Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yee I mentioned after the new regulations. Depends if the amount off to date will take that threshold below £50k
    • In short you never communicate with a Debt Collector, they have no power here at all. The snotty letter is only used to respond to a properly worded Letter Before Claim. The only time you would be recommended to contact the PPC is to send the snotty letter. You do nothing but keep the tripe they send you unless you receive a letter before claim.
    • Probably to do with the Creditor accepting the reduced payments claim as part of the IVA. - Thats my guess anyway.  As for the mount outstanding... 60k is incredible and im pretty sure a DRO wouldnt cover that much even after the new legislation.    For you @Alfy - Please stay headstrong and stop worrying. My viewpoint on debt with debt collectors is simple. You are a figure on a spreadsheet loaded into a database for them to run a collection cycle through.  They dont care about emotions or your situation, they just care about paying off their shareholders and trying to turn a profit.  They use varying tactics to increase the pressure on you to the point where you will break. People then fall for this an either cave in to DCAs before doing their own due diligence on the debts that are purchased or turn to IVAs like you have.    They are better ways to handle this and Im glad you feel better after a good nights sleep - I hope you can keep it up. 
    • Good afternoon,    I am writing in reference to the retail dispute number ****, between myself and Newton Autos concerning the sale of a Toyota Avensis which has been found to have serious mechanical faults.    As explained previously the car was found to be faulty just six days after purchase. The car had numerous fault codes that appeared on the dash board and went into limp mode. This required assistance from the AA and this evidence has already been provided. The car continues to exhibit these faults and has been diagnosed as having faults with the fuel injectors which will require major mechanical investigation and repairs.    Newton Autos did not make me aware of any faults upon purchase of the vehicle and sold it as being in good condition.    Newton Autos have also refused to honour their responsibilities under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 which requires them to refund the customer if the goods are found to be faulty and not fit for purpose within 30 days of purchase.    Newton Autos also refused to accept my rejection of the vehicle and refused to refund the car and accept the return of the vehicle.    It is clear to me that the car is not fit for purpose as these mechanical faults occurred so soon after purchase and have been shown to be present by both the AA and an independent mechanic.   Kind regards
  • 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 
        • 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

Lowell/Hampton Statutory Demand *** WON + COSTS ***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4770 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

to be fair

 

1.they did not say what thursday.(probably waiting for the the 29th of feb that falls on a thurday)

 

2.we know that they have no concept of time(12+2 was 14 when I was at school,lowell think its 44)so they probably do not know when the end of the week is.

 

3.either sent it to another that they owe.....lied ....or sent it to another cagger in error,enclosing it in a rush to return a "your debt is not statute barred as you made a attempted payment.boxing day 1961 at 11.46 pm letter"

 

possibly 4. they are learning from their spying on cag.that if you ignore for long enough they go away.

 

and 5.they simply can not pay their debt because their profits are down again and hope to drag it out till its statute barred.

 

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The Leeds Losers are pure fantasists. Andy B even believes he has a team of 'Licenced Field Agents':D

 

Ah, the LFAs; Licenced for F*** All !!!!! :lol:

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is bugging me now............ I know you can ramp the warrant of execution up a level to bailiffs that can enter corporate/company premises but buggered if I can find the thread I was thinking of ??

 

Hopefully by bumping this one cerb or 42 will take a look and advise, if you leave it to cc bailiff who have no power of entry it'll be returned unpaid :x

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you leave it to cc bailiff who have no power of entry it'll be returned unpaid :x

 

Gez

 

I see the trend already. I've already had 2 info slips from the Court saying the bailiff has tried to collect payment, but failed each time.

 

SAM, any luck with the media interest? It's time to go public. :x

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Cerberus. That is most interesting.

 

Consider it done, and scales well & truly tipped. ;)

 

And so it goes on.......

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here goes nothing.....

 

Dear Sirs

 

On August 6th 2009, in the Stockport County Court, under Deputy District Judge XXXXXXX, a Statutory Demand issued by you (the claimant) and served on me (the defendant), was set aside based on the evidence I presented, namely that you had failed to prove the alleged debt was mine, you failed to provide me or the court with a relevant Credit Card Agreement, and that the alleged debt, if mine, was clearly statute barred.

