Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

RTR vs Egg


RoadToRecovery
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5176 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

Having read countless threads today regarding egg agreements, all fascinating stuff, some of the threads I had previously subscribed to and all has gone quiet. I am giong to send the letter many have used to the DCA stating the agreement is unenforeable with the list of reasons.

 

I will then play the waiting game as advised on another thread by andyorch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read countless threads today regarding egg agreements, all fascinating stuff, some of the threads I had previously subscribed to and all has gone quiet. I am giong to send the letter many have used to the DCA stating the agreement is unenforeable with the list of reasons.

 

I will then play the waiting game as advised on another thread by andyorch.

You could try something like the letter below.

 

I would not tip their hand to the reasons that the agreement may be unenforcable.

 

The other problem with their agreement is that I cannot see any cancellation rights.

 

 

When might aDear Sir or Madam,

Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Further to my request under the above act, your attention is drawn to the fact that this account is subject to a serious dispute. On xxxxxxxx, by recorded delivery, I requested that you supply me a copy of the executed credit agreement covering this account pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 78, a copy of this request is enclosed. To date you have failed to comply with my request. Without production of the said agreement I am unable to assess if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’ as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

I would remind you that while this alleged account remains in dispute, that you:

  • May not ask for payment against this account.
  • I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  • Cannot register any data with a third party.
  • Cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  • Cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  • Cannot sell the account.

For the avoidance of any doubt I have included section 78(1) and 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which states…

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing ( 12 working days + 2 ) to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

 

Clearly as no agreement has been supplied on request, you have not complied with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and I now draw your attention to section 78 subsection 6 which states If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

 

Clearly this is a situation as described in S.78(6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the debt is unenforceable at this time. In addition, I draw your attention to section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

This is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

To clarify S.61(1) states

 

(1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

© The document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible

 

In addition the prescribed terms referred to in section 60 CCA1974 are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following—

 

1.Number of repayments;

2.Amount of repayments;

3.Frequency and timing of repayments;

4.Dates of repayments;

5.The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

 

Therefore based upon the Consumer Credit Act 1974 this debt as it stands is unenforceable and should this proceed to litigation, a court is precluded from making an enforcement order under section 127(3) unless a true copy of the signed agreement is produced..

 

At the point where this account entered into the default situation as described in s78 (6) CCA 1974 no other charges are allowed to be added until such time as you become compliant with my request. As you are still not in compliance with my request I insist that the following takes place with immediate effect.

 

All entries which refer to missed payments be removed from my credit file

All collection activities cease with immediate effect until you comply with my request from 27/03/09 or such time as a court makes an enforcement order.

In addition, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on Debt Collection

 

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

What I Require.

 

I require that you send me a true signed copy of the executed agreement as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If you are unable to supply the requested documentation because no such agreement is in existence I require written clarification as such.

 

I require that you comply with my request within 7 days of the date of this letter. I will not correspond any further with you until I either receive a copy of the requested documents as laid down in section 78(1) CCA 74 or clarification that such agreement doesn’t exist. I am advised that should you persist in pursuing this debt ignoring the above information you will be in breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well

 

No other correspondence will be accepted

 

Should you attempt litigation it will be vigorously defended and the failure to supply documentation under the CCA 1974 is a complete defence to any legal action and your actions will be vexatious and unlawful

 

I trust this out lines the situation

Yours faithfully

In addition

When can a credit agreement be not enforceable?

 

There are a variety of cases in which a credit agreement might not be able to be enforced:

  • If the lender doesn't hold a copy of the agreement
  • If the credit or credit limit isn't stated on the agreement
  • If the interest is incorrect
  • Increased credit has been added without being requested
  • Credit card charges are deemed as unfair
  • Sub-prime products sold to people in good credit
  • No recognition of a deposit
  • No mention of a 'cooling off' period
  • The agreement has not been signed
  • A person has been mis-sold payment protection insurance as a prerequisite of taking out the loan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Received a letter today from APLINS solicitors basically stating they have been instructed by dlc to take necessary steps to recover the outstdning balance.

 

Do I need to inform them I intend to defend any claims or wait until they actually do start moving towards court?

 

tia anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope I would leave it. I had a couple of letters from Trevor Munn (ARC's highered legal gun - or at least provider of stationery to print threatograms on) threatening legal action and nothing happened (though admittedly I did have to tell them that I was beyond Trevor's jurisdication as well as what was wrong with my Egg agreement)

My advice is to wait and see - prepare for the worst but hope for the best. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a firm beleiver in having the last letter in the file. Boring I know.

 

You could just send them this, then wait. Lack of action could just tempt them to litigate.

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Date:

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated XXXXX. No debt to your client is acknowledged.

 

This account is in dispute with **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE .

Not only is this a breach of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in line with the Office Of Fair Trading's debt collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My previous dispute from **DATE** has NOT been answered.

 

As **original creditor/name of debt collection agency** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act agreement request and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA/solicitor** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA/solicitor** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in line with the Office Of Fair Trading’s Collection Guidelines

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent.

