Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes I think you are right. I have to say I think most people would be honest and you would be unlucky to be with somebody who was going to rip you off
    • Would this be OK to send or is it too much detail already ?   "In response to your letter dated  xxx Intention of Prosecution reference xxxxxx I would like to advise that no collision / accident took place at the given date / time / location. There was however an altercation with the driver of a commercial vehicle who punched and kicked my car, verbally abused me when I stopped and acted in a distinctive threatening and aggressive manner. I advised I would be reporting him to his company for threatening behaviour and vandalism for punching and kicking my car whilst driving past in the road. When I tried to take a photo of his number plate, he came towards me in a further aggressive and threatening manner, so I decided to retreat into my car and lock the doors before he could reach me, as I was frightened he may assault me. I drove off and when I checked my phone later , the photo was regrettably unusable, as the camera couldn’t focus properly when I rushed back to my car. So I decided not to report him for his threatening behaviour and actions, as at the time I believed he would be untraceable anyway. So I am not sure if the accusations against me are in relation to this altercation, but no actual collision took place at this time , date and location as alleged in your letter"  
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • They have been sending messageslike " Do you want a refund or not"  which ive said im at work just try and avoid their childish obstuctive replies as ive had enough of them but i plan on going up tomorrow , so my question is,  they have to give me a refund dont they, they can not bargain or refuse the refund if they havent checked the phone first ? Their previous messages have said they want to check the phone first before a refund is given and i think theyll try this tomorrow as they have argued all through this .... If that happens can i just walk away and then send the letter of Particulars which is due next week ? Edit :   Just for the record the phone hasnt been used since buying its been put in a protective bag and put in a draw , its in the same condition as i bought it
    • To be fair ,  she has responded and said she's on holiday but returns Sunday and will bank transfer when she returns and i think i believe her.
  • 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 
        • 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

A man wrongly identified as owing a debt has received a payout of thousands of pounds from the debt collection agency co


BinB
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5480 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

Dr Mike Thompson was contacted in August 2007 by debt collection firm Aktiv Kapital which was seeking £640 it said he owed to a finance company. Dr Thompson knew the debt did not belong with him and he had never heard of the finance company involved.

When Aktiv Kapital threatened court action to recover the money, Mike told the firm it had got the wrong Mike Thompson and that it should produce evidence of the debt. In January, he believed he had finally convinced the firm he was not the person they were seeking. But then he discovered the firm had placed a default on his credit record. He told BBC Radio 4's Money Box: "I was obviously outraged but at that time I had a very good firm of solicitors acting on my behalf." "I was informed that was the point at which we could take legal action in the High Court."

Mike's solicitor told Aktiv Kapital that unless it paid damages and apologised, there were grounds for him to consider suing for defamation. That was because details of the debt Mike did not owe could now be accessed by any finance company checking his credit record, adversely affecting his reputation. After weeks of negotiations, Aktiv Kapital paid him £6,725 in damages and costs and issued a public apology, published in the London Gazette. It said: "Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited now accepts that Dr Thompson has neither been indebted to, nor defaulted on any account with Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited." "Aktiv Kapital (UK) Limited wishes to express its regret to Dr Thompson for this error, and apologises unreservedly to Dr Thompson for any embarrassment and inconvenience which may have been caused to him." Sarah Webb, head of media and defamation at Russell Jones & Walker Solicitors, believes a claimant like Mike would have been in a strong position if the case had gone to court. However, to succeed he would have to overcome significant legal protection known as "qualified privilege" given to the firms involved. Ms Webb told the programme: "The claimant would have to show the company had been reckless in passing on the wrong name, that they'd got the wrong person."

To win, claimants would also have to be prepared to overcome financial hurdles as well. Simon Cook, Dr Thompson's solicitor, says anyone not on a high income might struggle to fund their case. "You can't get legal aid for defamation. Most people can't afford the costs of the proceedings. Even if he'd won, he wouldn't have necessarily received all of his costs,"

That's a good start then, and well done Mike.

BinB.:lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...