Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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

ratio money


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4087 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

You are bound to get sniping at CMCs as they have put disorder into the collection system. I am a customer of one and the " creditors " are holding off collection process because there are so many flaws in their agreements or they have lost the original agreement.

 

The solicitors involved are getting to grips with this type of work and are going to make life very difficult in the future for the "creditors". As I see it this site is a valuable one but if 10,000 people suddenly decide to contest their agreements tomorrow followed by another 10,000 the day after and continuing on this basis would it cope with the situation?

 

The way forward is for professional companies and solicitors to develop

this market which is something the "creditors" and vested interests, or The Establishment, do not like contemplating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

As I see it this site is a valuable one but if 10,000 people suddenly decide to contest their agreements tomorrow followed by another 10,000 the day after and continuing on this basis would it cope with the situation?
As this site has 2,255,075 Registered Caggers I don't see why not.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting for a site team comment regarding large numbers requiring advice at any one time.

 

There does seem to be a place for good CMCs at a reasonable price as well as this site to me. However, are larger numbers of people contesting their agreements needed in order to change the situation in general?

 

The bank charges situation developed into large numbers and got the banking sector on the back foot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank charges situation developed into large numbers and got the banking sector on the back foot.
Yes and numerous claims companies developed & morphed into the likes of the Rankines hoping to make a fast buck. Now the OFT & the FSA et al are closing them down.
Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd have to assume that once a given number of CMC's start to earn a steady revenue stream on results rather than up-front fees things would settle in the market and those that were providing a quality service would show a leading role.

 

IMO the issue with CMC's receiving such bad press is because they are currently a fee paying service, this makes them easy prey for media and financial institutions.

 

Maybe in a couple of years we'll see them extend their services to faulty DN's etc.

 

Its a difficult subject, there is definitely a need for them but there is equally a need for them to be proficient and not allow themselves to fall into DCA practises by making false claims or misleading consumers.

 

Does seem a shame that the FSA don't put as much effort into closing down DCA's when they misbehave

 

If things progress we may yet see the same budgets set by CMC's as banks currently have for their legal departments putting the consumer on a level footing at long last.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an ongoing claim at the moment and I find the solicitor and cmc are often saying different things with the cmc being very gung ho and perhaps oversimplistic whilst the solicitors are very cautious.When i speak to the cmc they are like excited sales people who just talk over you when you question how long things will take.I also get the impression that the solicitor doesnt trust the cmc and is more concerned with protecting her own back than progressing the claim.Is this a common experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

An intersting observation Swizzly. I got into some difficulty when attempting to take on Natwest on my own. I gave in and paid out 295 to a CMC. A solicitor in Cardiff was appointed within about 6 weeks. I had a letter from them yesterday informing that they had instructed a barrister to draft court papers. The solicitor is confident about my chances of success but as you would expect is rather more reserved in her approach than the CMC. Im sure good CMCs have a role to play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sadler

Did your cmc provide an audit to the solicitor or was one provided later?

 

I might not get ATE insurance if there are any doubts over the quality of the audit and I might have to get a further report done

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Saddler/Swizzly

 

Would the £295.00 be a total incl ATE premium, or is the 'risk' aspect calculated pre litigation (audited) with possible further increases to premium?

 

Sorry if that sounds a daft question, not used CMC's before but remember reading somewhere that the premium is risk associated and can therefore increase if the sols are not confident of an out of court or ajudge that additional work will be involved. Either you agree an increase to premium or the balls dropped back in your court less an admin fee from your initial £295.00.

 

Got a biggy coming up with Natwest...... or at least I will have in about a years time if history is anything to go by. Could do with seeing some good results posted over the next few months to see how CMC's control costs/charges.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gezwee

 

The ate is a separate self funding arrangement which my solicitor has to get but the cmc said they had it ready approved.This turns out to be untrue as a barrister has to give a final thumbs up which they wont do if the audit is dodgy.

