Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hamz909
      PCM PCN - Royale Leisure Park - W3 (London)

      By Hamz909 · Posted

      This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • jk2054
      Problems with social services - various issues surrounding my mother who is now in a nursing home.

      By jk2054 · Posted

      4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • Hamz909
      PCM PCN - Royale Leisure Park - W3 (London)

      By Hamz909 · Posted

      These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Tosca 2
      Problems with social services - various issues surrounding my mother who is now in a nursing home.

      By Tosca 2 · Posted

      Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • little old lady
      GroupNexus ANCR PCN - Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE5 5 T

      By little old lady · Posted

      Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

lbl and cancellation rights

frustrated46
 Share
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

frustrated46

frustrated46

Posted
Posted

Hi,

 

I've been looking into the loan agreement with log book loans and I think it is wrong that the agreement specifically says that the customer has no cancellation rights.

 

In their defence lbl said that "The agreement is not cancellable because it was not preceded by antecedent negotiations including oral representations made when in the presence of the Claimant, as required by s.67 of the CCA 1974"

 

This is quite relevant, because if customers DO have cancellation rights and these are not included in the agreement, the contract is unenforceable without a court order.

 

My argument is that the agreement was preceded by antecedent negotiations because I met, face to face, lbl's underwriter, who they call in their defence "an employee".

 

What does anyone else think?

 

Frustrated

Link to post
Share on other sites
actionblusox

actionblusox

Posted
Posted

hi frustrated

we know this outfit changes its tune and excuses to suit whatever it thinks fit.

but with yours and everyones help this company will eventually trip up and run out of excuses to try to justify conning people.

you are either one (agent) or the other (employee)

 

(1) In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer— (a)

conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

 

(b)

conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

 

©

conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(b) or ©,

 

 

and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

(2) Negotiations with the debtor in a case falling within subsection (1)(b) or © shall be deemed to be conducted by the negotiator in the capacity of agent of the creditor as well as in his actual capacity.

(3) An agreement is void if, and to the extent that, it purports in relation to an actual or prospective regulated agreement— (a)

to provide that a person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator is to be treated as the agent of the debtor or hirer, or

 

(b)

to relieve a person from liability for acts or omissions of any person acting as, or on behalf of, a negotiator.

 

 

(4) For the purposes of this Act, antecedent negotiations shall be taken to begin when the negotiator and the debtor or hirer first enter into communication (including communication by advertisement), and to include any representations made by the negotiator to the debtor or hirer and any other dealings between them.

Action.

Link to post
Share on other sites
actionblusox

actionblusox

Posted
Posted

so that would be called an employee then?

which is certainly unfair and where the Act is there to stop this, which is in other words a massive conflict of interest, where their sole aim is to get you to sign up at any cost, anywhere, (concealing APR,s) and not telling you the truth about what you sign away, cos they firstly want your car for cheap and then more money (shortfall from auction sale) along with defaults and letters and call charges. in a nutshell OFT!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
frustrated46

frustrated46

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sequenci, to answer your question, at a Cash Converters. However, lbl have not used the "linked transaction", ie signing at a Cash Converters, as a defence to not puting cancellation rights in the agreement. As they have not used it in the defence, it cannot be used in court.

 

The definition of a "linked transaction" is one that is part of the same deal.

 

Their defence is only that no antecedent negotiations took place. My reading says that "The common feature of cases of this type is that the agreements are signed away from trade premises and, before signing it, the customer had face to face discussions with the lender (or his representative or agent) which included oral representations in relation to the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
Posted
Sequenci, to answer your question, at a Cash Converters. However, lbl have not used the "linked transaction", ie signing at a Cash Converters, as a defence to not puting cancellation rights in the agreement. As they have not used it in the defence, it cannot be used in court.

 

The definition of a "linked transaction" is one that is part of the same deal.

 

Their defence is only that no antecedent negotiations took place. My reading says that "The common feature of cases of this type is that the agreements are signed away from trade premises and, before signing it, the customer had face to face discussions with the lender (or his representative or agent) which included oral representations in relation to the agreement.

