Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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
  • 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 4276 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

right, i am led to believe that one of the cases at the comm court in london is going in an extremely positve manner for "our side" i.e the consumer side

 

i have to be careful in what info i give, but the agreement in question is most definately totally flawed with 3 prescribed term breaches.

 

the bank are again trying to use the defence of reporting to cras as not enforcement, but the arguments put forward by our side are destroying them and it seems 99% certain that the ruling will confirm that mcduff case was just that... a duff

 

and that if a lender is in default and then produces a flawed agreement or just terms and conditions... reporting them to cras is enforcement as is selling the account to a 3rd party.

 

stick that in your twisted mcduff case and smoke it.

 

you, and by you... i mean the Guests looking in... have always been on a loser.

 

and you have known it.

 

let the floodgates burst open with claims.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

right, i am led to believe that one of the cases at the comm court in london is going in an extremely positve manner for "our side" i.e the consumer side

 

i have to be careful in what info i give, but the agreement in question is most definately totally flawed with 3 prescribed term breaches.

 

the bank are again trying to use the defence of reporting to cras as not enforcement, but the arguments put forward by our side are destroying them and it seems 99% certain that the ruling will confirm that mcduff case was just that... a duff

 

and that if a lender is in default and then produces a flawed agreement or just terms and conditions... reporting them to cras is enforcement as is selling the account to a 3rd party.

 

stick that in your twisted mcduff case and smoke it.

 

you, and by you... i mean the Guests looking in... have always been on a loser.

 

and you have known it.

 

let the floodgates burst open with claims.

 

Baggio

 

Many thanks for your update, I can understand the need to be careful at this stage.

 

B40

Link to post
Share on other sites

right, i am led to believe that one of the cases at the comm court in london is going in an extremely positve manner for "our side" i.e the consumer side

 

i have to be careful in what info i give, but the agreement in question is most definately totally flawed with 3 prescribed term breaches.

 

the bank are again trying to use the defence of reporting to cras as not enforcement, but the arguments put forward by our side are destroying them and it seems 99% certain that the ruling will confirm that mcduff case was just that... a duff

 

and that if a lender is in default and then produces a flawed agreement or just terms and conditions... reporting them to cras is enforcement as is selling the account to a 3rd party.

 

stick that in your twisted mcduff case and smoke it.

 

you, and by you... i mean the Guests looking in... have always been on a loser.

 

and you have known it.

 

let the floodgates burst open with claims.

 

Lets hope the Judge sees it that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets hope the Judge sees it that way.

 

if you catch a murderer... with dna evidence, the weapon, video evidence of the offence.... the judges can see whatever they want

 

not even the heaviest brown paper bag can shun the law of the land. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. There have never been any cases of the guilty walking free have there?:|

 

did i say that?

 

where the guilt is totally overriding.. i doubt it

 

miscarriages of justice due to a lack of real evidence are a different matter.

 

trust me, not even the largest brown paper bag will allow this to go against the consumer, the evidence and the LAW is overwhelmingly against the lenders on this occassion.

 

the mcduff case was a totally different matter, why cartel allowed that case to go forward is beyond most in the industry.

 

they done well to cover their connection to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

did i say that?

 

where the guilt is totally overriding.. i doubt it

 

miscarriages of justice due to a lack of real evidence are a different matter.

 

trust me, not even the largest brown paper bag will allow this to go against the consumer, the evidence and the LAW is overwhelmingly against the lenders on this occassion.

 

the mcduff case was a totally different matter, why cartel allowed that case to go forward is beyond most in the industry.

 

they done well to cover their connection to it.

 

OK Baggio, point taken. Keep us informed.:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the arguement submitted by the barrister in a case brought by some bank or other against a Mr Mitchell in the Leeds County Court and he was defended by CMC barrister who tried to argue that the fact that the agreement did not clearly state the credit limit rendered the agreement unenforceable.

Apparently Judge Langan reserved judgement yesterday but should hand it down in the next couple of weeks.

Whichever way it goes the other side is very likely to appeal but if the judgement is found to be against the lender it could have very significant implications

 

One of the prescribed terms within Schedule 6 of the Agreement Regulations is a term stating “the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or a statement that there is no credit limit”.It should be noted that the creditor has the option of choosing one of the three means of complying with the requirements of Schedule 6.In the present case the Claimant has most definitely not stated the credit limit within the credit agreement;it has not stated there is no credit limit.

That leaves only the option of stating”the manner in which the credit limit will be determined”.We are concerned therefore with the manner of determination.

It is submitted that the words” We set a credit limit and can change it.We will notify you of the limit and any changes” does not satisfy the requirements of Schedule 6.

The statement is meaningless in relation to how the credit limit will be set.

A determination is an ascertainment or fixing and the reference to “the manner” requires reference to some sort of methodology.

The claimant will no doubt respond that there are millions of credit agreements which use similar rubric and that the use of such phraseology has become an industry standard.But that misses the point .Parliament was quite specific in its requirements and as was found in Wilson v First County Trust there is no room fortolerance or deviation from the strict requirements of Schedule 6.If this case opens up floodgates then so be it.