Looking at it myself even though the audits math might be questioned there are other issues anyway which should help my claim

 

I'm getting into this a bit now and seeing villainous tricks from both sides of the fence!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Swizzly

 

Pretty much what I thought tbh......... be ok if we could get an audit prior to parting with the initial fee.

 

Are you running a thread for yours on here so I could look in from time to time to see how things progress with them?

 

Maybe I've become paranoid about anybody wanting my money but I suppose nothing ventured nothing gained...... everything seems to have a financial risk these days and every buggers out to lighten your wallet by whatever means.

 

Very interested to see how things pan out, wish you the best of luck with yours.

 

Gezwee

Link to post
Share on other sites

My audit report was prepared by a firm of solicitors in the North. I was assured at Point of Sale ( and subsequently) that all cases highlighted by this firm as 'unfair' are insurable for ATE purposes, as the report is signed off by a rather eminent QC. I did have one other claim being handled by another solicitor instructed by the same CMC who wants to do it 'his own way' and doesnt want to rely on the audit report or the CMCs ATE, needless to say he is causing me endless problems. The CMC are aware of these issues and have said that they would be happy to transfer the case to their in-house solicitor who would be in a position to commence proceedings within a month. All-in-all I have to say I am happy with my CMC though I do question the ability of one particular firm of sols they have appointed. For those considering using a CMC, its no walk-in-the-park, be sure to do your research first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swizzly, my Natwest case is with the barrister as we speak. The ATE is a formality once he gives the go ahead. Ive spoken to the sol' again today who has told me that the cases come back in batches. They have already received positive responses from the barrister and expect mine to be no different as I have a 'clear' case. The methodology for the initial audit report is approved by the QC and an Oxford Uni Prof of Maths.

 

Swizzly are you saying that your CMC cases are not insurable? As I mentioned earlier I do have another case with another sol' who wants to do it his own way, ATE might be a problem if he doesn't swallow his pride and use the CMC's ATE and chambers. My CMC is clearly having a problem with panel solicitors who are averse to be being directed ( by the CMC) in how to proceed these claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Saddler

 

Thts the point apparently .The methodology is accepted but a variety of sols have issues with the data that is then inputted .My sol says that a few firms and insurers have concerns that the cmc dont want the audits examined too closely and actually getting the barrister to approve the individual audit is not a formality.

 

I will spk my sol and get back to you

Thanks Swizzly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Saddler

sol still insists that needs the barrister to sign off each individual case.The other thing is cmc keep saying different university this maths professor is supposed to be from you can never pin them down to give a straight answer.Mind you i dont know whether its that important if they tell a few fibs to get the sol moving:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Larry1234

Well babybear if that was directed at me then again i feel your probably spouting on about smoething you truly know nothing about, CMC's claims back thousands of unfair charges for clients, the unenforceable agreements are a far more complex subject which is why the process takes so long, saddenly people are far to worried about being ripped off or to feel there being treated unfairly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well babybear if that was directed at me then again i feel your probably spouting on about smoething you truly know nothing about, CMC's claims back thousands of unfair charges for clients, the unenforceable agreements are a far more complex subject which is why the process takes so long, saddenly people are far to worried about being ripped off or to feel there being treated unfairly

 

I'm not spouting C*** just speaking personally from one who knows that there is no need for CMCs only to make money. Everything you need to know about debt management is here FOC!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick point, most of your comment is complete jibberish mate, you clearly dont know what your talking about so wouldnt post on things you dont understand!! If you read the courts reports all the adverse credit history was removed and i could pull apart every other things you claim on there, i dont know if ther service is any good put what your preaching is miles off the mark!!!

 

Lol...... If Larrys comments are anything to go by and he/she/it is indeed employed by a competitor of Ratio you can understand the need for public forums.

 

Mate........ who wants to pay a CMC £295.00 to be called mate, guess customer service isnt a priority after lightening your wallet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...