Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. 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 and 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 leading 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. If it's good for them it's bad for you. 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 but 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's 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
  • 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

County Court Claims


Jamesx81x
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5328 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 am going to issue a claim against a creditor for the removal of a default notice on my credit file as i am fed up of hitting a wall every time i talk to them.

 

Would it be the Form N244 i used to do this?

 

Thanks

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

As there is no debt to answer, they hold no copy of the alleged agreement and no copy of the default notice they have placed on my file.

 

After requesting they substantiate their claim with evidence they sent me a copy of a an application filled in by themselves and a copy of a default notice.

 

Furthermore in a letter sent by themselves they stated even if they did not receive a copy of the signed agreement by myself they can still make an entry on my file. What planet they on?

 

Thanks

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

As there is no debt to answer, they hold no copy of the alleged agreement and no copy of the default notice they have placed on my file.

 

After requesting they substantiate their claim with evidence they sent me a copy of a an application filled in by themselves and a copy of a default notice.

 

Furthermore in a letter sent by themselves they stated even if they did not receive a copy of the signed agreement by myself they can still make an entry on my file. What planet they on?

 

All that means is that the debt is unenforceable, it does not mean there is no debt to answer to or that the debt no longer exists.

 

Did you borrow the money? Have you made payments on this debt? Why did you stop making payments? These are questions a judge is likely to ask you. How are you going to answer them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy by no debt to answer i mean i never received goods from this company.

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are not claiming any money then this is a straight part 8 claim which is started using form N208 http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/GetForms.do

 

I think that the fee for starting this claim is £150 which you will get back when you win. there are no default judgments. there ha to be a hearing - even if they do not respond by the deadline for filing a defence.

 

If you have all of your evidence then the case should be clear cut and the other side may even focus themselves and try to settle before the hearing. Your action will be under the Data Protection act and you can claim compensation of you have suffered damage, loss or stress

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you order goods?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No i did not order anything from them but they are saying i did, yet they hold no evidence to suggest otherwise. No monies are been claimed i just want the default off my file.

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

On what grounds can i claim compensation and how to do you work out how much to claim?

 

It has caused me stress as my current employment requires financial vetting and this default along with a few for bank charges has flagged up on a recent vet and now they are digging deeper.

Edited by Jamesx81x
spelling

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could give some more details.

 

No i did not order anything from them but they are saying i did, yet they hold no evidence to suggest otherwise. No monies are been claimed i just want the default off my file.
This doesn't really explain anything. Previously you mentioned an alleged agreement, then not ordering or receiving goods. You really need to give a full account of exactly what has happened, otherwise people can't advise you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

On checking my file i noticed the default from Studio.

 

After asking them about it they claimed it was for an outstanding debt for goods i had received and not paid for.

 

Advising them i had no debt with their company i then made a CCA request for a copy of the agreement they alleged existed and a copy of the default notice that would be required to make an entry on my file.

 

To no surprise they could not supply me with any relevant paperwork which i expected as there wasnt any to send me. Instead they sent me a copy of an application filled in by them and a standard copy of a default notice they said i would have received.

 

The bottom line is there is no debt or goods received from this company yet they continue to maintain there is an outstanding debt. The only thing i have ever received from them is a catalogue.

 

They continue to keep the default on my credit file with no legal right to do so and i want it removed.

 

Hope that clarifies the situation.

IVA Entry Removed

Nationwide Default Removed

Nationwide Joint Account Default Removed

Natwest Default Removed

Blackhorse Car Finance Court Claim - Won

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...