Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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 
        • 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

Mint/Triton


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5392 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

Hi

 

This morning I recieved two letters..1 from MINT dated 12th June and one from Triton dated 17th..

 

The mint letter advised me that I owed £107 for two missed payments and that I should call asap to pay of and get the account upto date..

 

The letter from triton was re the same mint account and they are demanding the full outstanding balance or £2382 21

 

I rang Mint as soon as I opened the letter to pay of the £107 but they would not accept as they say the debt has been sold to triton and that triton have registered a default against my credit file!! :mad:. I asked them why they had sold the account as I was under the inpression that I was on a payment plan with mint to stop this exact thing from happening. This was set up in may! and I was told that £50 would be taken from my debt card every 7th of the month. According to mint no such aggrement had been put in place and I should of rang and payed the £50 every 7th of the month.

 

I also rang triton and they demanded the full amount or 6 monthly payments to clear the balance. Obviously I cannot afford to pay this in full and offered them £150 a month but they refused.

 

Also to make thinga a bit more complicated.... I Payed a company £275 back in jan/feb this year who said they could clear my cards of in 28days (mint,virgin,aa) and this I feel is a [problem]! I started another thread about this on these boards and can be found http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/194270-tate-lloyd-claims-management.html

 

I am lost as to were to go from now as now I have this default I would not be able to credit for 6yrs! is there anyway to get this removed??

 

Any advice would be great!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you receive notification from mint that they sold the debt and did triton write to you saying the same enclosing a notice of assignment?

if not, neither can do neither to you.

 

cca request triton.

sent a/c in dispute to both

 

and STAY OFF THAT PHONE!!!

 

do it all in writing .

 

dx

 

ps yep all credit card write off merchants are scams!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the letter I had today from triton...

 

Dear MR xyz

 

The Royal Bank Of Scotland plc has placed your account with us for immediate collection.

 

We have been appionted on their behalf and to avoid further action you are requested to foward a cheque for the full amount by return tho the address quoted above. This should be made payable to Triton Credit Services ensuring that your reference number is printed on the reverse.

 

Alternataively, payment can be made by contacting this office on ....... and using a debit/credit card.

 

If for any reason you are unable to make this payment by return, you must telephone this office immediatly.

 

YOur sincerley

 

Triton credit services

 

how do I send a CCA request and how would I word a a/c dispute letter...sorry but I have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And they have mis-informed you

 

Triton are in-house debt collectors for RBos

 

The account hasn't been sold to them, they are just collecting on their behalf. They do that so that they can frighten people by asking for the full amount.

 

They are fairly harmless, they have about 6 standard letters, full of unlawful claims. Round about no 5 is one that Triton print on Greene & Co headed paper, but it's really Triton.

 

Mint could have accepted your payment after they had referred it to triton, but they chose not to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I pay Triton or mint then? or is it upto mint now as they have told me that the "debt has been sold" or should I just send these letters and go from there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

make a token £50 payment to mint whilst you await the CCA return

remember if they fail to reply with the correct docs with in 12+2 working days

you are within your rights to cease any payment.

 

TBH: if it were me i'd fire off the letters & just ignore everyone till the CCA return

 

buts thats my thoughts.

 

14day when already 2mts behind is not going to hurt.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...