Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Roxburghe Uk Limited


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4462 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

Amazing!

 

Just received a letter from Roxburghe Debt Collectors.

 

This is in relation to a broadband service that I cancelled 5 months ago, when I changed to a new ISP

 

Roxburghe require me to pay £37.73 immediately.

 

Ridiculous, these wretched DCA's are sooo annoying...

 

AC

 

Be equally annoying and photocopy the letter, then replace all your details with theirs, asking them to pay the amount for a service they cancelled, do this at least once a week or until you tire of spending money on 2nd class postage!:D:D

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Guys,

Just found the cancellation number that I was given in January and the name of the telephone operative for AOL who confirmed that he had cancelled the service.

 

I am absolutely fuming...

 

Of course, AOL are now Car Phone Warehouse and understand that they don't think twice about registering adverse data about consumers.

 

The account was paid, Direct debit Cancelled and cancellation confirmed.

 

But, my data is being processed, adversely no doubt...Very Mad!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Guys,

Just found the cancellation number that I was given in January and the name of the telephone operative for AOL who confirmed that he had cancelled the service.

 

I am absolutely fuming...

 

Of course, AOL are now Car Phone Warehouse and understand that they don't think twice about registering adverse data about consumers.

 

The account was paid, Direct debit Cancelled and cancellation confirmed.

 

But, my data is being processed, adversely no doubt...Very Mad!

 

AC

 

Oh dear! DPA springs to mind!! Heads will roll:D

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the prove it letter here,

 

Name/Address:

 

Date:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.

 

I/we would point out that I/we have no knowledge of any such debt being owed to (insert company name).

 

I am/we are familiar with the CPUTR 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection, which states that it unfair to send demands for payment to an individual when it is uncertain that they are the debtor in question.

 

I/we would also point out that the OFT say under the Guidance that it is unfair to pursue third parties for payment when they are not liable. AND in not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt you are using deceptive/and or unfair methods.

 

Furthermore ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment amounts to physical/psychological harassment.

 

I/we would ask that no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide evidence as to my/our liability for the debt in question.

 

I/we await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed. Otherwise I will have no option but to make a complaint to Trading Standards and also inform the Office Of Fair Trading of your actions.

 

I/we look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Edit anything in red, do not sign it and send recorded delivery (make sure you keep the receipt as Royal Mail have lost at least 2 letters i sent recorded!!)

 

My friend had a problem with cancelling Talk Talk after they called him out of the blue. He agreed on the phone to cange to them but changed his mind and called them back. They said fine no problem. Then he got a letter from a DCA asking for money. He got me to fire off the Prove it and he has heard nothing back since. Good luck.

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

Okay, sorted.

 

I have sent a stiff letter to the vice chairman of AOL, including the cancellation ref number and;

copy to Roxburghe...had a real go!

demanded that they remove any incorrect adverse data;

if not, will report them both to OFT, TS, ICO.

Thinking of doing that anyway.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, sorted.

had a real go!

demanded that they remove any incorrect adverse data;

if not, will report them both to OFT, TS, ICO.

Thinking of doing that anyway.AC

 

I bloody would have! You should tell them that you are doing so aswell.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had exactly the same thing - only the account was mine, but they addressed it to my husband!!! I sent the dispute letter to Roxbourghe and they resonded with a solicitor's letter, threatenign court action!!

 

Anyhow i have checked with AOL and they state that I did cancel my account (luckily I have the email containing my MAC code, so can prove I cancelled) and they have given me the cancellation number and have said that they will cancel all further action.

 

The AOL person let slip that they passed on a load of accounts by mistake, but they didn't realise this had happened until people phoned to complain!!

 

I can't wait for them to take me to court - i'll have a field day with this one!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had exactly the same thing - only the account was mine, but they addressed it to my husband!!! I sent the dispute letter to Roxbourghe and they resonded with a solicitor's letter, threatenign court action!!

 

Anyhow i have checked with AOL and they state that I did cancel my account (luckily I have the email containing my MAC code, so can prove I cancelled) and they have given me the cancellation number and have said that they will cancel all further action.

 

The AOL person let slip that they passed on a load of accounts by mistake, but they didn't realise this had happened until people phoned to complain!!

 

I can't wait for them to take me to court - i'll have a field day with this one!!!

 

Lovely!

 

I will join you...

Enraging isn't it?

 

AC

 

ps, going to complain to the OFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you, the thing that really annoys me about all of this, apart from the obvious, is that I cancelled the AOL service because it was not fit for purpose;

constantly crashing.

 

I was actually with them for years and now this outrageous demand.

Disgraceful and hardly a good PR exercise.

 

So glad about this site, as it brings this sort of matter to the general publics attention.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Principle of the matter isn't it:

 

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX

 

[email protected]

 

Public enquiries

08457 22 44 99

 

Write, or send them an email.

 

AC

 

Is my email link defunct then??

[email protected]

 

Or are there numerous ones to whinge at:D

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another letter from Roxburghe dated 19 June 2009:

 

Dear AC

 

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

 

I am surprised that you have failed to respond in a satisfactory manner to our previous letter.

 

Your failure to take action indicates to me that you do not intend to settle your liability and therefore I shall pass this matter to our analysts, who will review your case.

 

Should litigation commence, and in the event of Judgement or decree being entered against you, it may affect your credit rating, and you will be laible for all fixed legal fees and any statutory interest, which will be added to your debt.

 

Alternatively, we may instruct local external field representatives to call at your premises to collect the full outstanding balance.

