Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 12mph (beyond any UK limit) will certainly qualify for a Fixed Penalty. So you should received an offer of a FP for each of the remaining two offences. Be sure to submit your licence details as instructed when you accept the offer. If you don't your £100 will be returned to you and the police will prosecute you in court.
    • and it will be also now written off under age related criteria anyway.
    • @dx100ukThanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe consequences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points? @Man in the middleI've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
    • Been perusing the actual figures on the polls above wondering where the '16% claimed for deform comes from? I understand that there are 'weighted' end results based on secret calculations ...   Probably going to repeat this later, but remember that the ukip/brexit/reform/deform party has ALWAYS had poll speculation FAR better than their actual  performance at elections - by large margins. SO: The labor and Tory votes come largely from simply the people who say they will vote for them - sorted Lab 43% Tory 20%, with maybe another small 1-2% coming from the weightings of the 'not sures' Greens largely get what is declared from 'other' , although with another declared green bit from the 'pressed' question   So as the share of the voting displayed in 'other' granted to reform/deform is around 11%, where does the '16% too often being reported come from? Seems that reform has been granted as beneficiary of effectively ALL the don't knows and wont says, who when pressed didn't actually declare for someone else ... effectively adding 40%+ to their reported polling % - rather strange given their consistent under-performance compared to polling - or perhaps that is the cause of the higher rating eh?   Now I admit the possibility (probability?) of wingers being ashamed of declaring their support for the yuckey lemon end of the spectrum ... but surely  that should affect the 'Torys as well? Maybe the statisticians have simply weighted in that deform wingers are simply more likely to lie?   But - without 'weightings' and assumptions that faragits will get everything that isnt declared as a definite and unequivocal 'not that Piers Morgan' - reform is on around 11% it seems.   Add to that the history of polling a lot less than the hype - and the simple fact that faragit wingers seem to be spread across the country (presumably skulking in their moms spare room despite being 45+) and greens and lib dems seem to be community minded - I think two seats will be an epic result for farage. Hardly the opposition - far more raving wingnut party.   and importantly - Has farage got a home in clacton yet?
  • 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
      • 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

Received copy of Agreement with incorrect information


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5461 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

I should also add that one of the prescribed terms (the APR) is wrong by 10% at the outset, and by 5% after the introductory rate.

 

This by the way, is not the only thing wrong with the account. I have not received an NoA, and the DN is defective, it is just another piece to fit in the jigsaw.

 

Alan

Edited by alangee
Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also add that one of the prescribed terms (the APR) is wrong by 10% at the outset, and by 5% after the introduction rate.

 

This by the way, is not the only thing wrong with the account. I have not received an NoA, and the DN is defective, it is just another piece to fit in the jigsaw.

 

Alan

 

If the agreement has been assigned to IJ (as opposed to them acting as debt collectors for the OC) unfortunately you have received a NoA and you have acknowledged it...whether the NoA is valid or not depends on a number of factors - I would need to see the correspondence between you and IJ before I could form a view

 

There is NO specific form of wording required for a NoA - anything which tells you that there has been an assignment will do - the document does not need to include the date of assignment or the amount outstanding but if either is quoted it must be accurate.

 

It is true that there are rules governing service of the NoA HOWEVER IMO those rules do not apply where you have acknowledged receipt - so the fact that you have got involved in correspondence with IJ proves that you have been served with notice of the assignment

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have acknowledged when they have written to me is by stating that I do not owe them any money, and if they think any different, then they should provide me with an agreement, and a copy of the NoA.

 

Are you now saying that anybody that responds to any DCA letter is in fact acknowledging the Notice of Assignment?

 

I may be wrong, but the general advice on CAG doesn't seem to hold that view.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have acknowledged when they have written to me is by stating that I do not owe them any money, and if they think any different, then they should provide me with an agreement, and a copy of the NoA.

 

Are you now saying that anybody that responds to any DCA letter is in fact acknowledging the Notice of Assignment?

 

I may be wrong, but the general advice on CAG doesn't seem to hold that view.

 

Alan

 

IMO if you receive a letter from anybody that says explicitly or implicitly that there has been an assignment and you acknowledge receipt of that letter then you have actual notice of the assignment - I do not believe that you have any prospect of later persuading a court that you have not been served with a written notice of assignment. I have actually been making this point on a number of threads for some time.

 

If the advice on CAG is to the contrary then IMHO it is wrong - I'd ask anyone who gives that advice to point me to a case where an otherwise valid NoA has been declared invalid in a case where the debtor acknowledged receipt BUT then claimed that because it hadn't been served by registered post it didn't count

 

As far as writing on the letter that you do not owe them any money or you do not acknowledge any debt to them is concerned that has no effect at all in terms of the NoA - the reason people write it on is that it is designed to prevent the letter being an treated as acknowledging the debt for limitation purposes

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just clarify - I know that IJ do both debt collection and debt purchase - is this an assignment case or is it a straight debt collection?

