Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My autistic son brought a van from a private seller. ( there was 5 other cars on his drive and another van, plus loads of machanic tools in his hallway,  so he probably is a unofficial dealer).  He gave the van a once over, he checked for any warning lights that might be on, there was none. He checked underneath for any rust etc, it all looked fine. The body was rough, but you'd expect that for the age of the van.  He got his brothers machanic to give it a pre mot check, as the van was old so he expected it to have a few problems. The van is a deathtrap, the seller had blacked out all the warning lights that were on the dash,  and I mean all.  He had also painted some kind of black stuff on the underside, to hide all the damage there.   My son drove it for over 2 hours to get it home. The machanic said he's surprised my son is still alive, and an untrained eye would not of seen what the seller had done.  Iv asked the seller for a refund and for him to have the van back, but he is refusing. Is there anything we can do.   
    • First of all it sounds as if your retailer is very decent and very responsible. This itself is unusual in these kinds of circumstances and I think we need to bear this in mind. The guarantee is not particularly relevant and in fact the dealer had a statutory duty to exercise a certain responsibility for your computer – probably for several years as their obligation under the consumer rights act. The dealer may not have known this and it simply acting out of a sense of moral responsibility and that is even more noteworthy. You've already suggested earlier that you didn't really want to cause problems for your retailer. I think that you will need the help of your retailer as well in order to get information and evidence. I suggest that you proceed against DPD – but before you do that – I suggest that you have a discussion with the retailer. Tell them that this is what you are going to be doing and you would like to have a copy of anything they have which relates to the special instructions which apparently your dealer has already informed you about in relation to where item should be left. Secondly, maybe you should tell your dealer about this site and also about this thread. I can imagine like many dealers who are frequently sending items by means of couriers, they have had things go missing. Tell them that we will be very happy to help them recover money for lost or damaged or stolen items – and that is regardless of whether or not they have purchased insurance. Apart from being very pleased to help your dealer recover items which have been lost by irresponsible parcel delivery companies, I think we need to encourage the complicity between you and them so they will be pleased to support you in your claim against DPD. It will be helpful if you can get a copy of the instructions that you have referred to above, and also if you can get some written evidence of your own instruction that your laptop should be left in a safe place. Have you done the reading on this sub- forum? You will need to do lots of reading of many of the similar stories on this sub- forum. They won't necessarily be against DPD but the principles will broadly be the same. Also read the pinned topics at the top of the sub- forum in order to understand many of the principles involved. Getting your money back but be quick – but your chances of success are better than 90% that you can bank on it taking anything up to a year. Have you got anything in writing from DPD either refusing you or telling you that they won't discuss with you?  
    • Thank you for telling us the text of the letter you had from the police. As we don't seem to have come across this before, it would be really useful for us to see the original please. HB
    • Pasco has recalled 104,000 packs of sliced bread after rat remains were found in at least two packs.View the full article
    • UPDATE I went rooting through an old box of paperwork I have and I've found the original Default Notice. It is dated **/**/201*, however.. The copy of the Default Notice that they sent with the LBC has a completely different date on it 😮 Can they issue 2 default notices for the same debt? Where they have changed the date on the copy, they have also changed the amount owed through failed payments and how much is required to be paid by a certain date. In addition, they sent (with the 1st LBC) a copy of the termination of the agreement, which I cannot find the original. However, the termination date is 3 days after the date given on the (doctored) Default Notice, by which monies are to be paid by. So, they gave until the 'x' date to pay the arrears, then terminated the agreement 3 days later. I bet a dollar to a dime they've doctored the termination date also.
  • 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 5159 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

I am desperate to find a genuine CMC and a competent solicitor; my creds are currently drafting court papers. My health is a bit dodgy and I know I will not perform well in court representing myself.

 

I'm flat broke (skipping meals to pay the mortgage); I need a company that doesn't charge any fees. Apparently there are some out there - pt has said he is acquainted with one - if someone can help, please send me a PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this stuff like car maintenance or home improvement - a lot can be done yourself if you choose to. If not you can employ someone. The trick of course is avoiding the rogues. It is a personal choice.

 

I think CAG could help in this regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this stuff like car maintenance or home improvement - a lot can be done yourself if you choose to. If not you can employ someone. The trick of course is avoiding the rogues. It is a personal choice.

 

I think CAG could help in this regard.

 

 

A very good analogy and I agree totally that people could definately benefit even if just by knowing which outfits to avoid if nothing else

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tricky Dicky,your Mitchell story has hit the press, in mortgage strategy online:

 

Coronation Street star Michael Le Vell, who plays Kevin Webster in the TV soap, has helped a Wetherby man to successfully get £15,000 of credit card debt written off.

 

AE1.gif

 

 

 

Le Vell, a director of claims management company Ratio Money, attended Leeds County Court with a leading QC to support a self-employed 60-year old man in his long-running dispute with Bank of Scotland.

Mitchell originally had a judgement against him after delaying payments to his credit card while he waited for the bank to supply specific information.

Le Vell says: “This is another victory for the consumer. “Although Bank of Scotland gave up its fight and agreed to write off his debt, amazingly they refused to pay his costs.

“However, as a final blow to the lender, Judge Langan ruled that the bank needed to pay all the costs in full and said that the bank didn’t fight the case because it feared highlighting failings and opening the floodgates to further claims.”

Ratio Money successfully highlighted that the man's credit card application didn’t contain the prescribed terms and conditions – and therefore didn’t comply with the Consumer Credit Act.

