Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would suggest that you stop trying to rely on legal theory – as you understand it. Firstly, because we are dealing with practical/pragmatic situations and at a low value level where these arguments tend not to work. Secondly, because you clearly have misunderstood the assessment of quantum where there are breaches of obligations. The formula that you have cited above is the method of loss calculation in torts. In contract it is entirely different. The law of obligations generally attempts to remedy the breach. This means that in tort, damages seek to put you into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. In other words it returns you to your starting position – point zero. Contract damages attend put you into the position that you would have been had the breach not occurred but this is not your starting position, contract damages assume that the agreement in dispute had actually been carried out. This puts you into your final position. You sold an item for £XXX. Your expectation was that you your item would be correctly delivered and that you would be the beneficiary of £XXX. Your expectation loss is the amount that you sold the item for and that is all you are entitled to recover. If you want, you can try to sue for the larger sum – and we will help you. But if they ask for evidence of the value of the item as it was sold then I can almost guarantee that either you will be obliged to settle for the lesser sum – or else a judge will give you judgement but for the lesser sum. This will put you to the position that you would have been had there been no breach of contract. I understand from you now that when you dispatch the item you declared the retail cost to you and not your expected benefit of £XXX. To claim for the retail value in the circumstances would offend the rules relating to betterment. If you want to do it then we will help you – but don't be surprised if you take a tumble.  
    • I was caught speeding 3 times in the same week, on the same road. All times were 8-12mph higher than the limit. I was offered the course for the first offense and I now need to accept the other 2 offenses. I just want to be ready for what might come. Will I get the £100 fine and 3 points for each of them or do I face something more severe?  These are my only offenses in 8 years of driving.
    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower. I still believe that I should be claiming for the item's full value, rather than how much I sold it for, as this is the same for insurance: we don't insure the value we paid, but rather the value of the item to put us back into the position we would be in if we ever needed to claim. Its for the loss adjuster to argue the toss
    • amusing that 'bad economic judgement on behalf of prior party ISN'T a major reason to wingers to move to deform yet immigration is, where record levels of such has been driven by the right wings terrible brexit and the later incompetent dog whistle 'proposals largely driven to whistle to the right wingnuts Just seems to confirm the are clueless numpties 'wetting their own shoes   Has farage bought a property in Clacton yet?   yet concern for the NHS is listed as a major issue even by those saying they are moving to deform  
    • Also, have you told us how much you paid for this vehicle? Are there any other expenses you have incurred – insurance, inspections et cetera? How far away from the dealership do you live?
  • 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

Any news from PT or UK26 yet???


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5507 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

To me it looks like there isn't much that UK & PT can say about this case

 

However, in the future, because of the knowledge that they have gained, they may be able to advise people using that knowledge, to the advantage of the cagger (and the detriment of Lowells).

 

That's what you have to look forwards to.

Exactley!! spot on there with that comment 2grumpy:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well done UK26 & PT. Despite it not being a complete victory, it is still a victory none the less!

 

As for donaitions, I have been off site for most of this it seems but I would gladly have donated and would not be expecting a refund.

 

I think what some people are forgetting is that this site is here to help OTHER people. By assisting with funding for this case, they have helped someone who was in need and have also "enhanced" the experience and knowledge of one of the Site Team who, from my experience, gives lots of good, solid and sound advice to as many people as he can. This in itself is good for CAG as a whole and shouldn't be shunned. I don't see PT, or UK26, disappearing any time soon.

 

AS for people screaming about not hearing anything, Part 36 offers are not something to be ignored as has already been said. Also, as PT was acting in a PROFESSIONAL capacity, there is counsel-client priveledge. BReach of this priveledge can have consequences for counsel that breach this.

 

Well done UK and PT.

 

I am also sorry for your loss UK, and you should be taking some you time.

 

Thanks,

H

 

 

I agree wth this post 110%

 

Well said.

 

Jogs

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well, well..you do suprise ODC :rolleyes:

I know you hate Lowells more than anyone on here, but a reality wake up call on your part wouldnt go amiss mate ;)

 

Mr Ton I can assure you I am wide awake. It's just that I can see the bigger picture. On this occasion unlike most others we will have to agree to disagree

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done to UK26 and PT. It may not have been a complete victory but they have gained a lot of knowledge that can now be used to help other Caggers. We are all here to help each other. I have received a lot of help from this site and i have learned quite a lot. I am now spending my free time (what little i have of it) trying to help other users of this site.

 

My sincere condolences to UK26. I have lost close members of my family and my thoughts are with you. Have to time with your family and come back when you feel you are ready.

:cool::cool: Blondmusic :cool::cool:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it's now my duty to cheer people up a bit.....

