Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • honeybee13
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      I'd say concern about the landfill operator is absolutely necessary. I think the word they could mean is 'embarrassing'.
    • BankFodder
      Lost items sent through Parcel2Go and EVRi

      By BankFodder · Posted

      Just to cover yourself, you should write them a letter in response telling them that you are rejecting their offer. That they know full well that their insurance is an attempt to limit or exclude liability contrary to section 57 Consumer rights act and is a secondary contract contrary to section 72.  By the way was the offer made without prejudice or in confidence or anything? Maybe you could post up their offer here please
    • Emmzzi
      Please help at risk of redundancy and HR issue

      By Emmzzi · Posted

      "Dear HR, I refer to my correspondence of *date* in which I challenged xxx, copy attached. Clearly this was a grievance, and yet does not seem to have been heard under the grievance procedure. I am exceptionally dismayed that this 'review'. which never took place, seems to be being used as a criteria in redundancy selection proceedings. As this is time critical, please advise asap."            
    • Madmart58
      Lost items sent through Parcel2Go and EVRi

      By Madmart58 · Posted

      Just to update, received a revised offer of £75 from P2G after they got my LOC last Friday. They stated that because it was not insured this would be their final offer. Looks like we are going to court.
    • tobyjugg2
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By tobyjugg2 · Posted

      and speaking of cover-ups .. from the environment agency with collusion/negligence  from the ICO   Environment Agency chief admits regulator buries freedom of information requests Speaking at the UK River Summit, Philip Duffy said officials do not want to reveal the true ‘embarrassing’ environmental picture ICO - waffle Environment Agency chief admits regulator buries freedom of information requests | Environment Agency | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Speaking at the UK River Summit, Philip Duffy said officials do not want to reveal the true ‘embarrassing’ environmental picture   Environment Agency ‘hiding’ report into Lancashire landfill making locals ill Exclusive The agency has refused to share details of how a landfill operator is breaching its permit because it could 'potentially cause unnecessary concern'    Environment Agency ‘hiding’ report into Lancashire landfill making locals ill INEWS.CO.UK The agency has refused to share details of how a landfill operator is breaching its permit because it could 'potentially cause unnecessary...  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Well Amex declines to answer Securitisation Question

Fedupandfightingback

By Fedupandfightingback
in Amex

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5280 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

  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

shinobi101

shinobi101

Posted
Posted (edited)
You've taken my question out of context.. I was referring to using a notary public.

 

S.

 

Fair point, was looking for ideas to reduce their costs (dunno why..)

 

If they could prove their case, they should be able to reclaim those costs.

 

What I'm most interested in is whether we can use a notary to get a default judgement against them, hence the link to tpuc above.

 

http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3384

Edited by shinobi101
add link
Link to post
Share on other sites
diddydicky

diddydicky

Posted
Posted
Still don't really get the securitisation thing, but having finally dispensed with Newman DCA, Amex are trying it on again using AIC.

 

I thought it would be good to raise the securitsation question.

 

How do you ask it?

 

I could say "Has it been securitised?" or demand proof that it hasn't.

 

Can anyone give me an idea exactly what to ask, or post what they said etc.

 

I want them to squirm a bit, if possible. :lol:

 

i'm not sure that you can put someone to strict proof of a negative

Link to post
Share on other sites
diddydicky

diddydicky

Posted
Posted
Would putting them to strict proof of ownership of the debt be good enough to prove it hasn't been securitised?

 

the problem is IMO that if they show evidence that they own the debt (their original documentation and did not mention anything at all about securitisation- how could you prove that it had been (securitized)/.

 

I don't know the answer to that one

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hungryforinfo

Hungryforinfo

Posted
Posted

It seems to boil down to whether they would be asked to prove the debt hasn't been securitised as I can't imagine how else this information could be obtained.

 

I have just come to this thread having been notified of court proceedings by Amex following a CCA request which has not been met. I would love to be able to ask for documentation as proof they own the debt as part of the Civil procedure rules pre-action protocol if I could do so without undermning my defense that the documentation they have sent me is in complete and does not meet the requirements of the CCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
It seems to boil down to whether they would be asked to prove the debt hasn't been securitised as I can't imagine how else this information could be obtained.

 

I have just come to this thread having been notified of court proceedings by Amex following a CCA request which has not been met. I would love to be able to ask for documentation as proof they own the debt as part of the Civil procedure rules pre-action protocol if I could do so without undermning my defense that the documentation they have sent me is in complete and does not meet the requirements of the CCA.

 

Do you have a thread for this Hungry, you'll get a lot of help in fighting amex, for some reason they dont seem very popular on this board :-D :-D

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dp77

dp77

Posted
Posted
It seems to boil down to whether they would be asked to prove the debt hasn't been securitised as I can't imagine how else this information could be obtained.

 

I have just come to this thread having been notified of court proceedings by Amex following a CCA request which has not been met. I would love to be able to ask for documentation as proof they own the debt as part of the Civil procedure rules pre-action protocol if I could do so without undermning my defense that the documentation they have sent me is in complete and does not meet the requirements of the CCA.

 

I'm expecting Amex - via an appointed firm of solicitors - to take court action against me as well, so I am very interested in this thread. I have a seemingly unenforceable agreement (no prescribed terms, not one!), but I'd like as much on my side as possible.

