same brush as some, who just wish to get out of paying.

 

I agree, that it is often wiser to defend rather than to challenge. However, sometimes you have to stand up for your rights, particularly when your valid complaint(s) are continually ignored by the OC/DCA.

 

It is a worry though, that via all the media and TV advertising by CMC's, some naieve consumers will be drawn into something that they do not understand and as a consequence ending up with a large bill.

 

AC

Edited by angry cat
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Err vjohn, pt did not say that he works for a CMC business, he actually stated that, he works with one. I would presume that whichever firm this is, they work on a; no win no fee basis.

 

Many consumers have valid reasons to challenge their consumer credit agreements such as myself. I personally, do not wish to be tarred with the same brush as some, who just wish to get out of paying.

 

I agree, that it is often wiser to defend rather than to challenge. However, sometimes you have to stand up for your rights, particularly when your valid complaint(s) are continually ignored by the OC/DCA.

 

It is a worry though, that via all the media and TV advertising by CMC's, some naieve consumers will be drawn into something that they do not understand and as a consequence ending up with a large bill.

 

AC

 

Glad that could never happen to somone following the advice on here :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well his website is full of all sorts of offers & loans from credit card companies and banks so I guess he is probably not as unbiased as CAG in this area.:eek:

Martin Lewis' site is moneysavingexpert, if he didn't cover all sorts of moneysaving methods including loans and credit cards I would be surprised.

Furthermore, his forum is unmoderated which is not a dig at this forum but I think suggesting Martin Lewis is biased towards banks/loan companies is perhaps an unfortunate aspersion to make considering what his site is about and the varied people who use the forum.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Lewis' site is moneysavingexpert, if he didn't cover all sorts of moneysaving methods including loans and credit cards I would be surprised.

Furthermore, his forum is unmoderated which is not a dig at this forum but I think suggesting Martin Lewis is biased towards banks/loan companies is perhaps an unfortunate aspersion to make considering what his site is about and the varied people who use the forum.

 

So presumably you have another reason in mind as to why Martin has not dealt with being able to claim against your lender as for sure thats a way of saving money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So presumably you have another reason in mind as to why Martin has not dealt with being able to claim against your lender as for sure thats a way of saving money.

 

I think you need to email Martin Lewis and ask him the question because my name is not Martin Lewis and I don't think for him.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you need to email Martin Lewis and ask him the question because my name is not Martin Lewis and I don't think for him.

 

 

Not much point he has already said he has has massive amounts of mail asking him to address this issue but its not had the desired effect yet so I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for the sage to pronounce

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not much point he has already said he has has massive amounts of mail asking him to address this issue but its not had the desired effect yet so I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for the sage to pronounce

 

Have you emailed him? Have you emailed [email protected] or one of their site team?

I prefer to DO THINGS than shoot hot air out so email him or the team on MSE and ask the question you want of them and report back on the thread.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Err vjohn, pt did not say that he works for a CMC business, he actually stated that, he works with one. I would presume that whichever firm this is, they work on a; no win no fee basis.

 

 

I said I imagine he works for a CMC type business... not actually within one. Either way his involvement is ambiguous and that's why I believe there is bias in his position on CMC's. This is a logical assumption. I do not work for a CMC and have seen ones which screw people over; therefore my bias is against them.

 

 

Many consumers have valid reasons to challenge their consumer credit agreements such as myself. I personally, do not wish to be tarred with the same brush as some, who just wish to get out of paying.

 

 

I've been quite careful to say that the majority of people have a genuine inability to pay... those who are proactively taking their creditors to court to claim money from them (compensation etc) in my opnion is slightly disconcerting. Creditors and DCA's are not always the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what a load of Bo!!ocks

 

the law does not seek to enforce morals, there is no such thing as a moral offence nor can you be tried for breaking the spirit of the law

 

is it moral for the lenders to give out money to people who cant afford it? NO

 

but on the same token , people seem to throw the moral argument that youve borrowed it so pay it back

 

 

this is what the Law Lords said on the "moral" issue

 

pah:mad:

 

I agree with that 100%

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Lewis has some libel problems with the so called industry big dog (CMC wise)

 

rubbed the owner up the wrong way, :D ALLEGEDLEY

 

"litigous bunch" lol

 

hint hint, pop pop !!!

Edited by Baggio
Link to post
Share on other sites

The CMC's are charging from £99.00 to £799 as a charge for taking on a case. This allows some of them to give cases to solicitors to act etc. However they are also charging a backend fee at the same time some like Cartel are charging both and a fee to the solicitors and a fee back end from the solicitors. It's a business. Problem is the free or state alternative is to recovering the true amount owed to the borrower on these types of claims (Loans, credit cards, store cards, unenforceable agreements and PPI/ASU claims)

To be able to do this work for people you have to make a living but it is outrageous that the general public are being ripped off again by the lenders who will settle very quickly for a much smaller amount with FOS and the CMC's who make more that the claimant and the lawyers simply for putting the two together.

The CMC's are charging from £99.00 to £799 as a charge for taking on a case. This allows some of them to give cases to solicitors to act etc. However they are also charging a backend fee at the same time some like Cartel are charging both and a fee to the solicitors and a fee back end from the solicitors. It’s a business. Problem is the free or state alternative is to recovering the true amount owed to the borrower on these types of claims (Loans, credit cards, store cards, unenforceable agreements and PPI/ASU claims)

To be able to do this work for people you have to make a living but it is outrageous that the general public are being ripped off again by the lenders who will settle very quickly for a much smaller amount with FOS and the CMC's who make more that the claimant and the lawyers simply for putting the two together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...