Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • 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
      • 160 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

Link Financial


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5402 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

Right, so I got a letter from LF in May saying that a debt owed had been been sold and assigned to them. The OC was still outstanding with my request under the CCA, so I sent LF a 'bemused' letter. Yesterday, I got the following response:

 

Thank you for your letter dated xx. Please be aware that the debt is known as 'chose in action' [:?:]. As the OC holds the legal right to collect the debt, they also hold the right to assign their rights to LF. Although the lender does not need your permission to do this, Section 136 of the Law of Property 1925 requires, in order for there to be a legal assignment, that notice of assignment should be given in writing, This was sent to you on xx. In your letter you state your CCA request remains outstanding. Please provide us with the details you are requesting so we can action your request accordingly. Your OC account was assigned to LF in xx. The responsibility to manage teh information placed with the CRA's by OC was also passed at the time of purchase therefor we do not believe we are in breach of our responsibilities under the DPA with regards your details. We maintain the information we are reporting to the CRA's is an accurate reflection of how the account has been paid and therefore we will not be removing this default.

 

If you have blah, blah blah

How do I respond? Do I send them a copy of the letter to the OC requesting the CCA? Do I CCA them directly?

 

With regards the CRA's, both the OC and LF are reporting 'D' on my credit record, so I have 2 for the same debt.

 

Advice appreciated.;)

Please note that I am not a solicitor or legally trained. The advice I give is from my own personal experience based on my own personal circumstance. If you choose to follow any advice I may give, please make sure you understand the implications of following that advice. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have drafted a letter to LF in response to their letter above. I would appreciate it if someone could read through it and let me know what you think.

 

Thank you for your letter dated XX which I received on XX+3. I have noted the contents of the letter and respond as follows:

 

On XX, I sent a request to OC to refund all the unfair charges levied on the alleged account plus interest. OC failed to respond or acknowledge my request in the 14 days granted them.

 

On XX, I sent a request with the statutory fee to OC for a true copy of the Credit Agreement pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. As OC failed to reply to my lawful request in the time allowed, provisions of s.78(6) apply to this alleged account.

 

On XX, I sent a Subject Access Request with the statutory fee to OC under the Data Protection Act 2008. OC have failed to acknowledge receipt of my letter and have until 20 June XX to comply before a complaint is made to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

On XX, I send a Letter before Action to OC, raising the above matters with them and giving them an additional 14 days in which to address my disputes on the account. In their reply to this letter, I am promised an appropriate response by XX. If I do not receive a response by the date stated, I intend to start legal proceedings against OC.

 

As this alleged account is in serious dispute through a lack of co-operation and non-compliance from OC, a number of additional clauses contained in the Consumer Protection against Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Credit Act come into force.

 

Examples of unfair practices are as follows - 2.8

(i) - 'Failing to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued'

(k) - 'Not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonable queried or disputed debt'

 

I would further maintain that under the CPUTR 2008 regulations, OC did not have the right to assign the debt to a third party whilst they failed to investigate a valid dispute or complaint.

 

In addition, under s.78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act, the creditor is not allowed to take any action whilst the account is in dispute. These actions include, but are not limited to, transferring the account to a third party.

 

Therefore I am of the opinion that the assignment of the alleged agreement to Link Financial is unlawful and breaches a number of regulations and I do not accept that you have the right to collect any outstanding monies owed under the alleged agreement.

 

In reply to your response regarding my Section 10 request under the Data Protection Act, I have demonstrated above that OC did not have the right to assign the alleged account to you and therefore you do not have the right to process my data. Further, if you maintain that you do have the right to process my data, then as part of your responsibilities to ensure that that data is accurate, you should have ensured that OC had removed all their data relating to me from my credit record. You have failed to do this and there are now two separate defaults registered against my credit report for the same account and amount. Therefore if you do not remove your entries from my credit file, I will be required to take further action in this regard.

 

If you still maintain that you have full rights of the original creditor in this matter, please advise me in writing as to your reasons for this. In that event, should it be necessary to bring legal action against OC, then you will accept that you are jointly liable with them in any action.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

Please note that I am not a solicitor or legally trained. The advice I give is from my own personal experience based on my own personal circumstance. If you choose to follow any advice I may give, please make sure you understand the implications of following that advice. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there no wordsmiths around? Please ;)

Please note that I am not a solicitor or legally trained. The advice I give is from my own personal experience based on my own personal circumstance. If you choose to follow any advice I may give, please make sure you understand the implications of following that advice. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...