 

CONTACT THIS OFFICE IMMEDIATELY TO ARRANGE PAYMENT AND AVOID FURTHER ACTION.

 

Your sincerely,

 

Jonathon Stock

Debt Recovery Manager

Roxburghe (UK) Limited."

 

How can one be more annoyed than bluddy fuming, because I am!!!

 

I do not owe a penny;

have told them and AOL but they keep on pursuing me.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

addendum;

 

this is a bit like:

come into my parlour said the spider to the fly!

 

I intend to throw the proverbial book at these cretins...clearly, Roxburghe think that they are dealing with a shivering fairy, I am so far removed from a shivering fairy, more like an enormous Tiger with very sharp Claws!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get them to send you their complaints procedure, then suitably ignore all of their responses and escalate the complaint until you can use their Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):evil::evil::evil:

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firing off this letter to Roxburghe, copy to Graeme Nixon AOL:

 

Mr. Jonathon Stock

Debt Recovery Manager

Roxburghe (UK) Limited

Roxburghe House

Lavender Park Road

West Byfleet

Surrey

KT14 6YX

 

Dear Mr. Stock

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

With reference to your letter dated 19 June 2009; this is the second time that you have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number.

 

I am absolutely appalled and outraged by your actions, as you have been supplied with a copy of my formal complaint that was sent to: Mr. Graeme Nixon, AOL Member Services. There is no debt owing to AOL and yet you are harassing me for payment.

 

I am familiar with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR) and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection, quite frankly your use of ‘Bad Business Practice’ is unfair, inaccurate and misleading:

 

1. Pursuing third parties when they are not liable;

2. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment; THERE IS NO DEBT!

3. Disclosing or threatening to disclose debt details to third parties unless legally entitled to do so;

4. Failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued;

5. Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority and/or the correct legal position;

6. Threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the debt is deadlocked or disputed;

7. Failing to establish and maintain details of the debt history raise concerns about compliance with the fourth principle of the Data Protection Act 1998, which requires that, ‘personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date’.

 

Your allegations are without foundation, I do not owe any monies to you company, nor to your clients AOL. Furthermore, both you and your client have a ‘code of conduct’ that should be

 

Page 2

 

 

Observed clearly, neither Roxburgh nor, AOL have been and/or, are following said codes, which is in breach of the CPUTR’s.

 

Take notice that, the action of AOL and yourselves, could call into question the fitness to hold a consumer credit licence. Therefore, I will be lodging a formal complaint with the Office of Fair Trading regarding the employment of ‘Bad Business Practice’s’ and the Information Commissioners Office in relation to the unjustified, unwarranted processing of my personal subject data under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Lastly, I demand that I be compensated for the time and cost of having to respond to AOL/Roxburghe four times, together with the damage and distress caused to me, due to the unjustified demands for money from yourselves and the incorrect processing of my Data.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

The first I knew of Roxburghe was a call on mobile whilst I was waiting to go to theatre for surgery! I worked out that they'd probably been sold a 'debt' from AOL (I don't owe AOL a penny, but that's a different story).

 

Two bits of advice; first, if you don't answer their 'identification' questions they can't talk to you. Exactly what you want but they don't half get frustrated by it.

 

Second and much more valuable is to tell them that any further calls will constitute harassment under Sections 1 & 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The call centre agent really didn't like this but went away. When they called back three days later, I reminded them of our earlier conversation, told them I would report the offence to the Police and did so.

 

Northumbria Police were fantastic; within the hour they had called Roxburghe and told them that what they were doing constituted harassment. I've not heard from Roxburghe since.

 

The really important thing here is that harassment is defined as an act which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other. Once you have told Roxburghe that you believe the calls are harassment, they are committing the offence the next time they call.

 

A very effective deterrent.............

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I also have just recieved a nasty letter off Roxburghe....£106-40....

 

I was with Tiscali 4 years ago and left because of the inadequate broadband...I cancelled and was not in arrears...now I get this letter saying I have 72 hours notice and I may be required to attend court to answer questions on my lifestyle....I am 55 and have bene long term sick due to ill health....

 

What lifestyle...I am in IB and DLA..I am registered disabled....I can barely walk....unable to hold things as I tend to drop things due to my arthritis in my hands....I just abut make ends meet...maybe I am sleep walking and have a double life...I wish...I would love to go to court to explain my lifestyle...

 

What do I do??? do I go to court....??????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try not to worry, laughable roxburghe are chief clowns and a joke a minute.

 

For the alleged debt in question this will never see the inside of any court room, except their own kangaroo court.

 

If you genuinely have no idea what the debt is about then, you can either file it under ignore, and await their next batch of empty threat letters or send them the No Acknowledgement letter.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/573-general-debt-letter-if-you-know-nothing-of-the-debt

 

Send it recorded delivery and PRINT your name do not sign.

They will invariably come back with some fabricated letter stating that you owe this sum to Tiscali for the period from-to, and will not in anyway show that you owe this money at all.

 

If Possible get back in touch with tiscali direct and ask them why these eejits are chasing you on there behalf for money you don't owe.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roxburghe are also the alter ego of HFO Services Ltd. Same stable, same muppets.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | YourMoney :: False debt collection: the threatening letter of the law

 

:

An AOL Broadband spokesman says: “We’re sorry to hear about the problems you’ve been experiencing since cancelling your AOL Broadband account. This particular issue was the result of a system error, which meant your account was not closed down fully.”

 

Makes one's blood boil, doesn't it?

 

And this has happened to hundreds of AOL customers, including me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...