 

 

LOWELL FINANCIAL LTD Holding Company Lowell Finance Ltd

Ultimate Holding Company LOWELL GROUP LTD

Trading Address ENTERPRISE HOUSE,1 APEX VIEW,LEEDS,LS11 9BH

12 out of 100 Very High Risk! - This company exhibits characteristics similar to companies who have generally failed although they tend to be less severe.

Credit Limit GBP 0Selling to this company? The Credit Limit is the recommended maximum outstanding debtor exposure at any one time.

 

 

Summary of CCJ's/Scottish Decrees

There are 4 exact unsatisfied CCJs totalling GBP 5508 in the last 72 months

Details of most recent CCJ's/Scottish Decrees

07/04/2009, a Judgment of "GBP" 100 was made in NORTHAMPTON court (Case No. 9QT34632 ) against Lowell Financial Ltd, Enterprise Ho, 1 Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH

06/04/2009, a Judgment of "GBP" 4858 was made in WOOLWICH court (Case No. 9WO00198 ) against Lowell Financial Ltd & jointly with Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd, Enterprise Ho, 1 Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH

27/03/2009, a Judgment of "GBP" 500 was made in BOURNEMOUTH court (Case No. 9BH00754 ) against Lowell Financial Ltd, Po Box 172, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9WS

24/03/2009, a Judgment of "GBP" 50 was made in NORTHAMPTON court (Case No. 9QT26536 ) against Lowell Financial, Enterprise Ho, 1 Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH

 

Financial SummaryTurnoverTurnover increased by more than 104% in the period. Turnover totalled GBP 12,490,849,units for the period.

Operating LossTotalled GBP -2,675,070,units In the period prior a loss of GBP 2,851,984 was achieved. Pre Tax

The subject made a loss of GBP 3,960,061,units compared with a loss of GBP 3,730,370 in the previous period.

Working Capital The company's working capital deficiency increased in the period and now stands at GBP 16,016,915,units

Tangible Net WorthNet worth reduced by 3,960,061 during the period and now stands at GBP -14,564,690,units

Fixed Assets The subjects fixed assets reduced during the period by GBP 162,382 to GBP 1,452,225,units and are now 48% of total assets compared with 48% in the previous period

Long Term Liabilities Long term liabilities are now 0% of total assets compared with 0% in the previous period

 

Historic Update DetailsDateHistoric update detailsfrom March 200315 May 2009CCJ Event - 8658 -> 5508 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

15 May 2009CCJ Event - 5 -> 4 (No. unsatisfied)

14 May 2009CCJ Event - 5508 -> 8658 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

14 May 2009CCJ Event - 4 -> 5 (No. unsatisfied)

11 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 5408 -> 5508 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

11 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 3 -> 4 (No. unsatisfied)

10 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 2 -> 3 (No. unsatisfied)

10 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 550 -> 5408 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

10 Apr 2009Risk Score Changed - 52 -> 1210 Apr 2009Credit Limit Changed - 18800.00 -> 0.00

10 Apr 2009Internally Instigated Recalculation - 2 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 1 -> 2 (No. unsatisfied)

2 Apr 2009CCJ Event - 50 -> 550 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

2 Apr 2009Credit Limit Changed - 18900.00 -> 18800.0031 Mar 2009CCJ Event - 0 -> 1 (No. unsatisfied)

31 Mar 2009CCJ Event - 0 -> 50 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

7 Jun 2008New Accounts Analysed - 200708317 Jun 2008Credit Limit Changed - 15500.00 -> 18900.00

16 May 2008New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added"

18 Apr 2008Director/Secretary Resigned -??????????(Removed) ON 03/04/2008 AS DIRECTOR

9 Nov 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added

9 Nov 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added

9 Nov 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added

9 Nov 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) - New mortgage added

27 Jul 2007New Mortgage and Charge(s) -

18 Jul 2007Risk Score Changed - 37 -> 5218 Jul 2007Credit Limit Changed - 3300.00 -> 15500.00

18 Jul 2007New Accounts Analysed - 20060831

17 May 2007Risk Score Changed - 34 -> 3716 May 2007CCJ Event - 2 -> 0 (No. unsatisfied)

16 May 2007CCJ Event - 880 -> 0 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

9 May 2007CCJ Event - 2 -> 1 (No. unsatisfied)

9 May 2007CCJ Event - 880 -> 550 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

9 May 2007Risk Score Changed - 43 -> 34

9 May 2007Credit Limit Changed - 6600.00 -> 3300.00

9 Apr 2007Risk Score Changed - 39 -> 43

9 Apr 2007Credit Limit Changed - 3300.00 -> 6600.00

24 Mar 2007CCJ Event - 00001 -> 00002 (No. unsatisfied)

24 Mar 2007CCJ Event - 550 -> 880 (Value GBP unsatisfied)

 

 

Suffice to say they have a less than perfect record and are undoubtedly getting rich at everyone elses's expense.

 

Mods, if you are unhappy with this information being divulged here, feel free to edit or delete this post.

