Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • HI DX Yes check it every month , after I reinstated the second DD I was checking every week. Also checked my bank statements and each payment has cleared. When responding to the court claim does it need to be in spefic terms ? Or laid out in a certain format? Or is it just a case of putting down in writing how I have expained it on CAG?
    • Come and engage with homelessness   Museum of Homelessness MUSEUMOFHOMELESSNESS.ORG The award-winning Museum of Homelessness (MoH) was founded in 2015 and is run by people with direct experience of homelessness. A very different approach. If you're in London you should go and see them
    • You have of course checked the car is now taxed and the £68 is stated against  the same reg?  If the tax for the same car did over lap, then I can't see you having an issue pleading not guilty Dx
    • The boundary wiill not be the yellow line.  Dx  
    • Afternoon all Looking for advice before I defend claim for car tax payment that the DVLA claim I owe £68 from an idemity claimback from my bank and unpaid tax  brief outline. Purchased car Jan 30th ,garage paid the tax for me after I gave them my card details  first payment £68 out in Feb 24  followed by payment of £31 from March due to end Jan 24 Checked one of my vehicle apps and about 7-10 days later car showing as untaxed? No reason why but it looks like DVLA cancelled it , this could be because I did not have the V5 and the gargae paid on my behalf but not sure did not receive a letter to say car was untaxed.  Fair enough I set up the tax again staight away in Feb 24  and first payment out Mar 31st , and each payment since has come out each month for £31 , this will end Feb/Mar 2025, slightly longer than the original tax set up, all good. I then claimed the £68 back from my bank as an indemity refund as obviously I had paid but DVLA had cancelled therefore it was a payment for nothing?  Last week recieved a SJP form dated 29th May stating that DVLA were claiming for unpaid tax and a false indemity claimback which of course is the £68. It also stated that I had received two previous letters offering me the oppotunity to pay that £68 but as I had not responded it was now a court claim that I must admit guilt for or defend. My post is held for weeks at a time from Royal Mail ( keepsafe) due to me receiving hospital tretament at weeks at a time that said I did not receive any previous letters from DVLA. I am happy to defend this and go to court but wondering what CAG members think? In summary I paid an initial amount of £68 and then a DD of £31 , tax cancelled  I set up a new DD at £31 a month all in the month of Feb 2024, I claimed the £68 back from my bank. DD has been coming out each month without issue and I have paperwork to show the breakdown for both DD setup's plus bank statements showing the payments coming out . The second DD set up has extended payments up to Feb/Mar 2025. DVLA claiming the £68 was ilegally claimed back despite the fact they cancelled the original DD for reasons unknown. Is this defendable ? I will post up documents including the original DD conformations 
  • 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

Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.


Blondie40
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4322 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 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told :)

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mean to be awkard but the OFT guidance thing was posted months ago and is not just doing circles in the CMC areas. It was handed to me on the school playground by a hoddie. How they know who i am and how they know it would interest me is amazingas i NEVER talk CAG on school premises.

 

lol :D

 

you may be talking about something else, as the OFT draft was only put together in the last few weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told :)

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G

 

The barrister arguing the case in favour of reconstitution is none other than the grand fellow who fought the bank charges for the crooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A link to the original? What link would that be, the missing link presumably.

 

This is retrospective legislation, if true. The original Act makes it quite clear what the lender must have, a valid DN and a signed agreement, containing all the prescribed terms, on a single document. Nowhere does it say, if the lender cannot produce these he can 'link' to them in a document he has just cut'n'pasted on his MacBook!

 

I'm sorry but the legislation was available for lenders to refer to, and implement, at the time every agreement now in dispute was issued. Whose responsibility is it if credit was granted via improperly executed documents?

 

a) The multimillion pound financial institutions, with armies of lawyers at their disposal who would have ratified these agreements

b) the punter who signed the agreement sent to him/her

 

Rant over :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told :)

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

 

Quite So!

 

"The Creditor" cannot reconstruct a credit agreement, if they do not hold the basis upon which the credit agreement was originally constructed.

 

In other words, houses cannot be built upon sand but upon rock;

if they are built on sand, they will fall down...!

Link to post
Share on other sites

...when the wind blew and the waves dashed against his house, it would fall. Look how the sea had washed the foundation away, and how the roof is falling in! And the people; see how they are fleeing to save their lives! And all this calamity because he built his house upon the sand...

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told :)

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

 

 

Let's just say that the Banks positively welcomed the OFTs draft guidance in court yesterday

 

 

Ok I'm confused... are we talking two different cases here?

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'm confused... are we talking two different cases here?

 

S.

 

Not sure what he is on about, but i have first hand contact with those IN court, and i can assure you the lenders were not pleased with the OFT's submissions.

 

This is a cast iron fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...when the wind blew and the waves dashed against his house, it would fall. Look how the sea had washed the foundation away, and how the roof is falling in! And the people; see how they are fleeing to save their lives! And all this calamity because he built his house upon the sand...

 

AC

Jesus must have lived on the Isle of Wight.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'm confused... are we talking two different cases here?

 

S.

 

No my comment referred to the banks view before the oft barrister Steve Neville addressed the court on. They definitely weren't so happy afterwards . The banks position is that all they need to produce under s.78 is a copy of latest T's & C's

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G[/quote

And why are we seeing more and more decsions by judges going in favour of the creditors when they can't produce an agreement?:?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G[/quote

And why are we seeing more and more decsions by judges going in favour of the creditors when they can't produce an agreement?:?

care to elaborate on these cases?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No my comment referred to the banks view before the oft barrister Steve Neville addressed the court on. They definitely weren't so happy afterwards . The banks position is that all they need to produce under s.78 is a copy of latest T's & C's

 

On the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No my comment referred to the banks view before the oft barrister Steve Neville addressed the court on. They definitely weren't so happy afterwards . The banks position is that all they need to produce under s.78 is a copy of latest T's & C's

 

Thanks for clarification :-D

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what he is on about, but i have first hand contact with those IN court, and i can assure you the lenders were not pleased with the OFT's submissions.

 

Cheers Baggio.

 

This is a cast iron fact.

 

Hmm there are very few cast iron facts... 1.. youre born... 2.. you pay taxes 3 you die

 

Not even sure number 2 applies to everyone either :-)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

care to elaborate on these cases?

 

I've read 2 recent cases on here where there was no agreement produced and 1 I read yesterday where there was neither an agreement or DN the creditor admitted as much to the court and it made no difference to the outcome. I'm sure I've got that right I'll have a look and find them if I can :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've read 2 recent cases on here where there was no agreement produced and 1 I read yesterday where there was neither an agreement or DN the creditor admitted as much to the court and it made no difference to the outcome. I'm sure I've got that right I'll have a look and find them if I can :confused:

 

Sorry meant to say they couldn't produce the documents,not that they said they never had any!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...