Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Fluffystuff's OH & MBNA


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3962 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

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 1 month later...

Hi Vint et al,

 

Have received three letters ( whilst on hols) requesting payment of arrears from RMA ( Risk Management Alternatives).

Is template letter no.17 an appropriate response?

 

Many thanks once again.

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bemused letter next. Edit to suit your circumstances.

 

Ref Account xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear xxxxxxxxx,

 

I was somewhat bemused to receive your letter of xxxxxxxxx 2009, the content of which is noted. No debt to your company or client is acknowledged.

 

On xxxxxxxxxx 2009 I made a formal request to your client pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. MBNA have failed to comply within the statutory time limit, or at all. In addition, this alleged account was placed in dispute on the xxxxxxxxx 2009. It should not be necessary to have to remind you that the provisions of s.78(6) now apply. These letters are enclosed.

 

In the circumstances, your threat of legal action would appear to be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on Debt Collection and your attention is drawn to this guidance document.

Your attention is also drawn the ICO on Data protection, as passing details on to a third party while an account is in dispute is contrary to the Data Protection Act. I have previously issued letters to MBNA under s10 of this act. You may wish to refresh yourselves of the implications of ignoring the Data Protection Act.

Should you attempt litigation it will be vigorously defended and the failure to supply documentation under the CCA 1974 is a complete defence to any legal action and your actions will be considered vexatious and unlawful. The Court's attention will drawn to the above statutory breaches . Furthermore, I reserve the right to bring the conduct of your client to the Court when the issue of costs is being considered.

I would remind you that while this alleged account remains in dispute, that MBNA:

  • May not ask for payment against this account.
  • I am not obliged to offer any payment against this account.
  • Cannot register any data with a third party.
  • Cannot take any enforcement action, including registering Defaults.
  • Cannot pass the account on to a third party for collection.
  • Cannot sell the account.

I trust this out lines the situation and that you will take note of my comments, to avoid any further breaches of the Law, being committed by you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vint, as ever, thankyou. Letter duly edited and sent. :)

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all, quick update.

 

Received a very 'nice' letter from RMA informing us the account has been referred back to MBNA for further contemplation and asked us to allow them 28 days to do so! OK, fair enough.

 

Meanwhile, we had sent MBNA CPR request but this was returned by MBNA yesterday with a request for £1.

Poor loves, they obviously can't read or perhaps they are colourblind - the paragraph stating this was not a s78 request, was highlighted red afterall!:rolleyes:

So will be returning my request to them with a suggestion that they read it properly this time and perhaps I'd better use a different colour ink.

 

Hey ho.

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Update:

 

No response to CPR request, just repeated requests for payment of either the arrears or whole balance - depends which button they press I guess!:rolleyes:

Also received "Important Default Notification" - appears to be a notice of a notice as it does not give date to rectify or contain any other required terms! (Sorry, not able to scan at present.)

 

OPTIMA LEGAL

Received today, Notice of Legal Action, threatening charging order etc etc. Now I'm not phased by this as I know they are out of order but wonder if the 'bemused letter' is appropriate for now or if something a bit stronger is required??

 

Seems they are in breech of the Malacious Communications Act and a letter to the SRA would be in order.

 

Advice appreciated as always.

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

No response to CPR request, just repeated requests for payment of either the arrears or whole balance - depends which button they press I guess!:rolleyes:

Also received "Important Default Notification" - appears to be a notice of a notice as it does not give date to rectify or contain any other required terms! (Sorry, not able to scan at present.)

 

OPTIMA LEGAL

Received today, Notice of Legal Action, threatening charging order etc etc. Now I'm not phased by this as I know they are out of order but wonder if the 'bemused letter' is appropriate for now or if something a bit stronger is required??

 

Seems they are in breech of the Malacious Communications Act and a letter to the SRA would be in order.

 

Advice appreciated as always.

Hi Fluffystuff,

 

Yes bemused letter to Optima. These people are the pits.

 

Also as you say, complaint to SRA. There is a thread running on this subject

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Vint, all done! :-)

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recived a reply from Optima stating that I should have addressed my correspondance to their client, therefore my letter has been forwarded to MBNA for their comments. Can't wait. :p

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update:

 

Response from SRA regarding Optima - complaint dismissed, no grounds!!

That was a waste of a stamp then! :rolleyes:

 

Have still not received D/N or T/N but continued requests for payment of o/s balance!

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have now received letter direct from MBNA threatening charging order as they know we are homeowners! :rolleyes: Have they given up using Optima then !?

 

Do you think we should write accepting their termination (they ask for total balance) even though we have not receieved D/N or T/N ?

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they havent done a DN or a TN. Interestingly I am having this with Vanquis (well Cabot really because not only no DN or TN but they have sold it as well), but someone I have been trying to help with a case involving RBS has had the same thing with them - no DN or TN but straight off to court.

There is loads of stuff on this site about what to do about dodgy notices (or either type) but I am really struggling to find anything about the legal consequences of NO default or termination notice. Does any one out there have any ideas - or even direct me at where to look?

Thanks

SFU :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SFU,

 

I am assuming that by requesting repayment of the whole amount outstanding without issuing valid D/N, that they have unlawfullly rescinded the alleged contract.

Can anybody confirm,am I correct?

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Well, at long last we received a D/N and guess what, it's invalid for the usual reasons! Then today, well before the date to rectify expires, we receive a letter telling us the debt has been sold on!! :p

 

Unlawful recission me thinks?? :D

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now received letter from dlc confirming debt assigned to Hillesden Securities - that'll do nicely!

 

Unlawful recission letter off to MBNA today and a "I'm terribly sorry but you've bought a dud!" one to dlc!!! :p

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Dlc still sending threatening payment demands - I've given up responding as they obviously don't or can't read them!

There's only so many ways of explaining what "you've bought a dud" means!!

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Received letter from Dlc yesterday in response to our recent request for information - have no idea what they're talking about!!

 

Anyway, here's the thing, they enclosed spreadsheets of transactions supposedly on OH's account from 2007-2010, whilst the a/c number quoted is OH's, the transactions are most definately not - none of them!!

 

Simple cock-up or something that needs looking into?

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello 'angel no.2', good to hear from you!

 

Yes, that's what I thought - just needed someone to tell me so! :-) xx

Notwithstanding the fact that I sometimes ramble and I'm such a worrier, all postings are made with the best intent and entirely without prejudice.

You are welcome to use any information you may find here entirely at your own risk. Please do not hold it against me! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi Fluffystuff

 

How are you doing.

 

Where did you see it is a problem for them if they assign it before the DN date has expired. I am unclear about the implications of that.

 

Good Luck

 

Pedross

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...