 

I think it needs to be clear that if an agreement is concluded after face-to-face contact is cancellable where it was signed off the business premises.

 

If you signed on the premises it wouldn't be cancellable at all (s67 CCA 1974)

Link to post
Share on other sites
frustrated46

frustrated46

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi sequenci,

 

I understand what you are saying. But I think the trade premises in question have to be that of the lender or the agent. Cash Converters is neither, but simply someone elses trade premises. Is this not correct?

 

Frustrated

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
Posted
Hi sequenci,

 

I understand what you are saying. But I think the trade premises in question have to be that of the lender or the agent. Cash Converters is neither, but simply someone elses trade premises. Is this not correct?

 

Frustrated

 

That is an interesting point!

 

Let me see what I can dig up :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
frustrated46

frustrated46

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi, I was working on the basis that under s67 the agreement is cancellable unless

(b) the unexecuted agreement is signed by the debtor or hirer at premises at which any of the following is carrying on any business (whether on a permanent or temporary basis)—

(i) the creditor or owner; NO NOT LBL'S PREMISES

(ii) any party to a linked transaction (other than the debtor or hirer or a relative of his); THERE WAS NO LINKED TRANSACTION

(iii) the negotiator in any antecedent negotiations. NO, CASH CONVERTERS WAS NOT A NEGOTIATOR IN THE AGREEMENT

Therefore the agreement should be cancellable. Please let me know if I am wrong.

Frustrated

Link to post
Share on other sites
frustrated46

frustrated46

Posted
  • Author
Posted

In addition, I know that the courts would consider an agreement signed in a pub, for example, would have cancellation rights, because the pub is not part of the negotiations. Well no one at cash converters was part of the negotiations on my agreement. I mean, that is what I would argue.

Frustrated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
frustrated46

frustrated46

Posted
  • Author
Posted

log book loans, from the internet advertisement, to a phone call to them, I talked to an employee, who said another employee would call me, then the underwriter called and asked me to meet him in a car park to discuss how it worked. When I got to the car park, without prior warning, he said, let's talk down the road, and he produced documents in the Cash Converters. He said it was because he needed somewhere I could sign the documents, and it was convenient. As far as I was aware CConverters was incidental. No document contains CConverters name, and they literally had nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
Posted
log book loans, from the internet advertisement, to a phone call to them, I talked to an employee, who said another employee would call me, then the underwriter called and asked me to meet him in a car park to discuss how it worked. When I got to the car park, without prior warning, he said, let's talk down the road, and he produced documents in the Cash Converters. He said it was because he needed somewhere I could sign the documents, and it was convenient. As far as I was aware CConverters was incidental. No document contains CConverters name, and they literally had nothing to do with it.

 

Well this certainly does shed different light on things.

 

Interesting!

Link to post
Share on other sites
dampriser

dampriser

Posted
Posted (edited)

Don't know if this helps, but LBL is advertised on the Cash Converters website Logbook Loans, unlock the money in your car and still drive it?

It certainly reads that Cash Converters are offering LBL as one of their services, and if you go in to one of their stores they will have LBL posters plastered everywhere, and staff wearing LBL teeshirts.

 

Sorry, just the found the agent locator tool on the LBL website which would indicate that Cash Converters are indeed agents of LBL.

http://www.logbookloans.co.uk/agent-locator/index.php

Edited by saintscouple
Link to post
Share on other sites
frustrated46

frustrated46

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Exactly! I think the purpose of "incidently" using a Cash Converter with almost every customer is a tenuous attempt to use a "premises" as per s67 and thereby deny customers cancellation rights. Because, frankly, had I had cancellation rights I would have used them.

 

As there would appear to be no purpose in using a CConverters premises, I am hoping that the court would see that this is an attempt by lbl to bypass giving consumers their statutory rights. And if the purpose of using CConverters is just that, them the court should conclude that is unfair and a manipulative use of s67 to the detriment of the customer.

 

I hope.

Frustrated

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
Posted
My reply above was to sequenci.

 

Saintcouple, I will look at that.

 

It's an interesting argument and certainly open to interpretation.

 

We have some very good CCA gurus where I work so I'm going to see what they make of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...