Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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

charging creditors for ignoring accounts in dispute!


henna
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5345 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

is there any reason why we shouldn't be charging creditors, in my case student loans, for failing to acknowledge that account is in serious dispute? After cca request, student loans sent me illegible and unenforceable contracts. I told them that it was obvious they were completely illegible especially a whole seperate page with the terms and conditions. They then sent me two more copies of the illegible contracts then a copy of a blank application form. Admission that the contracts are completely illegible. These contracts are from 91 & 92. They are ignoring account is in dispute and now in serious dispute. Keep passing it to smith and lawson who threaten court proceedings over £255 of charges for letters and lost deferrment forms and keep trying to also enforce this contract. Any reason why i shouldn't tell them that if they keep breaching the cca 1974 by ignoring the account is in dispute i shouldn't send them another letter reminding them of their position and charging them £50 per time until they acknowledge and settle the dispute and also charge them for continuing to pass my account to a third party while in default and without my consent? I don't see any reason why if my husband was allowed to sign a contract with them with their terms and conditions why he can't do the same? And my understanding is he doesn't need signed consent... Only tacit consent by acquiescence. They break the t and c he provides and they don't object to his t and c laid out, he charges them for breaching the t and c. No, this is not me trying to wiggle out of debt in the past 6 months have paid off my small credit card debt, settled all other charges disputes, cancelled all my credit cards and now live debt free, bill free bar moby phone bill and mortgage free. Student loans are dirty and this purely down to refusing to pay on principle and on perfectly legal grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Advise them you wish to make an official complaint and ask for their complaint procedures - when you have exhausted their complaints procedure to no satisfaction, they must advise you of their governing body so that you can seek further redress if you wish to.

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

well, i don't have a complaint as such. I am trying to resolve a dispute with my account. Frankly, i cannot see why their complaint procedure is my only path of redress. I accept that i have a contract with them however, they are failing to meet their obligations under the contract. Why should only one party be able to penalise for not meeting obligations? In my view, they are commiting an offence under the cca 1974 by failing to produce a legible agreement, i require a review of the agreement as i know it contains a clause dealing with age which will affect me soon. They are also in breach of the dpa 1998 by passing on my data to a third party without my consent. And in breach of the cca 1974 by trying to enforce an agreement via a third party whilst they are in default. I've explained this to them and sent them a notice along with my fee schedule. Everytime they try to enforce the agreement whilst still in default i send them a notice reminding them of the position and send them a bill for £50. Everytime smith and lawson contact me trying to enforce the agreement whilst student loans are still in default i send student loans another notice reminding them of the position and bill them for £100. It is me saying i would appreciate them fulfilling their obligations of their contract before we can resolve the rest of the account. These are reasonable requests. They have written me a two page letter saying how they 'feel' they have met their obligations under the cca 1974 and have not contested my terms and conditions and fee schedule. Therefore, they have now acquiesed to my terms and are bound by them. It is my understanding in scots law that contracts can be made and enforced by acquiescence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jsut that if no acknowlegement of the old style loans can become statute barred.

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Students - The Consumer Forums

 

you may find more info on this forum

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will be please to learn that the SLC's complaints proceedure is NOT the only way to resolve problems is that what they told you?

 

Her Majesty's Courts Service would be delighted to help you.

 

You can get the charges removed/paid back to you in exactly the same way as credit card charges. :)

 

I did- clicky on this link and follow the same steps as I did.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/students/78206-noomill-student-loan-company.html

 

If the "debt" they are bleating about is made of the letter charges, you will beat them very easily- dont forget to add say, £10 for each letter you've written (and will subsequently write to them) about this matter, to your eventual claim.

 

They wont go to Court to defend themselves either, they know they are in the wrong.

 

They will remove all the £20 letter charges once you have your boot on their throat.

 

To find out how, clicky the link above. Dont bother writing to them, arguing the toss again.

 

Just send them a 7 day letter before action, then file your claim.

 

You can use my Particulars if you like- they are in that thread. Just alter them to suit your own details. :-)

 

I am presuming you know the dates of all the letter charges?

Edited by noomill060
Link to post
Share on other sites

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

 

1. The Applicant hasan account xxxxxxxxxx("the Account") with the Respondent which was opened on or around January xxxx

 

2. During the period in which the Account has beenoperating, the Respondent debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Applicant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Applicant understands that the Respondent contends that the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Applicant.

 

3. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of claim.

 

4. The Applicant contends that:

 

a) The charges debited to the Account are punitive in nature and are intended to hold the Applicant in terroreum; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Respondent ; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Respondent in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Applicant; and are not intended to represent or be related to any alleged actual loss, but instead unduly enrich the Respondent which exercises the contractual term in respect of such charges with a view to profit.

 

b) The contractual provision that permits the Respondent to levy such charges is unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999), the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Common Law.

5) Accordingly the Applicant claims:

 

a) the removal of the amounts debited to the Account in respect of unlawful charges in the sum of £xxx.

 

 

b) Court costs;

 

c) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act 1984 as set out on the attached list of charges, or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

6). The Applicant asks the Court to order that the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent, Student Loans Company Limited, do write to the Applicant within 14 days, concurring that in levying these disproportionate charges, the Student Loans Company Limited erred in law and confirm that future arrears letters to all customers of the Student Loans Company Limited will be charged at no more than the actual cost to the Student Loans Company Limited, as required by Statute, Case law and consumer directives. (continued)

 

 

 

7). Alternatively, if the charges are a fee for a service, then they must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982).

 

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true

 

 

Signed:

 

 

 

Date:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...