Bank of Scotland argued that the terms and conditions had been given as a separate document when he applied for the card at the Wetherby branch of Halifax, but he denies ever receiving them. However, under the law, a credit agreement is only binding if it is a single document that has been signed by both parties and contains all the prescribed terms.

The Story So Far...

 

Barclaycard - Fingers Vs Barclaycard

Egg - Egg Credit Card CCA Agreement - help

Halifax - Halifax Credit card CCA

IF - CCA received

Lloyds - Lloyds CCA

MBNA-CCA received, challening

Virgin - Virgin Card CCA May 2006 - Help Required

 

OH Barccard - 2 s78 letters, on 2nd cpr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tricky Dicky,your Mitchell story has hit the press, in mortgage strategy online:

 

Coronation Street star Michael Le Vell, who plays Kevin Webster in the TV soap, has helped a Wetherby man to successfully get £15,000 of credit card debt written off.

 

AE1.gif

 

 

 

Le Vell, a director of claims management company Ratio Money, attended Leeds County Court with a leading QC to support a self-employed 60-year old man in his long-running dispute with Bank of Scotland.

Mitchell originally had a judgement against him after delaying payments to his credit card while he waited for the bank to supply specific information.

Le Vell says: “This is another victory for the consumer. “Although Bank of Scotland gave up its fight and agreed to write off his debt, amazingly they refused to pay his costs.

“However, as a final blow to the lender, Judge Langan ruled that the bank needed to pay all the costs in full and said that the bank didn’t fight the case because it feared highlighting failings and opening the floodgates to further claims.”

Ratio Money successfully highlighted that the man's credit card application didn’t contain the prescribed terms and conditions – and therefore didn’t comply with the Consumer Credit Act.

Bank of Scotland argued that the terms and conditions had been given as a separate document when he applied for the card at the Wetherby branch of Halifax, but he denies ever receiving them. However, under the law, a credit agreement is only binding if it is a single document that has been signed by both parties and contains all the prescribed terms.

 

I am amazed that some media outlet has run with this probably only because of the Coronation Street connection but it can only be good news.

I lkove the judges comments too :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If CAG were ever to recommend cmc's (advertising) then would it not be fair that the cmc's pay for that advertising and/or recommendations?

 

 

Sounds fair enough to me but the problem is that CAG could then be accused of favouring certain companies for financial gain rather than an impartial recommendation basd purely on preformance

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 posts moved

 

I'm sure we'll see more successes - with or without CAG's recommendations - but that still doesn't mean people will know about CMC's. In fact, they are more likely to hear of CAG than a CMC, IMHO...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google CMC's then Google those you think might be for you to see if there's any adverse then makes your choice

Google ' Roly Ferguson' and see what comes up!

 

10 foot and bargepole come to mind

Odio los bancos con una venganza

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are obviously folks on here who would like more information about CMC's in order to make informed decisions,can we take a poll on how many would be interested?

 

don't need em myself but i'm in agreement that cag should not stand still and be continuing to improve what is already a fantastic service and the promotion of good CMC's would be a good step

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread this.

I've been looking for a CMC to help me with a couple of claims for a while now, for similar reasons to those posted above. I'm not confident I could cope with the stress of running a claim myself. I'm also not convinced that lenders take debtors claiming seriously. I believe claiming through a solicitor elicits a more favourable response.

Anyway, until this afternoon I'd been struggling to find a CMC who didn't charge either an upfront fee, a slice of the claimed amount, or both!

I've found a firm in Preston whom I've requested a copy of their terms and conditions from. They claim to charge no fees whatsoever.

 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

well how about this for a defective DN received only today from nationwide!!

 

has anyone had a DN like i just got from nationwide

 

cca'd them a couple of months ago- kept sending unreadable (and defective) CCa

 

stopped payments for two months

 

now received a DN under 87(1) which states:-

 

type of agreement- credit car

Account Number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

provision breached_ under the above agreement you undertook to make a minimum monthly payment of $5 or 3% of the account balance (whichever is the higher)

 

Action required by you:-

 

a) pament of the balance of (FULL ACCOUNT BALANCE)

b) return of the credit card, if posting please cut in half before sending

 

date by which action is required:-

 

the payment must reach your account within 14 days from teh date of this letter

 

the further action threatened for failure to compl is

 

we may commence legal procedings against you

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the killer :)

 

its good but the REAL killer is that they have managed to combine a defective DN into an unlawful TN as they have demanded payment of the FULL Balance within 14 days

 

since the DN is defective and the creditor is claiming sums he cannot claim until after he has issued an effective DN he has not only filleted his donkey but his pig as well

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the killer :)

Amex appear to suggest that the phrase the payment must reach your account means they also allow 'allocation' time within the DN period. So if it takes two days to 'allocate', you would have to rectify within twelve days rather than fourteen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A contact of mine has recently had a threatening letter from the solicitors representing a CMC concerning some derogatory comments he made about them on another forum.

They are threatening to issue libel/defamation proceedings against him,anyone know if the threat sounds realistic

Edited by Tricky Dickie
spelling errors
Link to post
Share on other sites

A contact of mine has recently had a threatening letter from the solicitors representing a CMC concerning some derogatory comments he made about them on another forum.

They are threatening to issue libel/defamation proceedings against him,anyone know if the threat sounds realistic

 

It probably is.

 

I bet it isn't this forum, though. ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...