Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Commercial Landlords are legally allowed to sue for early cancellation of the lease. You can only surrender your lease if your landlord agrees to your doing so. They are under no obligation even to consider your request and are entitled to refuse. You cannot use this as an excuse not to pay your rent. Your landlord is most likely to agree to your surrendering the lease if they want the property back in order to redevelop it, or if they wants to rent it to what they regards as a better tenant or at a higher rent. There are two types of surrender: Express surrender in writing. This is a written document which sets out the terms of the surrender. Implied surrender by conduct. (applies to your position) You can move out of the property you leased, simply hand your keys back and the lease will come to an end, but only if the landlord agrees to accept your surrender. Many tenants have thought they can simply post the keys through the landlord's letter box and the lease is ended. This is not true and without a document from the landlord, not only do you not know if the landlord has accepted the surrender, you also do not know on what basis they have accepted and could find they sue you for rent arrears, service charge arrears, damage to the property and compensation for your attempt to leave the property without the landlord's agreement. Unless you are absolutely certain that the landlord is agreeable to your departure, you should not attempt to imply a surrender by relying on your and the landlord's conduct.  
    • I had to deal with these last year worst DCA I have ever dealt with. Just wait for the constant threats of CCJ and how you'll lose in court and how they won't do medication and they want the judge to question you with a load of "BIG" words to boot with the letter. My case was struck out in the end, stupidity on their part as I admitted to owing the debt in the end going through the court process was just a formality as they wouldn't let it drop despite me admitting the debt regardless. They didn't send the last part of the court paper work in so it ended up being struck out
    • Well, that's it then. Clear proof of the rubbish cameras. Clear proof of double dipping. G24 won't be getting a penny. Belt & braces, I would write to the address LFI has found, include the evidence of double dipping, and ask Fraser Group to call their dogs off.
    • LOL. after sending Perch capital a CCA request with a stapled £1 PO attached (x2) Their lapdog Legal team TM Legal have sent me two letters today saying "due to a recent payment on the account, your account is open to legal/enforcement action" so i guess they have tried to apply that payment to the account to run the statue bar along. dirty tactics lol.
    • I have initiated the breathing space so ill wait. from re reading everything this what i understand BS gives me 60 days break from the creditors during these 60 days they may contact me and will most likely default I need to wait until after a default notice to see whether the OC will keep the debt or sell it off If kept by the OC then i should attempt a plan or pay some token payment? If sold to DCA then don't pay and after 6 years it will leave my credit report once the DN is registered with a date. DCA may start a CCJ but unlikely, if they do come back here. last question, do you know roughly how long this will all take? in terms of defaults/default notice, potential CCJ? Would you say I have 12 months plus from when the BS ends?
  • 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 5152 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

Hi first time in this forum-but have been following with interest the situation over the credit limit issue-ie "The manner in which the credit limit is set" sch 6 for S127(3) purposes in the Leeds case as outlined by Axiom99-especially the case at Leeds County Court where the Judge is having a think about it-Judge Langan and R mitchell-I agree with the arguments here, some method of determination is required. I have two whereby the term states- " The Bank will determine the credit limit and notify you of any changes from time to time"-ok it is in schedule 1-but not schedule 6-Solicitors and experts seem to think that is ok as a prescrbed term for the manner in which the credit limit is determined-how the manner in which you determine something by determining it beats me-My question is has Judge Langan passed down his judgment on this one yet at Leeds-does anyone know-as mentioned by others the judgment here could have very significant consequences.:shock:

Edited by CCAMAN
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi first time in this forum-but have been following with interest the situation over the credit limit issue-ie "The manner in which the credit limit is set" sch 6 for S127(3) purposes in the Leeds case as outlined by Axiom99-especially the case at Leeds County Court where the Judge is having a think about it-Judge Langan and R mitchell-I agree with the arguments here, some method of determination is required. I have two whereby the term states- " The Bank will determine the credit limit and notify you of any changes from time to time"-ok it is in schedule 1-but not schedule 6-Solicitors and experts seem to think that is ok as a prescrbed term for the manner in which the credit limit is determined-how the manner in which you determine something by determining it beats me-My question is has Judge Langan passed down his judgment on this one yet at Leeds-does anyone know-as mentioned by others the judgment here could have very significant consequences.:shock:

 

I don't think that judgement has been handed down yet I am trying to find out and will post here when I do.It will obviously be of great significance if it is found in favour of the creditor but I will be surprised if it goes that way,not because of legal principles but because of the implications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that judgement has been handed down yet I am trying to find out and will post here when I do.It will obviously be of great significance if it is found in favour of the creditor but I will be surprised if it goes that way,not because of legal principles but because of the implications.

 

 

Many thanks for your reply, I shall keep watching this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that - I have a quote from an MBNA drone on the phone from a couple of weeks ago - "MBNA never takes anyone to court" - I wonder what she meant by that?

 

Perhaps, the MBNA drone meant:

 

In the case of an irredeemably unenforceable credit agreement and/or, a credit agreement that involves a 'Dispute' about the mis-selling of payment protection insurance.