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not paying is in the act - i hope! in the bit about 12 days + month

 

Yes, i should have mentioned IJ & the OC trashing the credit file, but if we are already with IJ then the cra file is already trashed.

 

Probably made too many assumptions! Sorry :(

 

I must admit I hate IJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IGNM

 

As far as I am aware they have bought the debt, but as I have not received an NoA, despite my requesting one, I do not know.

 

You talk about acknowledging receipt of a valid NoA, but what do you term a valid NoA? Is it just a demand for money?

 

 

Alan

Edited by alangee
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO if you receive a letter from anybody that says explicitly or implicitly that there has been an assignment and you acknowledge receipt of that letter then you have actual notice of the assignment - I do not believe that you have any prospect of later persuading a court that you have not been served with a written notice of assignment. I have actually been making this point on a number of threads for some time.

 

If the advice on CAG is to the contrary then IMHO it is wrong - I'd ask anyone who gives that advice to point me to a case where an otherwise valid NoA has been declared invalid in a case where the debtor acknowledged receipt BUT then claimed that because it hadn't been served by registered post it didn't count

 

As far as writing on the letter that you do not owe them any money or you do not acknowledge any debt to them is concerned that has no effect at all in terms of the NoA - the reason people write it on is that it is designed to prevent the letter being an treated as acknowledging the debt for limitation purposes

 

you are 100% right any acknowledgment of a NOA or a SD for that matter completes the primary objective- which is to make the debtor aware of the assignment or SD -

 

it then matters not if the service or delivery , which otherwise might have defeated it, was correct - the object of making the debotr aware of its existence is acheived

 

(one more reason incidentally why one should never acknowledge receipt of a SD that has not been personally served or signed for)

Link to post
Share on other sites

IGNM

 

As far as I am aware they have bought the debt, but as I have not received an NoA, despite my requesting one, I do not know.

 

You talk about acknowledging receipt of a valid NoA, but what do you term a valid NoA? Is it just a demand for money?

 

Alan

 

The difficulty is that the case law on NoA's is very flexible as to what is a NoA - it has been held that a document can be a valid NoA even if it doesn't intend to be one - so anything which tells you that you owe the new creditor the money may amount to a NoA - so yes a demand for money (if the information on it is correct) is likely to be a valid NoA especially if it refers to the original creditor and the new creditor.

 

All a valid NoA has to do is to let you know that you should pay the new creditor and in your case that has happened - you know that there has been an assignment...as I said earlier the notice may be invalidated if it contains incorrect information.

Edited by I've got no money

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are 100% right any acknowledgment of a NOA or a SD for that matter completes the primary objective- which is to make the debtor aware of the assignment or SD -

 

it then matters not if the service or delivery , which otherwise might have defeated it, was correct - the object of making the debotr aware of its existence is acheived

 

(one more reason incidentally why one should never acknowledge receipt of a SD that has not been personally served or signed for)

 

I don't know much about SD's at all - although I understand that if someone is served with an SD they should never just ignore it. There are a couple of excellent threads which deal with what to do...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/162131-statutory-demands-service-post.html

 

and

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/112326-dcas-statutory-demands-few.html

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about SD's at all - although I understand that if someone is served with an SD they should never just ignore it. There are a couple of excellent threads which deal with what to do...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/162131-statutory-demands-service-post.html

 

and

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/112326-dcas-statutory-demands-few.html

 

if you read surface agents piece regarding service by post of an SD which is unsignred for ignoring it is exactly what he recommends!!

 

the reason is that service by normal post is not acceptable by a court as a reliable means of service

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you read surface agents piece regarding service by post of an SD which is unsignred for ignoring it is exactly what he recommends!!

 

the reason is that service by normal post is not acceptable by a court as a reliable means of service

 

As I say I don't know much about SD's - just that they need carefull consideration...I didn't say that you should acknowledge them I said that you shouldn't ignore them. As I understand it rather than just binning a Stat Demand that came by normal post you need to consider carefully your options and make an informed decision - that's what I meant by not ignoring it.

 

One point to remember is that, and I know that the it does not apply to SD's and bankruptcy - which I believe are governed by the insolvency rules, in civil cases generally it is permissible to serve a claim form by unrecorded post (CPR 6.3). I only make the point because I would not want another Cagger to read DD's post and to think that it applied to all types of proceedings. In the County Court most claim forms are served, by the County Court, by normal unrecorded first class post. In the County Court, under the CPR, unless the envelope is returned as undelivered it is deemed served.

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...