Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here is my final draft: I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.   1.        The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date.   2.        I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment.   As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights.  This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information).  The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   3.        The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’.  The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents.   4.        Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018.   5.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020.   6.        Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicotors is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’   7.        I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’.   8.        The claimant relies upon and exhibits a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement.   It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HH Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’.   The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause.   9.        Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not try to mislead the court.   10.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024
    • Only trying to help.  Ain't being nasty.  Some
    • Hi folks, I've just found previous documentation. I thought it had gone missing. I'd forgotten that I did appeal it through POPLA but I can't find the thread on here that, I assume, I posted for help. Appeal letter is dated 27/10/2020 with a rejection. I genuinely had forgotten about this so apologies for misleading you. A lot has happened in the years since the ticket was issued. We closed down a couple of businesses and moved to the opposite end of the country to retire. The documents I have are scanned copies. I no longer have the originals. If there's anything you'd like to see, please let me know and I'll post them, although it probably won't be until tomorrow now, but I'll be looking in on this page tonight. Thank you for the responses so far :)
    • Hello! After emailing them I received this reply:   I have drafted the following, please would you be able to comment as to if you think it is correct/sufficient? "Thank you for your email.   Thanks you for confirming that the vehicle does not have these features as stated in the advertisement.    I am sure you are aware that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides the short term right to reject within 30 days. Statutory rights cannot be taken away from a consumer, and any attempt to do so is illegal.   Please can you advise how best to return the vehicle?" Thanks in advance!
    • I find that highly disrespectful Sir/Madam just so you know.
  • 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

Over the phone mis-selling


Swirly
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5206 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 don't know if this is the right forum to start with but it is related to sales of internet services. Here's my problem:

 

My mother rents out half her house as a holiday let. It's a completely seperate part of the house and has its own exit/entry door. For this I've designed a very simple website with its own domain name.

 

She recently received a call from Telecom Domains Ltd selling her a different domain name which would be redirected to the domain that is currently used for the website. For this she was charged £115. I know that this service is currently available for just under £7 (yes, £7!).

 

She's obviously a little miffed at being ripped off because she was sold it by the salesman using terms such as "top level domain" and "you'll get a ranking in Google", both of which terms I know are meaningless in terms of website popularity status. She also stated that she knew nothing about computers or the internet in general (she's mid-60s and a retired pensioner).

 

Unfortunately she allowed the salesman to bill her to the assumed trading name of the 'business' she runs, although she has not registered her income from the letting as a 'formal' business (Ltd, etc).

 

Obviously, this is totally exploitative and I've investigated how the distance selling regulations could be used to attempt to gain a refund but they only seem concerned with sales to comsumers, not traders (which I assume she has become since the invoice, etc went to the 'business').

 

Does she have a leg to stand upon?

 

I realise that this may be outside the remit of this particular forum but any advice or direction would be particularly appreciated.

 

Many thanks,

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

how did she pay?

if by CC do a chargeback

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldn't matter

give the CC a ring and ask about a chargeback

should work, i think the limit is 60days though

hth

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure if the "Distance selling regulations" apply. Maybe someone with more knowledge on that can post an opinion

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've gathered the DSR only apply to 'trader to consumer' transactions, not 'trader to trader'.

 

However, my mother paid by personal credit card and can't be sure that she didn't buy the domain name in a 'personal' manner.

 

It's true that the invoice and the domain registration are in different names though so it might be argued that it wasn't entirely clear who the seller was selling to; I'll have to clear that up with my mother.

 

What is clear is that she was totally conned by Telecom Domains Ltd and their despicable behaviour is one to be warned against.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

The exact same thing has just happened to my mother-in-law when she received a cold call from Telecom Domains Ltd

 

I wish I was with her at the time when she received the call from Telecom Domains Ltd. The sales guy was very very pushy and sold her 2 .co.uk domains totalling £200!!!!! My mother in law doesn't even know what a domain name is, let alone what its used for and why she needs a new one.

 

The way Telecom Domains Ltd sell their terrible service is by saying that they have some very good domains for sale which have just become available for sale eg. bedandbreakfastmanchester.co.uk etc. They say that these are premium domains which can't be purchased normally by people like you and me, and can only be purchased by domain companies like themselves and if they don't sell them to you, they will call the next person on their list who will definately buy them. This is just complete rubbish, as you can go to 123-reg.co.uk and pick up any .co.uk domain of your choice for £5.99 for 2 years!!

 

They simply prey on naive, computer illiterate people who just don't know any better. I don't don't how they can sleep at night.

 

Be warned and stay well away from Telecom Domains Ltd. If you want a domain, go to 123-reg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to know just how many other uninformed people that telecomdomains.co.uk have ripped off. Unfortunately I suspect that they prey upon the people who wouldn't browse internet forums such as the elderly and generally people who only have a passing interest in the internet.

 

They seem to rely upon conning people who will say yes to their high-pressure sales techniques which is an evil way to do business. I would put these people in the same class as a parasite which moves from host to host, killing each one with no sense of care.

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that they will automatically attempt to resubmit your domain name (in their name as agents) when the two years is up and you'll be billed again! However, if you have a right to the domain they've sold you then you can ask for it to be transferred to another registrar and stop them from doing this.

 

I detest these people since they are absolute thieves and shysters.

 

The following is their Nominet details:

 

Domain name:

telecomdomains.co.uk

 

Registrant:

Telecom Domains Ltd

 

Trading as:

Telecom Domains Ltd

 

Registrant type:

UK Limited Company, (Company number: 06415800)

 

Registrant's address:

1-2 Universal House

88-94 Wentworth Street

London

England

E17SA

United Kingdom

 

Registrar:

Fasthosts Internet Ltd [Tag = FASTHOSTS]

URL: Web and email hosting, domain names and dedicated servers - Fasthosts

 

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 30-Oct-2007

Renewal date: 30-Oct-2011

Last updated: 02-Dec-2009

 

Registration status:

Registered until renewal date.

 

Name servers:

ns1.servage.net

ns2.servage.net

ns3.servage.net

ns4.servage.net

And this is their registered info with Companies House:

 

 

Name & Registered Office:

TELECOM DOMAINS LIMITED

40 THOMAS STREET

LLANELLI

CARMS

SA15 3JA

Company No. 06415800

 

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gif Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 02/11/2007

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

7260 - Other computer related activities

Accounting Reference Date: 30/06

Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2008 (DORMANT)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, she was ripped off, and yes, this company does appear to be rather despicable.

 

However, if you will buy over the phone from unsolicited callers...

 

The garden centre near us sells basic sets of wicker garden furniture for £3,500 which can be had elsewhere for a fraction of the price, but nobody was ever forced buy from them.

 

I'd check the WHOIS records and see if the domain is registered to the customer, or to that company selling the domain name.

 

If the latter, the rip-off may well repeat itself on expiry of that domain name as there is nothing to prove ownership. Though of course you do not need to renew it. Check there's nothing in any agreement which entitles the company to rebill the payment card used automatically on expiry.

 

Put the domain name (if a .co.uk) into the Nominet website (Nominet UK) and see what you get back. If it's not in your name, you may well be able to raise a dispute with Nominet and you can have the registrar tag forcibly changed to another one to gain ownership - but that's made more difficult if the domain does not, from the WHOIS records, belong to you. Nominet are very good, and will doubtless of heard of the company of which you speak and will be able to advise.

 

ALWAYS register your own domain names. Enom.com is a good place to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...