The MBNA company policy, is to sell (assign) the account to a debt buying firm (DCA), this firm will then issue court proceedings throught the Northampton County Court Bulk Centre:

 

MBNA do not wash their dirty pants in public...!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have established that a judgement was handed down by Judge Langan on 13th November re Lloyds TSB V Mitchell in favour of the claimant-ie the bank-I can not be certain that this is the case in question but it seems likely that it is -the claim/case No. 8XR79750- I understand came from Harrowgate county court. Permission to Appeal and hearing of costs is set for 23rd December 2009. Clearly this issue about " determing the manner in which the credit limit is set could now possibly be given a high profile"-If anyone else has more information on this it would help to see it posted here.

I would like to know what people think of this argument.

 

This argument was used by a CMC appointed barrister. Some bank or other v Mitchell (same guy as in June) Judge Langan (same judge as in June) in Leeds County Court .

Case was heard but judgement was reserved and shold be handed down in the next two weeks -whichever party loses is likely to appeal.

 

One of the prescribed terms within Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations is a term stating “the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or a statement that there is no credit limit”.It should be noted that the creditor has the option of choosing one of the three means of complying with the requirements of Schedule 6.In the present case the Claimant has most definitely not stated the credit limit within the credit agreement;it has not stated there is no credit limit.

That leaves only the option of stating”the manner in which the credit limit will be determined”.We are concerned therefore with the manner of determination.

 

It is submitted that the words” We set a credit limit and can change it.We will notify you of the limit and any changes” does not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 6.

The statement is meaningless in relation to how the credit limit will be set.

A determination is an ascertainment or fixing and the reference to “the manner” requires reference to some sort of methodology.

 

The claimant will no doubt respond that there are millions of credit agreements which use similar rubric and that the use of such phraseology has become an industry standard.But that misses the point .Parliament was quite specific in its requirements and as was found in Wilson v First County Trust there is no room for tolerance or deviation from the strict requirements of Schedule 6.If this case opens up floodgates then so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have established that a judgement was handed down by Judge Langan on 13th November re Lloyds TSB V Mitchell in favour of the claimant-ie the bank-I can not be certain that this is the case in question but it seems likely that it is -the claim/case No. 8XR79750- I understand came from Harrowgate county court. Permission to Appeal and hearing of costs is set for 23rd December 2009. Clearly this issue about " determing the manner in which the credit limit is set could now possibly be given a high profile"-If anyone else has more information on this it would help to see it posted here.

 

do you have the judgement by any chance?was a bit surprised to hear that judgement was issued on the 13th November as I thought the judge wanted a couple of weeks to think about it.

Also I thought it was heard in the Leeds County Court.

Is it just me or is the HMCS website the biggest pile of crap online?virtually impossible to find anything you want on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you have the judgement by any chance?was a bit surprised to hear that judgement was issued on the 13th November as I thought the judge wanted a couple of weeks to think about it.

Also I thought it was heard in the Leeds County Court.

Is it just me or is the HMCS website the biggest pile of crap online?virtually impossible to find anything you want on it.

I phoned Leeds County Court and they gave me the details -since I did not know who the bank was I simply mentioned Judge Langan and Mitchell and a rough idea of timescale. The case was heard at Leeds County Court, but proceedings I understand commenced in Harrowgate County Court and presumably transferred to Leeds County Court. It is quite conceivable that this is not the case in question, I am afraid I do not have the judgement. If I have got it wrong I apologise

 

Sorry to take so long to reply-those charming people at AA Credit Card and Bank Of Scotand are sending a "Representative" around to my place on Tuesday, so I have been involved with Solicitors and decided that since these So and SO s wont reply to my letters to hand the matter over to the Lawyers. Sent letter to AA credit card threatening to call the Police if this Rep turns up-but there again they dont respond to letters. If they cant enforce it in Court they try and enforce by harrassment!!-very stressful

Edited by CCAMAN
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Following the recent demise of Cartel Client Review and alleged demise of Ratio Money today on other thread I thought it might be an idea to see if anyone has had any benefit from a CMC and if so what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the recent demise of Cartal Client Review and alleged demise of Ratio Money today on other thread I thought it might be an idea to see if anyone has had any benefit from a CMC and if so what.

 

Cartel Client Reveiw were on the local Northwest News tonight they certainly benefited 70.000 customers at £495 and the MD paying himself £730,000 PA. He did not turn up to be interviewed on the show as he promised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions asked in the house now

 

From yesterday's Hansard (the official verbatim report of Parliament business) in "Business of the House" http://www.publications.parliament.u...srd/chan64.pdf (pages 389/390) - I know it's already been posted but I thought people might like the link to it.

 

 

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab):

May we have an early statement on the suspension by Justice Ministers of the Cartel claims handling company, which has milked about £20 million off the public and done very little work for it? It has refused to refund most of the money that it has taken. In particular, will the question about whether there should be an investigation into possible fraudulent activity by Carl Wright, the managing director, and his associates be part of that statement?

 

 

 

Ms Harman:

Any allegations of fraudulent activity will obviously be a matter for investigation by the police. However, it is important that the Ministry of Justice, in its scrutiny of claims handling, can ensure that we protect claimants from bogus claims-handling services and that we can also protect those against whom spurious claims are made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...