 

Amex have hounded me for years, demanding charges on my property, adding vast default costs, demanding I break a DMP to treat them more favourably than other creditors, so it would be fair to say I have no great love for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hungryforinfo

Hungryforinfo

Posted
Posted

I don't have a thread on Amex at the moment. As is the case with the post before this one, I believe there are a quite afew flaws in their documentation although I will be going through the documents later tiday. Their approach has been very strange as they sent an application form porporting to be an agreement just under a year ago and I haven't had any payment requests since, then suddenly I get a court notice.on this. However, for the purposes of this thread if there is an opportunity to push them to prove they have or have not securitised the debt I would be interested in hearing about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
I don't have a thread on Amex at the moment. As is the case with the post before this one, I believe there are a quite afew flaws in their documentation although I will be going through the documents later tiday. Their approach has been very strange as they sent an application form porporting to be an agreement just under a year ago and I haven't had any payment requests since, then suddenly I get a court notice.on this. However, for the purposes of this thread if there is an opportunity to push them to prove they have or have not securitised the debt I would be interested in hearing about it.

 

well I would imagine your first paragraphs of defence would demand that they prove they have the right to issue a claim against you as you believe the debt has been sold (securitised) and as such you put them to strict proof that they have never securitised the account.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dp77

dp77

Posted
Posted
I don't have a thread on Amex at the moment. As is the case with the post before this one, I believe there are a quite afew flaws in their documentation although I will be going through the documents later tiday. Their approach has been very strange as they sent an application form porporting to be an agreement just under a year ago and I haven't had any payment requests since, then suddenly I get a court notice.on this. However, for the purposes of this thread if there is an opportunity to push them to prove they have or have not securitised the debt I would be interested in hearing about it.

 

I think that is standard operating procedure for Amex, they will threaten and threaten until they are almost out of DCA's to turn to, and then they go for court. It does appear that in some cases they back out of the court process at the last minute, while in others they turn up on the off chance the judge will find for them.

 

In response to the post above; would you not have to show why you believe they have securitised the account? Surely Amex are just going to say 'No we have not sold the debt, please provide some evidence that we have' then what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted

In response to the post above; would you not have to show why you believe they have securitised the account? Surely Amex are just going to say 'No we have not sold the debt, please provide some evidence that we have' then what?

 

Nope, you could if you wanted show bits from the web that we have posted on here which show the likelihood of the account being securitised but if you put someone to strict proof, you are requiring them to prove it.

 

Lying in front of a judge by a solicitor is grounds for being disbarred I believe.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hungryforinfo

Hungryforinfo

Posted
Posted

Can I use the Civil procedure rules pre-action protocol to put them to strict proof that they have not securitised the account or is this something that would be requessted during the court hearing itself? If so, any thoughts on suggested wordings would be gratefully received. This would be my second small claims appearance so I need to do quite a bit of preparation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ScarletPimpernel

ScarletPimpernel

Posted
Posted

There are various articles and even stuff on Amex's corporate site about how securitization is the norm with them. I suspect that such information could be used to indicate that there is a question to answer. If Amex haven't securitized, all they need do is say so in court. However, it seems to me that much of their wriggling is about not putting themselves in a position where they would have to perjure themselves in order to avoid incriminating information coming into the light.

 

Just think of the consequences of Amex admitting they securtized UK card accounts - not only would they find themselves witha mass of unenforceable debt (which they already have - it'd just mean they couldn't even try to collect), they may also face a huge number of claims from people they took to court or set the DCAs on. Then, of course, the question of the legality of it all would arise. Fraud Squad, anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hungryforinfo

Hungryforinfo

Posted
Posted

As suggested I'll have a hunt through this thread and the Amex site/s for information on their (or US Head Office) securitisation of debt. It sounds like the question of securitisation is something I would raise in the hearing itself. If there is a better alternative to this comments are invited.

 

 

 

At the moment it looks like I will be seeking proof that the debt has not been securitised and if in the unlikely event it hasn't, I will use the other flaws in their agreement (application form) to argue the agreement is unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
As suggested I'll have a hunt through this thread and the Amex site/s for information on their (or US Head Office) securitisation of debt. It sounds like the question of securitisation is something I would raise in the hearing itself. If there is a better alternative to this comments are invited.

 

 

 

At the moment it looks like I will be seeking proof that the debt has not been securitised and if in the unlikely event it hasn't, I will use the other flaws in their agreement (application form) to argue the agreement is unenforceable.

 

You NEED to search out any postings by Banker_Rhymes_With on Amex and securitisation, he is the Guru on it :-D

 

You'll also need to be very confident on what you are saying, and be prepared to explain clearly to the judge a) what securitisation is and b) the implications of securitisation selling card debt in the states rather than in the UK.

 

Oh and I'm not sure about raising such a big subject just at the hearing, CPR standard disclosure means you'll need to give them some warning in your defence prior to the court hearing as I understand it.

 

Of course this is all just my opinion :-)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hungryforinfo

Hungryforinfo

Posted
Posted

Thanks. I will do the necessary research and will only raise it in my defense if I can explain it in laymans terms After my first read through this thread last night I am confident with further research I will be able to explain it. A time consumer will be seeking out supporting documentation. I will look up the posts by Banker_Rhymes_With.

 

The posted opinion on CPR standard disclosure is also appreciated. Other comments and opinions are welcomed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
retap-falco

retap-falco

Posted
Posted

Hmm. MBNA. Visited their HQ in Dallas many moons ago. Strange bunch.. almost Evanglical in their approach and work ethic. Made me shiver a bit. I would have thought that as they are not a "bank", but a credit card outfit, then they must be raising their liquidity from somewhere.

Let's start digging.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the_shadow

the_shadow

Posted
Posted
Hmm. MBNA. Visited their HQ in Dallas many moons ago. Strange bunch.. almost Evanglical in their approach and work ethic. Made me shiver a bit. I would have thought that as they are not a "bank", but a credit card outfit, then they must be raising their liquidity from somewhere.

Let's start digging.

 

errrrrrr. owned by Bank of America.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...