Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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

Cash Genie - Harassment at Work - Withdrawing Permissinon?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5133 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

Here's a good way to deal with Payday Loan sharks. If you know within 14 days of the agreement that you are not going to be able to pay the loan back, cancel the entire agreement under the Financial Services (Distance Marketing) Regulations 2004. Look at the regulations here, specifically section 9 which deals with cancellation rights.

 

Despite any 'agreement' you sign, you are entitled under these regulations to send cancellation notification to a fax number or email address (4)(d) & (e). The loan shark is then obliged to refund any interest already paid or money taken over and above the bottom figure actually loaned (minus any 'fee' they come up with for a service they must actually have provided (i.e. not interest)) and the consumer is obliged to repay the original loan, but is not obliged to pay anything more than that.

 

Obviously Payday Loan sharks don't exactly shout from the mountaintops about this, as it would mean you could essentially get a loan and pay it back in real terms if you're quick enough to cancel.

 

I'm in a delightful battle with Wonga at the moment - I forgot to send my cancellation until the 14th day, meaning that even though I sent it special delivery, it didn't arrive until the 15th day. Wonga very smugly told me that since they didn't get it until day 15, I wasn't protected by the regulations. Unfortunately for them, Section 9 (4)© makes it clear that notice is taken to have been given on the day it was posted. I dished up my serving of humble pie with a good side order of smug too, hehehe.

 

Anyway, I'm sure all this is known by most of you, but it's a delightful statutory right to flex if you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Cash Genie are attempting to contact me, claiming that I have no right to cancel their agreement under the Financial Services (Distance Marketing) Regulations 2005, as they are "not regulated by the FSA".

 

They called me repeatedly at work, trying variations of my number until they got through to somebody who put them through to me. When I said they shouldn't call me on my work number, they told me that they could because I'd given them "full authorisation".

 

Questions:

 

1. I'm certain they are incorrect about cancellation - I'm perfectly entitled to cancel under the FSR (2004), which covers internet/phone agreements, whether or not they are regulated by the FSA. Right?

 

2. How can I withdraw this "full permission" they claim I have given them to contact me at work?

 

The chap who called was very agressive and tried his best to be intimidating. I rolled over to appease him but have no intention of playing ball because I'm sure he's wrong.

 

Help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have since discovered that the Regulations I quoted are enforceable only by companies that are regulated by the FSA. Cash Genie are not. However, their agreements are bound by the CCA. They say they will not allow me to cancel the agreement until all money is repaid. Can they do this legally? My understanding was that I had 14 days within which I could cancel the agreement, and subsequent to the cancellation, the original loan amount would be payable. I was also unaware that any company could "refuse" cancellation - isn't it a basic right?

 

Can they demand payment before agreeing to cancel a CCA agreement?

 

Can I quote OFT Debt Collection Guidelines and the Administration of Justice Act to force them not to contact me in any way other than writing?

 

EDIT: Part of their terms say:

 

"If you default in repaying any loan with us and as it is our lending criteria that any monies lent to you are lent on the basis that you are employed, you authorise us to contact your employer or any other relevant parties in order to secure repayment of any outstanding balance, or contact your employer or any other relevant parties to confirm any information you have supplied in your application if we believe that the information is false, misleading or inaccurate.

You consent to In Time Finance or any associated organisation disclosing any details of this agreement or use discreet actions to assist in the recovery of any outstanding balance"

 

Can they really call my employer and discuss it with them?

 

What about data protection? What about OFT Debt Collection Guidelines?

Edited by spurious
Link to post
Share on other sites

!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*!"££$%^&&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%$£*)^$&%*

Edited by spurious
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

A company called V Gates, who claim I owe them £100, sent me this:

 

We have served you with a default notice with respect to loan number WDC***** in the amount of £200.00, £120.00 outstanding.

We have arranged for a ‘doorstep’ collection on Wednesday 09 September 09. Attendance will be at your workplace.

The purpose of the doorstep collection is a requirement prior to issuing proceedings to recover the funds which are due.

It is your last opportunity to make a settlement or a settlement proposal for our consideration.

A fee of £75 will be added to your account to offset our costs incurred.

 

 

They have not served me with any 'default notice' and to my knowledge have not sent me a single letter in respect to this. Obviously I'm panicked about a 'doorstep collection' at my work. I don't know if they're using the threat to try and intimidate me, but I'm after some urgent advise.