What do the legal eagles on here think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

has anyone had any dealings with Cartal Client review as they are a CMC and have contacted me, and are telling me some very good news and I really don't know if it is too good to be true.

 

Something to do with this, perhaps?

 

Case Law Update - Rosling King Blog Archive Banking Update: September 2009

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more news about the London case?

btw you look the spitting image of Owen Hargreaves :)

lol

 

nothing new on the western front

 

its the end of this month that we get a number of rulings/updates

 

followed by the obvious appeals... tbf this could drag on for many many months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thank you angry vat for that important piece of information. I did not take out any ppi but my loan will be fought on the grounds of unfair relationship. I was given a loan whilst I was on Income Support and on anti-depressants. My OH was self employed with no accounts, so if he failed to make payments how the hell would I have been able to, when my lender and broker were fully aware that I would not be able to meet the payments, yet they still loaned both of us the money.

 

I am waiting for some one from Client Cartel Review to get back to me and confirm if I have a case or not. I will be expected to pay a fee of £495 which is refundable if my case does not succeed, but the information I gave to the solicitor yesterday shocked her and she said that it would be very unlikely that I would lose my case. She is going for unenforcebility and said my case is very very strong.

 

I ain't got a clue what's going to happen but she said that my case is more likely to be settled before court as the lender does not want to go to court or cause ay bad publicity. Lets see what happens hey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Fret,

 

 

I appreciate this is not on topic for this thread and using cmc's is frowned upon by many on here but I am using Cartel.

 

I can only give you my experience of them.

 

It sounds to me like you have had your visit from the Cartel Rep who sells you the process.

 

This is my first gripe. At that point I was informed the process would take approx 9-12 months. 12 months being the mortgage cases. I am now over 12 months and all I have had is questionnaires to fill out for 7 out of the 10 items I submitted with little or no feedback whatsoever on all but one of these case's to date.

I accept that in the early days there may have been a quicker turn around and as banks get wise to the systems it may add time. All they had to do was write to tell me and I would have been more patient however, not a word.

 

I then took the Cartel reps advice to put the cost of these claims on a card that would be paid off having been through their assessment procedure based on the likelihood of success.

 

Gripe two I am paying interest on that amount and have done so for over a year without an end in sight. My friend who put me in touch with Cartel in the first instance has had contact with them stating that although Cartel thought they had a case on two of his mortgages in fact they feel the case is not strong enough, even though it went for assessment. If this happens with the account I have placed the fees on I am in a position to have to pay it off having left it stood with interest for over a year.

 

As already mentioned I have had little feedback except for one case where they informed me that it was at the point of proceeding to court. However the solictors CCLS are awaiting for the outcome of a case due in court before proceeding. If I had not pushed for this information I would be still left in the dark. Even then the information provided was only just enough to keep me off the phone.

 

Mentioning the phone gripe 3, if you wish to speak to anyone regarding your cases you can phone them. After ending up leaving a recorded message with a promise of a call back you never receive one. I have done this numerous times with the same result. Nothing.

 

Gripe 4 questionnaires. You will get these through the post probably your second piece of contact with them since an acknowledgement letter you receive at the outset. Again previously mentioned but I still have not received anything at all for three items I submitted over a year ago. The questionnaires ask you to repeat information already provided or what is contained within the original documents. You will be doing the work for a company you have paid up front to employ and will be be claiming legal expenses at the back end from whichever credit company. In essence paid twice for work you have done for them.

 

Gripe 5,Lost documents. Fortunately I have scanned all the documents I have sent them. I was requested to pass onto them some original agreement documents which I did. Eight months later I was asked again for the same items. I pointed out to them that they had already been sent. To date I still do not know if they have been found after numerous phone calls many of which have gone unanswered. Considering the importance of such documents in a case based on their contents I am genuinely concerned.

 

So to summarise, if you want to use a company that makes promises of success to find out a year later it is not the case. Be left in the dark for months on end frustrated at the lack of contact from them or opportunity to speak to someone about the progress of something you have paid £500 in advance for then use Cartel.

 

Why am I still with them??( I can see you asking )

 

Because I have been committed to them for over a year now in the hope I get a result on at least one case to get my money back.

There may be other reputable CMC's to look at or use these guys to have a go yourself. Something I should have done however daunting it may seem.

Edited by BoristheBlade
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you angry vat for that important piece of information. I did not take out any ppi but my loan will be fought on the grounds of unfair relationship. I was given a loan whilst I was on Income Support and on anti-depressants. My OH was self employed with no accounts, so if he failed to make payments how the hell would I have been able to, when my lender and broker were fully aware that I would not be able to meet the payments, yet they still loaned both of us the money.

 

I am waiting for some one from Client Cartel Review to get back to me and confirm if I have a case or not. I will be expected to pay a fee of £495 which is refundable if my case does not succeed, but the information I gave to the solicitor yesterday shocked her and she said that it would be very unlikely that I would lose my case. She is going for unenforcebility and said my case is very very strong.

 

I ain't got a clue what's going to happen but she said that my case is more likely to be settled before court as the lender does not want to go to court or cause ay bad publicity. Lets see what happens hey

 

Thats interesting!

Who is/was the lender?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...