 

Most, if not all of this information is already in the public domain.

:D:lol::D:lol::D:lol: The Leeds Losers

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Delay in Response]

 

over the last few weeks a Family member has been very ill in hospital, today he passed away.

 

I would like to say thank you to all thoses who helped with the case and the continued supported offered, without you guys i would have been lost

 

Sorry to hear that mate. I hope the cynics are satisfied:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Ton I can assure you I am wide awake. It's just that I can see the bigger picture. On this occasion unlike most others we will have to agree to disagree

 

Wel im glad to hear that ODC :)

You of all people should know the significance of being weary when it comes to giving money to people off the internet.

Great if this is all genuine & well done to all involved etc....

But its still my duty to warn otherwise just incase.;)

We all have a blind hatred of DCA's & thats what concerns me about all of this....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done guys - keep up the good work :)

jaxads

 

Halifax - £2281, successfully refunded all charges after LBA letter & telephone call.

Have been offered the difference between the £20 and £12 charges from Capital One -- am sending LBA for remainder.

GE Money - Received settlement of £441, being total charges requested. No interest though.

CCA'd Bank of Scotland / Blair Oliver Scott to produce CCA Agreements on two Credit Cards - well in default, although still chasing payment!!!

EOS Solutions "ceased action on account" on behalf of a friend.

 

All in all, quite busy at the moment and enjoying every minute of it
:eek:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear that mate. I hope the cynics are satisfied:mad:

 

So just because someone says they've lost someone (of which deepest heartfelt sympathies if so), but nevertheless..that makes someone of a cynical persuasion about all of this any less significant in what they warn about does it? :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, go and get away from all this for a while and be with your family. The filleting can wait until another day - some things in life are a bit more important. Best wishes.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Ton

 

I don't understand why you are going on and on for.

 

I posted a breif outcome of the case, and a statement about the donations.

 

What is it you want?

 

So just because someone says they've lost someone (of which deepest heartfelt sympathies if so), but nevertheless..that makes someone of a cynical persuasion about all of this any less significant in what they warn about does it? :mad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

So just because someone says they've lost someone (of which deepest heartfelt sympathies if so), but nevertheless..that makes someone of a cynical persuasion about all of this any less significant in what they warn about does it? :mad:

 

Mr Ton

 

I,ve made my point on this thread. I wasn't happy, and said so, but I counselled everyone to hold fire until UK responded.

 

Now he has, and he has had a family bereavement. You have to take that at face value from a long standing member of this community.

 

I respect you for your forthrightness, on this occasion, I think you need to rein in your neck a little.

 

In a moment you'll be asking to see a death certificate.

 

He has lost a relative, or he is mentally unwell for posting such a thing without foundation.

 

Cut him some slack for God's sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Ton

 

I don't understand why you are going on and on for.

 

I posted a breif outcome of the case, and a statement about the donations.

 

What is it you want?

 

Goin on & on? - errrr excuse me :rolleyes:

Like ive said - credit & well done to you if all of this is genuine & you have done all of this etc.......

But i stand by every bit of my wording of caution to everyone about any senario (not just this example) when it comes to being asked to part with money.

If you or anyone else doesnt like me for that then tough - i would/will do the same again :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should close this thread for a while... I see nothing to be gained for the forseeable future while Dave deals with his loss. I think a bit of respect is due, both on a personal level, and for the enormous personal risks he's taken very much with the benefit of CAG and its members in mind.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Ton

 

I,ve made my point on this thread. I wasn't happy, and said so, but I counselled everyone to hold fire until UK responded.

 

Now he has, and he has had a family bereavement. You have to take that at face value from a long standing member of this community.

 

I respect you for your forthrightness, on this occasion, I think you need to rein in your neck a little.

 

In a moment you'll be asking to see a death certificate.

 

He has lost a relative, or he is mentally unwell for posting such a thing without foundation.

 

Cut him some slack for God's sake.

 

Wooooooooo hold on a mo.:mad:

This has got nothing to do with the death of a relative & like ive said..my deepest sympathies on that issue.

So dont dare or anyone else dare to combine the 2 issues :mad:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wooooooooo hold on a mo.:mad:

This has got nothing to do with the death of a relative & like ive said..my deepest sympathies on that issue.

So dont dare or anyone else dare to combine the 2 issues :mad:

 

Then you should be careful what you write, and make sure that what you say is what you mean.

 

What follows are your words. and they were what so incensed me:

 

"So just because someone says they've lost someone (of which deepest heartfelt sympathies if so)"

 

IF SO?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should close this thread for a while... I see nothing to be gained for the forseeable future while Dave deals with his loss. I think a bit of respect is due, both on a personal level, and for the enormous personal risks he's taken very much with the benefit of CAG and its members in mind.

i agree here, i am closing the thread as requested

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5507 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...