 

Thanks vint. It does seem appropriate to send this letter as you suggest.

 

I never thought I would see the day when I am pondering if I have sufficient funds to send the letter recorded (I know I must do with the strike looming).

I know what you mean. This current recession has hit all stratas.

 

I tend to pick the letters I need to send Recorded Delivery. The rest get a first class stamp and if you take it to the post office, they give you a proof of posting, free of charge. Letters to solicitors should go recorded.

 

I have responded to the first solicitors letter this week. Received a reply today, "thanks for the letter, gone back to client for further instruction"

 

At least when you reach solicitor stage, someone reads your letters and usually responds. Hopefully this is when you start to deal with people that have a modecum of sence, however they are out to make a buck as well and must follow client instructions.

 

I know some people like to ingnore letters, but as I have said previously, I aim to always have the last letter in the file. It has always paid off for me commercially, even if your response just says:

 

Bemused by your letter dated xxx, please refer to my previous communications dated xxxx and xxxx, for which I am still awaiting a response from yourselves.

 

Just need to send these second class normal post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RTR just to clarify, I think I contradicted myself in my last posting - or at the very least expressed myself badly.

As I said in that post, I did actualy write back to dear Trevor, repeating what I had told ARC (and DLC and Egg themselves) what was wrong with the document that they had sent me (as well as that Northampton CC was no use for me as I was outwith its jurisdiction - and of English law as well). I then got the type of letter that Vint got - though from ARC, not from Trev - saying "going back to client Iie Egg) for further instruction". So, Vint is correct on this one, and if I misled you, I apologise.

The point that I think Iwas trying to make - very badly - is that solicitors do threatograms as well. For instance I NEVER got a reply from Trevor Munn - it was from ARC. In fact, I think I am right in saying that I have never had a reply from any solicitor, only the DCA (or no reply at all). Maybe they would have proceeded if I hadnt written back - I dont know - but I dont suppose it did any harm.

But the main point I was trying to make - very badly - was to emphasise that getting a communication from a solicitor does raise the stakes, but it can just be another threat. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

RTR just to clarify, I think I contradicted myself in my last posting - or at the very least expressed myself badly.

As I said in that post, I did actualy write back to dear Trevor, repeating what I had told ARC (and DLC and Egg themselves) what was wrong with the document that they had sent me (as well as that Northampton CC was no use for me as I was outwith its jurisdiction - and of English law as well). I then got the type of letter that Vint got - though from ARC, not from Trev - saying "going back to client Iie Egg) for further instruction". So, Vint is correct on this one, and if I misled you, I apologise.

The point that I think Iwas trying to make - very badly - is that solicitors do threatograms as well. For instance I NEVER got a reply from Trevor Munn - it was from ARC. In fact, I think I am right in saying that I have never had a reply from any solicitor, only the DCA (or no reply at all). Maybe they would have proceeded if I hadnt written back - I dont know - but I dont suppose it did any harm.

But the main point I was trying to make - very badly - was to emphasise that getting a communication from a solicitor does raise the stakes, but it can just be another threat. :)

They try everything SFU, with the exception of taking their heads out of the sand and comming to terms with their situation.

 

However by continuing to ignore you, adding more charges and more interest, they are inflating the figure to claim against tax releif and then to sell on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, sometimes its a bit like that comedy sketch where the guy is trying to get rid of moles on his lawn, so he flattens the molehill and looks very pleased with himself. Then he turns round to find that another molehill has sprung up in its place. He flattens that, looks pleased with himself, turns round to find ...... and so it goes. Its kind of like that - you get rid of one and another comes along.

And yes, endless tricks.

And yes, its a pity that their, lets call them moles, dont understand what's being said - or that they use systems that just grind on regardless. Still its all good rehearsal for if it should every come to it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Nope I would leave it. I had a couple of letters from Trevor Munn (ARC's highered legal gun - or at least provider of stationery to print threatograms on) threatening legal action and nothing happened (though admittedly I did have to tell them that I was beyond Trevor's jurisdication as well as what was wrong with my Egg agreement)

My advice is to wait and see - prepare for the worst but hope for the best. :)

 

 

Received a letter from Trever Munn today informing me they are preparing a court claim to be issued in seven days.

 

Presumably this Munn outfit are aware of the case coming to the high court in March involving this type of agreement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i got that one as well. That was when i told them again what was wrong with the Egg agreement and that this would be my defence, and, oh btw, if you raise an action at Northampton i will simply have it set aside on the grounds that the Civil Jurisdiction Act gives that court (or any other court in England) no jurisdiction. Got a letter back in due course (from ARC) saying they were seeking further instructions from the OC and not heard anything since.

This might change after March (but lets hope not;))

Were I you I might write back telling them that you have noted the contents of their letter, and set out what would your defence if they decide to bring the case to court (and as the Cardiff case is coming up in March, they probably wont)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...