 

You were ordered to pay my litigant in person costs of £226 by August 24th 2009.

 

You failed to comply with said order referred to above.

 

On September 2nd 2009, a Warrant of Execution was issued by Stockport County Court, to be executed by Leeds County Court, in relation to non-payment of said costs.

 

You were contacted by Leeds County Court Bailiffs on Monday September 14th with regard to enforcement of the Warrant. Your claim was that funds would be deposited with Leeds County Court on Thursday September 17th.

 

You did not comply.

 

You were contacted by Leeds County Court Bailiffs a second time, and again you advised funds would be deposited with Leeds County Court the following day.

 

Again, you failed to comply.

 

The Court Bailiff has contacted you a third time, and you have advised them that a cheque has been issued and posted out directly to me.

 

This is yet to be verified, and I request you furnish me with proof of postage of the same.

 

On prima facie evidence, I wonder if you actually have a Director of Compliance, as clearly your company’s ability to do so is severely lacking.

 

Please be in no doubt that this debt will not go away and requires your immediate attention.

 

You must make contact with me at the earliest opportunity to discuss clearing the outstanding amount, which is currently £326.80.

 

Additionally, you have failed to furnish me with a copy of a valid and true Credit Card Agreement, pursuant to s.77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for which you were in receipt of a Postal Order to the value of £1.

 

As clearly you were unable to supply the goods ordered within the time permitted, the £1 fee now becomes returnable.

 

Accordingly, your outstanding debt to me is currently £327.80.

 

If payment is not received in cleared funds, into a nominated bank account as advised by me, and by close of banking business on Wednesday, September 30th 2009, be on notice that I will be applying for a Garnishee Order, allowing me to claim the aforementioned sum directly from your accounts in payment of your outstanding debt, plus any additional costs incurred whilst submitting the Order.

 

Yours sincerely

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor old Jimmy C. Do you not think he has enough problems at the minute. He spends more than that with his cronies at ********** Golf Club.

 

Treble all round.

 

I dont see why the Balliffs just dont go round to the threat Centre and demand the dosh unless of course they are the same balliffs that Lowells buddies Muck Hall have been threatening to send round to peoples houses within the hour.

 

Im surprised also that the Lowells apologists havent been on here berating you for daring to take money off the former Yorkshire Young Businessman of the year

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Sam, sent to JC.

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Useful info- keep at them.

 

I will be filing my own claim against Lowells in the next few days.

 

(Credit card charges and interest levied thereon, which they bought the right to repay me when they were assigned the account from Sharkleys)

 

Stiffed again, Lowells- by Barclays, they saw YOU coming, didnt they! ;)

Edited by noomill060
Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost feel sorry for lowlifes, NOT!!! :D

 

Really? I don't feel sorry for them at all...

 

There an upside to not paying the warrant, being that you can go straight in with a winding up petition regardless of the amount which might be fun.

 

Maybe a few Lowell haters would like to chip in with the court fee and deposit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I don't feel sorry for them at all...

 

There an upside to not paying the warrant, being that you can go straight in with a winding up petition regardless of the amount which might be fun.

 

Maybe a few Lowell haters would like to chip in with the court fee and deposit.

 

I've got a couple of quid I was saving for a rainy day........please do tell when its time to get that brolly out :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,

 

Mr Postman called today ( I think he's getting tired of me singing at him every morning - X-factor I am NOT)

 

 

I have a letter from Leeds County Court

 

To Mr HighFly

 

In respect of a warrant issued in the Stockport County Court

 

A cheque for £326.80 has been received today. This amount will be forwarded to you after clearance of the cheque by the Court's bank.

 

I would like to hope this is the end of it, but there is the ongoing complaint to the OFT, and Experian are trying to identify when the last payments were made on these alleged accounts, in response to my claim that the dates and defaults on my credit file are false and were placed there fraudulently in Lowell's vexatious pursuit of statute barred debt.

 

It would be so much simpler, Mr Cornell, if you just removed the entries and the defaults from my file; please, let's close the book on this....

 

HF

[B]Nunquam redono spes Nunquam occulto evinco [/B] [SIZE="1"][COLOR="Red"][B]HighFly - 1 Lowell - 0 £5200 SD set aside + costs won HighFly -1 Wescott - 0 £4200 S. barred, removed from files[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...