Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I need advice please, Back in November 2018 we parked at The Southgate McDonald’s/Starbucks car park at Stansted before getting our flight.I parked at Starbucks to walk to McDonald’s. I have received letters over the years and have never acknowledged any of them . I now have a CCJ against me as I didn’t think that it was real so never answered My latest letter from dcbl is a notice of debt recovery unpaid county court judgment of £347.92.I know I should have completed the CCJ.Is there anything that I can do now or should I just pay it.Thank you bingoboy
    • Hi BankFodder, Stu007 This is correct BankFodder. Thanks for all the info Stu007, very interesting reading Regards
    • Seems as if Germany has their own version of Boris🤣   ”I know that some of you are impatient with my posts about German politics, and particularly my repeated pieces on our retarded Health Minister. I get that this can seem like inside baseball, and that all of you suffer under the very similar idiocies of your own Covid politicians. But, I just can’t help myself. Lauterbach is a special case, a truly monumental idiot who in his boundless incompetence and stupidity vastly exceeds his peers. It is my aim to make him the international symbol of pandemic derangement. I want pictures of this human incarnation of everything that is wrong with masking children and force-vaccinating millions printed next to future dictionary entries on Covidianism. We have seen the enemy, and it is this sad, stupid, Smeagol-looking loser, who thinks Eric Feigl-Ding is an authority and that clip-on bowties are fashionable.”     German Media Realise Their Health Minister is an International Laughingstock – The Daily Sceptic DAILYSCEPTIC.ORG The German media are waking up to the fact that their mask-loving Health Minister Karl Lauterbach is an international...
    • Guardian readers on here  trying to ignore this 🤣🤣🤣   “Was it my imagination, on Tuesday morning, that there were more than the usual number of possible Guardian readers looking down in the mouth? I don't think so. A few of them, with that hard-to-define but easy-to-recognise look of Guardianistas, appeared unusually pensive. Had some momentous event occurred that had made them question their prejudices? Later in the morning, I stumbled on a possible cause. There was an article prominently displayed in the Guardian print edition and on its website under the byline of the paper's Economics Editor, Larry Elliott. Its headline ran: 'I've got news for those who say Brexit is a disaster: It isn't. That's why rejoining is just a pipe dream.'”   STEPHEN GLOVER: Why won't the Tories trumpet the successes of Brexit when even the economics editor of the Guardian hails its benefits? | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK STEPHEN GLOVER: The headline of Larry Elliott's Guardian article ran: 'I've got news for those who say Brexit is a disaster: It...  
    • So I ask you –"when did you first have sight of this policy containing this exclusion?" And you answer – "when I brought the policy" And then I ask you – "what is the value of the damage your caravan has sustained" and you answer that it is probably a complete write-off    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Post in Some advice on buying a used car
    • People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
      It always leads to tears!
      used car.mp4


    • Pizza delivery insurance.mp4




      Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4
        • Haha
      • 2 replies
  • Recommended Topics


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5283 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi all Ive not started a thread of my own on this one yet so here goes.


this is for my credit card ,story so far

sent for cca back on febuary 9th

account in dispute signed for on the 27th feb,

4th march received -we are looking into your complaint with ref no.....

12th march received sorry for the delay we a loads of request etc...

22nd april reminded about dispute,sent to andover+Brighton,(both signed )

23rd april received weve still not had a payment, have you forgot us letter.

still no agreement

1st may sent sar -signed for 7th may

7th may received-sorry for the delay in sending your agreement

8th may-received expediture form for me to fill in

still no agreement

18th may received -request for signature on sar.

20th may sent sar back signed/crossed signed 22ndmay

still no agreement


so account in dispute 27th feb -still no agreement-nothing at all infact




Today received this from the 3 stoogies





Link to post
Share on other sites

It says in paragraph 1 that a default notice has been issued,but according to my paperwork,I havent got one,

all I have received is statements with remarks on them,the last one asking me to cut my cards in two and send them back,

I havent been informed that the account is closed,

and certainly havent had anything in the way of agreement,just we are looking into your complaint...last one may:(.

as I havent dealt with Lloyds for some time these seem to be quite comical and now it seems GAME ON time.:)

be interested in everybodys veiw (especialy BF)



Link to post
Share on other sites

Im about to send this letter off.

I would appreciate any comments on this please.


Sechiari,Clark & Mitchell

Department CCD Box499

Upper Ground Floor

1-5 Queens Road Quadrant



21 JUNE 2009

Dear Sir,


Re :xxxxxxxxxxxxx





I am in receipt of your letter dated 15TH June, this was received on 20th June 2009.


You have indicated that

a) You are giving Formal Notice that your client has instructed you to commence court proceedings against me without delay and

b) Papers are now being prepared for commencement of action through my local court to seek a judgement against me.


I am sure that you are aware that I have long since requested from your client, under both the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act) and the Data Protection Act 1998, a copy of the agreement to which both you and your client allege I am a signatory. To date this has not been provided to me and whilst I appreciate your client has endeavoured to persuade me that they are having trouble locating this due to the high volume of same request, my first request was made on xxxxxxxx 2009 and as you know your client has 12+2 working days to supply me with this request under the consumer credit act 1974,

Your client has failed in supplying me and my agreement and despite letters from Lloyds ref xxxxxxx on the xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxyour client has still not produced the documents I require, therefore Lloyds have Defaulted on this account since 24th February 2009,

I have disputed this account since.

I am sure you are also aware that under section 78(6) of the Act, whilst a creditor is in default of a request made under sub-section (1) they may not enforce the agreement.


Notwithstanding the foregoing and your client's persistent, unexplained and willful refusal to supply a copy of the executed agreement in accordance with its obligations (the permitted ommisions under Regulation 3(2) excepted), your client has made plain its intention to begin legal proceedings against me. In consequence this matter may now be treated as one which is subject to the control of the Civil Procedure Rules.


Take notice therefore that under CPR Practice Direction - Protocols paragraph 4.6(a) and (d), I request that you supply copies of the following documents:


[1] A true copy of the executed credit agreement incorporating prescribed notices, terms and conditions applicable at the time the agreement was executed and

[2] Any further or subsequent notices, terms and conditions relied upon.

3) Any default notice issued to this account.


Please note that my request under the Practice Direction is not a request for production within the confines of the Act and Regulations but rather, it is for a copy of the executed agreement, including signatures and all such other notices, terms and conditions as will be relied upon in the event that your client shall begin a claim.


A copy of the documents I have requested should be supplied to me within 14 days and you are urged not to begin proceedings for a period of not less than 14 days following the supply of those documents to me.


Should your client elect to ignore my request under the Practice Direction and commence proceedings, it is likely that I shall repeat my request for the provision of documents under CPR 31.14. In the event that your client should fail to comply with my CPR 31.14 request, I will not hesitate in making an application to the court for an order that further proceedings upon the claim be stayed pending provision of the requisite documents, in the course of which application I will of course refer to this and previous requests for the provision of copy documents.


I look forward to hearing from you within the time stated.


Yours faithfully,





Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...