 

 

 

I have sent them the following back, by email and special delivery today:

 

 

 

To Whom It Concerns,

 

I am in receipt of an email in which you state that you will be visiting my workplace. Please refer to the OFT debt collection guidelines, which for your convenience I have copied below, highlighting the section you would be in violation of should you follow through on your intention:

 

"Debt collection visits:

 

2.11 Those visiting debtors must not act in an unclear or threatening manner.

 

2.12 Examples of unfair practices are:

a. not making the purpose of any proposed visit clear, for example, merely stating that collectors or field agents will call is not sufficient

b. visiting a debtor when it is known they are vulnerable, for example, when a doctor's certificate has been provided stating that the debtor is ill

c. continuing with a visit when it becomes apparent that the debtor is distressed or otherwise vulnerable, for example, it becomes apparent that the debtor has mental health problems

d. entering a property uninvited

e. not leaving a property when asked to

f. visiting or threatening to visit debtors without prior agreement when the debt is deadlocked or disputed

g. not giving adequate notice of the time and date of a visit

h. visiting debtors, unless requested, at inappropriate locations such as work or hospital."

 

I have never requested you to visit my workplace and any implied invitation is hereby withdrawn.

 

For your information, I have forwarded a copy of your email to the Office of Fair Trading as part of as complaint against your conduct which is in clear violation of their terms, which you are obliged to adhere to.

 

Please be advised that I am only prepared to communicate with you in writing. As of today's date, I have yet to receive a single piece of written communication from you.

 

Regarding any intention you may have to visit me at my home, OFT rules and regulations clearly state that you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make an appointment with you. There is only an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.).

 

Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives, to visit me at my property and if you persist in sending "doorstep callers" to my home, you will be reported for harassment and be liable for damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be liable for conspiring in a tort of trespass by acting in defiance of my instructions and sending someone to visit me nevertheless.

 

Should it be necessary, I will obtain an injunction.

 

In regards to the matter itself, I do not acknowledge any debt to you.

 

With reference to the above agreement, I would be grateful if you would send me a copy of this credit agreement and a full breakdown of the account including any interest or charges applied.

 

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 [sections 77-79], I am entitled to receive a copy of any credit agreement and a statement of account on request.

 

I enclose a payment of £1 in the hard copy of this email which will reach you by speciasl delivery on Tuesday 6th September. This represents the fee payable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I understand a copy of any credit agreement along with a statement of account should be supplied within 12 working days.

 

I understand that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 creditors are unable to enforce an agreement if they fail to comply with the request for a copy of the agreement and statement of account under these sections of the Act.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Do you think there's anything else I should do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

do they know where you work?

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you got any idea what the supposed debt is for? Depending on this, a CCA request may be inappropriate. The 'prove it' letter may be of more use.

 

Also, they can't add any charges unless it's allowed for in the original contract, if there is one.

 

And a visit most certainly is not a requirement before any kind of action - report them to your local TS and the OFT, even if they don't have a licence.

Edited by DonkeyB
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are the ones, yes. They do know where I work because I had to tell them as part of the' agreement', but there's no provision for them to visit the workplace, nor can I see how they'd be allowed to given the OFT guidelines.

 

A CCA is an appropriate request - I just thought it would be the quickest way to stop them doing whatever they think they can regardless of their obligations.

 

I can't think of anything else I could do at this point (??)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If/when they come back with the CCA agreement, I'll certainly slap them with an SAR, yes.

 

Can a firm like this ring you at work. I didnt think they could as it maybe against OFT guidelines.

 

They have done, yes. I shot them back an email telling them if they tried that again I'll be in touch with the OFT faster than they know what's happening. That said, I've had the last few days off work so god only knows if they've been leaving messages for me. I'll find out tomorrow.

 

So you think my letter should be sufficient in the short term?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I've noticed that the terms on several of these loan sharks, sorry, payday loan companies, state that the recipient of the loan gives the provider the 'right' to contact employers, and presumably they will extend this condition to any loan that is not paid as they would like.

 

My question - how legal is this 'right'? They obviously have to abide by the Data Protection Act - or do their conditions supersede this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spurious has a valid question.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that one of the T&C's is a right to contact the debtor's employer, is it a lawful condition?

 

I would not mind betting the loan companys have a term in the contract saying that if any of the other terms are unlawful that does not invalidate the rest. So even they accept that it is possible that terms in their contract are not lawful!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an odd discussion to agree to the terms which are clearly stated and then complain once we follow through with them.

 

It's not in the least bit 'odd' raising this for discussion. When it comes to contacting employers, the conditions of a loan are often vague and ambiguous. I'd imagine this is deliberately so, to allow Payday Loan lenders freedom to interpret their conditions in a way that suits them.

 

Yet contacting third parties sails very close to the wind, legally. Data Protection, Harassment, OFT Debt Collection Guidelines and further issues all come into play when a lender takes it upon themselves to start phoning employers etc.

 

The question remains: just because it's a term, does that make it enforceable to the extent that the law (DPA, AOJ etc.) cannot apply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...