Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Everyone, hope you are all keeping well in this strange new era.   On the 17th Sept, my friend booked a delivery to send a parcel to the USA, a vintage sewing machine. The collection and delivery was booked through MyParcelDeliver.Com, and UPS was the chosen courier. They collected it about four days later.   He paid for additional insurance along with the transportation of the item, to the tune of £128.75.   He packaged the parcel very well, packed with bubble wrap and paper and also styrofoam so that the sewing machine was safe in the box. He placed some plastic wrap over this, and he then sealed the box with tape. He videoed this for the buyer, so she could see how well he had packed the item because they were both concerned about the package being well protected.   The item arrived in the USA a few days later. The buyer instantly notified my friend that the parcel packaging was damaged, showing stress from water and general mishandling, and the item was also damaged in various parts, mainly the casing and the base.   He complained to MyParcelDelivery.Com on the1st October, they responded with 'You need to contact UPS...', which he did and also the buyer contacted them and got a response on the 2nd October.   UPS informed the buyer they would like to come and take a look at the packaging and the item, and this is the last she heard from them, she has called them several times, and always they say someone will call tomorrow and no one calls. She called my friend to ask if he could call them too and chase them up, he is Italian, and though he speaks English generally well, he asked me to talk with them on his behalf because he felt they were not listening to him or that he was missing something.   I spoke with them on the 26th October, they said they had sent my friend an email about this, we checked all of his emails, junk/spam too. There is nothing in there, I asked them to resend it, but nothing has appeared despite them saying they have sent it, we know they have the correct email address because they sent a message on the 2nd confirming they are looking into the claim of a damaged package, they also said they were planning on calling the seller 'again' on the 27th, which of course never happened, which she confirmed with me on the evening of the 27th.   Now it would seem to me that MyParcelDelivery is trying to say it has nothing to do with them, despite the booking being made through them, UPS US are pretending they are doing something but have so far done nothing, and we have heard Zilch from UPS UK.   I would like, if possible, some guidance on how to go about getting this resolved because this is just not right, the agent/courier have had their money, but the seller and buyer have been the victims of poor service and damaged goods.   If anyone could point us in the right direction on how to tackle this and get some redress for this, then I would be most grateful.   Thanks and kind regards   Mr B                 pox.pdf
    • From December, NS&I is phasing out posting warrants - a type of cheque - to winners. It instead wants bondholders to provide bank details so it can pay the money into their account. View the full article
    • Hi. As you can probably presume by the time this has been posted, I am annoyed. Long story cut short is we bought a new build, got a professional snagging company to come in and make a list of things that needed doing and am now still in the process of liaising with painters / electricans, etc. There has been significant disruption with arranging to be in to help guide the various workmen, etc, let alone the complexities of Covid to deal with as well as having two small children. Tonight we were up until quite late having to prepare things for a painter to come tomorrow to fix all the awful painting and marks on walls / poor finishes, etc. This has (and has had over the last few weeks) had a knock on effect with being tired, work being affected, let alone sooooo much time wasted on discussing the various elements with the developer (who hasn't argued with any of the painting, poor electrics, etc that has to be done). My question is has anyone ever claimed redress for all the wasted hours that have to be spent on doing things like this because a developer rushed to get a house ready on time?
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3001 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No this is just the propaganda from RBS. Have a look at the thread on Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
No this is just the propaganda from RBS. Have a look at the thread on Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice.

 

 

Times are quoting Ultimate Law again- Daniella Lipsynch- what is her agenda I just can't figure it out.

She runs a company which allegedly trains lawyers in consumer law so they can act for clients to write off debts and then keeps rubbishing the process.wtf is that all about :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manchester Cases

There is going to be a preliminary hearing in the week beginning 30 November to determine several legal principles. 13 cases have been chosen. All other cases are stayed pending hearing. Trial window in March 2010.

 

HHJ Waksman has said that he does not consider himself bound by the McGuff case as he is sitting in the Mercantile court.

LIBM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that HHJ Waksman sat in the Administrative Court in Manchester?

 

The Mercantile Court and the Commercial Court are both part of the High Court. I believe the Mercantile Court can sit in Manchester and has its own section of the CPR. The Commercial Court hears more comlpex commercial transactions and again has its own part of the CPR. So to that extent there is some separation.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been missing in action on this one (crap at work) so lost the thread (ha!).

 

Has their been any further developments, notice from LIBM's post about preliminary hearings. Has is been established yet what these particulars cases are dealing with.

 

B40

Link to post
Share on other sites
Been missing in action on this one (crap at work) so lost the thread (ha!).

 

Has their been any further developments, notice from LIBM's post about preliminary hearings. Has is been established yet what these particulars cases are dealing with.

 

B40

 

Daily Express | YourMoney :: Consumers set to gain from debt cases

Link to post
Share on other sites

We propose that the hearing listed for ******2009 be vacated and that the claim be stayed for a period of two months (*******2009). We consider that a stay would be prudent in light of the numberous test cases currently progressing in the Mercantile Court in Manchester and which are due to be heard before *******QC on *******2009

 

The test cases deal with a number of issues relevant to our client's claim, including :

1. Wheather a copy of agreement given under section 78(1) must have the quality of a photocopy or may the copy be a reproduction;

2. Whether a creditors breach of section 78(1) gives rise to an unfair relationship;

3. Whether, if there is a breach of section 78(1), a declaration to that effect is appropriate;

4. Whether the document signed by the debtor contains the prescribed terms if they are on a separate sheet attached to or supplied with the piece of paper signed by the debtor; and

5. Whether a failure to show that there was a document signed by the debtor containing the prescribed terms of itself give rise to an unfair relationship.

