Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. 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 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 reading 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. 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 that 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 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.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • 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

Wescot RBSicon (Mint) card CCA reply


mcg68
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5335 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

Hi,

I requested a CCA from Wescot way back in January, relating to an RBS (Mint) card I had. Their reply came back dated 23rd January 2009 saying that their client RBS has requested that I write to them with a £1 payment and ask for the CCA under section 77/78.... I presume of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Well I didnt ever do that and I have not written back to Wescot since then either but they are still chasing the debt.

Can someone advise. Should they have requested the CCA from RBS when I requested it or is it my responsibility to request it from them? Did they miss the 30 day cut off time by sending me this reply??

If not, should I just now send the request directly to RBS or write again to Wescot?

HELP!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

usual tricks by wescot

if they are chasing you, they must have a valid CCA.

 

they have failed your CCA request [12+2 WORKING days]

 

fire off the failed to comply to CCA request letter.

 

then ignore them.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on - if they 'must have a valid CCA', then why not send me it when I requested it. It sounds to me like they don't have it and didnt want the responsibility of having to request it from RBS.

Even though 6 months have passed can you please advise if I should send the Failed to comply to CCA request letter - or re-request the CCA.

Thanks,

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter I sent in January (found on this site I think) states....

 

"If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor."

So, they should not have passed this back to me should they???

Appreciate the support I am getting in these forums. Wish I had taken my head out the sand a couple of years ago and used the advice on these forums rather than losing all the sleep I lost the past few years!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter I sent in January (found on this site I think) states....

 

"If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor."

 

So, they should not have passed this back to me should they???

 

Appreciate the support I am getting in these forums. Wish I had taken my head out the sand a couple of years ago and used the advice on these forums rather than losing all the sleep I lost the past few years!

 

Yep, you are absolutely correct, they have no right passing it back to you and the regs state they must pass it on to the original creditor or debt owner not you.

 

They know this, they just dont want the bother/hassle doing it themselves.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on - if they 'must have a valid CCA', then why not send me it when I requested it. It sounds to me like they don't have it and didnt want the responsibility of having to request it from RBS.

 

Even though 6 months have passed can you please advise if I should send the Failed to comply to CCA request letter - or re-request the CCA.

 

Thanks,

Mick

 

 

 

fire off the failure to supply.

they have had their change.

 

this is a typical trick of wescots

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice. Could I ask one of you more experienced in dealing with these kind of people, to cast your eye over the letter below which I intend to send today. I am worried that if I am wrong in the legal assumption that they have failed to comply, then they might come after me more ruthlessly after I send this.

 

Letter........

 

Account In Dispute

Wescot Debt Number : xx/xxxxxxxx

Client Reference : xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sir/Madam

DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER - LITIGATION ADVICE

Thank you for your letter dated 23rd January 2009, the contents of which have been noted.

You have failed to respond to my legal request to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account.

On the 13th January 2009 I wrote to you requesting a copy of the credit agreement and other information under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Sections 77-79).

To date you have failed to comply with these requests other than your letter dated 23rd January 2009 advising that I should write to your client to request the CCA agreement. This is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act which states : “If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor.

These documents I requested should be readily available as proof of your legal right to collect this account under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

In my letter of the 13th January 2009 I made a formal request for a copy of the signed, executed credit agreement for the above account under section 77(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition a full statement of this account should have been sent to me detailing all debits and credits to the account.

Furthermore, you are aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a credit agreement to be carried out before your client enters into a default situation.

This period has expired.

As you are no doubt aware section 77(6) states:

If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)

(a) He is not entitled , while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law.

You have failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, failed to send a full statement of the account and failed to provide any of the documentation requested.

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS. Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment.

Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect. This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data.

It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

Should you not respond within 14 days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY Action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

• You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any

payment to you.

• You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

• You may not pass the account to a third party.

• You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit

reference agency.

• You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit. You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint.

I require that ALL future and subsequent communications in relation to this account are in writing ONLY. Do not telephone me again - remove any telephone numbers you hold for me from your systems.

Further telephone calls will be in breach of the Office of Fair Trading guidelines. If you continue with them after the receipt of this letter an official complaint, together with a log recording the times and frequency of the calls will be passed both to that office and to the Trading Standards office.

This type of debt collection method is contrary to the ‘Administration of Justice Act 1970’ in that it is intended to cause alarm and distress to the recipient. Your methods will not be tolerated. A formal complaint, containing copies of all correspondence including yours, has now been submitted to the relevant authorities. This will be relevant to questions of your fitness to hold a licence under the Consumer Credit Act, whether or not it results in a prosecution.

Take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone say whether this is acceptable to send. I need to post shortly.

 

Thanks.

 

Ok, I've given it a quick once over... you need to change this bit..

 

To date you have failed to comply with these requests other than your letter dated 23rd January 2009 advising that I should write to your client to request the CCA agreement. This is in breach of the Consumer Credit Act as If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor.

 

The CCA1974 doesnt contain that statement in quotes, it needs to be referred to rather than quoted in my opinion.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"they might come after me more ruthlessly after I send this."

 

they have NO LEGAL POWERS anyhow, so i wouldn't be worried on this front.

 

TBH: i'd just totally ignore them or the next bunch on the list that do the same.

 

fire it off then get on with your life

 

there is NOTHING these phishing chancers can do to you.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

I would ignore them but it would be more fun getting them to scurry about looking for CCA's that they can't find. AND, more importantly I want to try and get my credit rating fixed so I dont know how ignoring them affects that so I'll see what they say.

I'll let you know what they come back with.

Cheers !

M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today got a letter back from Wescot which says....

 

"Instructions have been received from our client to withdraw the account therefore, you should receive no further contact from Wescot in relation to this matter."

 

However I have now got Regal Credit Sservices chasing me for the same debt so can anyone advise whether I should send them the same CCA request? I have written to them advising that the account is in dispute with Wescot but don't know if this affects their attempts to recover the debt.

 

Can anyone advise what I should do as a next step.

 

Thanks

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd stop playing their games.

 

the more you reply, the more phishing letters you will get.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get fed up with all the phone calls then write to RBS Requesting a CCA. chances are they sold the debt to wescott and would have then deleted any data including CCA or they only have the signed agreement but not the term's and conditions i.e one side of the original CCA stored on computer, when the terms were on the back of the same piece of paper you original signed which would make the debt automatically unenforcable.

 

Basically go straight to the creditor and if they cant produce the CCA, which i doubt they still have, then throw the non complience letter at them. and request they get the DCA of your back, as they will then be acting unlawfully without any doubt.

 

Also am sure i read somewhere that when creditor is in default, that it can not be sold or past on to another company. please correct me if am wrong.

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Always seek the advice of an insured qualified professional. All my legal and nonlegal knowledge comes from either here (CAG),my own personal research and experience and/or as the result of necessity as an Employer and Businessman.

 

By using my advice in any form, you agreed to waive all rights to hold myself or any persons representing myself of any liability.

 

If you PM me, make sure to include a link to your thread as I don't give out advice in private. All PMs that are sent in missuse (including but not limited to phinishing, spam) of the PM application and/or PMs that are threatening or abusive will be reported to the Site Team and if necessary to the police and/or relevant Authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Regal Crudit,the ones with the big red scary letterheaded threatograms appear to be getting really desperate......

 

the tone of the latest missive seems to be fairly high up on the hysteria scale

 

it's very helpful that they send prepaid reply envelopes to send back to them....I had a lot of old rubbish to get rid of,so they might as well pay for disposing of it ;):D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...