 

Does anyone have any further info on the Manchester Cases, the above is from ssshooter's post on another thread, any ideas on what the several legal principles are to be determined as mentioned by letitbeme in post 182.

 

OllieH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, my posts have been reinstated but the thread has now been closed.

 

It might be worth bearing in mind that, if one becomes embroiled in slanging matches, this will be the result!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baggio.

 

My case is up for a case managmen conferance on 18th Nov, the

Solicitor defending my case is actively involved with the Manchester test case’s, so will update this thread when the relevant unenforceable points eventually get to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Baggio.

 

My case is up for a case managmen conferance on 18th Nov, the

Solicitor defending my case is actively involved with the Manchester test case’s, so will update this thread when the relevant unenforceable points eventually get to court.

 

good stuff, i am meeting quite an eminent barrister within the whole consumer credit law arena this coming week, and will be picking his brains re: mcduff and future test cases.

 

will report back here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Take a look at this,very interesting

 

Reported this morning on BBC

 

Court lets woman off £8,000 loan

By Ian Pollock

Personal finance reporter, BBC News

 

 

The obligation to repay many consumer loans may be undermined

A decision by a county court Judge could mean thousands of borrowers being able to renege on their debts.

Judge Jacqueline Smart at South Shields county court has decided that the MBNA credit card company cannot demand the repayment of a customer's debt.

It tried to force Lynne Thorius to repay the £8,000 she owed on her card.

But the Judge decided there had been an unfair relationship between Ms Thorius and MBNA because of the way she had been sold payment protection insurance.

'Massive ramifications'

Ms Thorius' case was pursued on her behalf by a claims management firm Cartal Client Review, based in Manchester, and the law firm Consumer Credit Litigation Solicitors.

Carl Wright of Cartal Client Review, claimed the court decision was a landmark judgement.

"This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country," he said.

But MBNA downplayed the importance of the court decision.

"The judgement went against MBNA for a number of reasons," a spokeswoman said.

"In principle, because the deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases," she explained.

"The case is a county court case and each case is decided on its own merits and on the factual circumstances of each case. This does not set any legal precedent," said MBNA.

'Secret commission'

The credit card in question was branded with the logo of Sunderland football club and was sold to Ms Thorius in the club's shop in 2002.

The PPI policy was sold to her at the same time, to pay off her account if she fell ill or was made redundant.

But, critically, she had not been told that MBNA would be receiving regular commission payments from the insurance provider ITT London & Edinburgh, a subsidiary of the Aviva insurance group.

Judge Smart agreed with the argument of Ms Thorius's barrister, Paul Brant, that this "secret" commission meant the credit card deal was unfair and therefore in breach the Consumer Credit Act.

This point could potentially undermine many other agreements where PPI has been sold by the lender alongside a loan.

These include car finance deals, other personal loans and even mortgages.

"This practice is believed to be widespread and formed part of the Competition Commission's decision to prohibit the co-sale of PPI with credit in its report published on 29/1/09," Mr Brant noted.

"This point is likely to affect many thousands of individuals within England and Wales," he added.

Repayments

Judge Smart also agreed that the debt on Ms Thorius's credit card was unenforceable because the card company could not provide a copy of the original loan agreement, which is also required by the Consumer Credit Act.

MBNA's claim for the repayment of the outstanding money on the card was rejected.

And the Judge ordered the company either to repay Ms Thorius's PPI premiums and interest, or the value of the commissions it had received which so far has been undisclosed.

The PPI premiums, which rose each month as the credit card debts increased, amounted to £2,500 over the time the card had been in use.

Controversial

The claims management industry which has emerged in the past few years has been highly controversial.

Many firms advertise in newspapers and on television, encouraging people to come forward to write off their debts.

This year the authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), Ministry of Justice (which regulates claims management firms) and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, have warned firms not to make exaggerated claims about their ability to get debts written off because of apparent technical errors in the lenders' paperwork.

Since April 2007 more than 100 such firms, or those advertising for people to pursue personal injury claims, have been shut down by the OFT.

But the South Shields ruling appears to open up a new and genuine line of attack for claims firms.

"We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity," said Mr Wright.

MBNA applied for leave to appeal, which was rejected, but it may now apply directly to a higher court for permission to appeal.

Only when higher courts have decided the issue will the legal ramifications, and the effects on lender and borrowers, be clear.

 

Very interesting information and well worth looking into.

 

As discussed elsewhere and recommended by the Ministry of Justice everyone should take advice before paying a CMC to take on their case

 

]cartelclientreview.co.uk

 

 

Any football fans out there good idea to post this on the Sunderland football fans website and the liverpool Man utd nEWCASTLE etc etc

 

 

in fact all the affiliated front names that MBNA ARE BEHIND !!!!!

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...