Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes. I'd be very interested to know how the defendant fared in putting forward the defence that the calaimant had been contributorily negligent by not keeping their cat under control. I'm aware that some people might find that fatuous, distracting or confusing, but the reality is that I'm not aware of any law that imposes a duty upon cat owners to keep their pets under control.  Whereas I believe the law does hold dog owners responsible for their dogs in public places. I'm not certain it was at all beneficial to the OP to suggest that blaming the claimant was a credible defence...
    • Okay, perfect. they did say BS is invoked as soon as i fill in their application form, ill get a pin. i had to press them more on this as they didnt want to discuss BS much. so i should fill in the form and get the pin, then i can initiate BS. What will follow and what should i do after? Thanks again for all the help and patience.
    • Good evening, so not a good weekend reviewing paperwork -- I have lost some proofs of postage.. also, although not provided at CCA, they have now supplied a DN in their WS, please see scan of claimants WS (without statements) Document with tick boxes as signatures doesn't look like an agreement and is split across pages. Documents have been stapled and copied multiple times looking at the top left of them. Aside from that, having read other threads, I suspect they have everything? appreciate your input please Sorry for heavy redactions, I noticed the paperwork was see-through LinkHalifaxCC1.compressed.pdf
    • Received a final demand today Final demand.pdf
    • 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
  • 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

CONTROL ACCOUNT PLC/DHL Hell - duty and VAT charges **RESOLVED**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5306 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

I ordered some health products from the states, and they whisked their way to me in prompt fashion. All was well in the world.

 

A few days later I travelled up north to a flat that I rent (I move between there and another property). When I returned home six weeks later, I noticed that I had a few letters from DHL and other companies that had been failed to be passed on to me.

 

It appears that DHL had send requests for duty and VAT charges totally around £80 for the health products. A further letter from 'Robinson and Shori' (the legal arm of dhl i believe) was also there informing me that I had to pay or that they would commence legal action.

 

I took the liberty of phoning DHL immediately, and they informed me that I owed them £80. I paid it there and then over the phone and thought that was that.

 

However, days later I received a letter from 'account control plc' who apparently (after i looked it up) won a control recovery contract with DHL earlier this year. They send a letter informing that that due to late payment I owe them £40 in charges, and that interest will build up everyday. I had assumed that by fact that DHL allowed me to pay the ammount that I was told I owed them, this matter would be over. The letter appears to acknowledge that I have paid the original amount I owed.

 

It seems that as I delayed payment through not being aware of the situation that things have become quite complicated. I really don't mind paying that £40 if I'm actually required to, as I suppose that it's my fault, but I am surprised that they allowed me to directly pay back the money I owed them if they are then going to pass on this process to a third party who then go on to demand further payments. It seems rather unusual to me. Should I pay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not DHL that charged you it as such:

 

DHL pay the duty and vat and then claim it back from the receiver if it is delivered DUTY UNPAID.

 

what was the value of the goods ?

did you get a receipt for the £80 ?

 

was the goods delivered DDP (delivered duty paid) OR DDU ( delivered duty unpaid) it will be on the awb

 

Ask the question why are they charging £40 + interest for a bill that was paid

Link to post
Share on other sites

postggj - Yes, sorry, it is CONTROL ACCOUNT PLC. I read on their website that they won a contract with DHL. This suggests that DHL passed on the debt to them I assume, but that is contradicted by the fact that they appear to acknowledge in the letter that I have now paid the duty and VAT charges to DHL. It is also contradicted by the fact that DHL allowed me to pass the charges directly to them over the phone and without question, which suggests that the debt cannot have been sold on by the time I actually paid it. The money was taken from my account so i has been accepted and paid. They could've very easily have said "you now owe the money to xyz" but they didn't. The payment was accepted and appears to be acknowlegded even by Control Account PLC.

 

So, in short I did take my time to pay the duty and VAT, but I was allowed to eventuall pay it. Surely they can't add these additional charges that I'd never heard of AFTER i have paid the money I owed them.

 

RHOOD - I don't have all of the details here. Whether I should've paid the duty or VAT is less important now as I already paid it. The products were ordered from the iherb.com website and there was a breakdown of the payment but it was send about a week or so after the goods, which is why I didn't think about it at the time.

 

In fairness to them they did send warning letters, but as I was aware I couldn't read them and was oblivious to all of this. I will get someone to scan in the CONTROL ACCOUNT PLC letter tomorrow so that others can see it. In short it appears to acknowledge that I have paid the duty and VAT, but suggets that due to late payment of duty and VAT I owe £40 in charges and that interest will be added daily. Maybe these are legal charges?

 

EDIT: Also, be be clear, this is the first time that Control Accounts PLC have ever written to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something from ControlAccount PLC stating that they won the DHL contract: Controlaccount Plc . Seems bizarre to me that DHL appear to have passed/sold on a late payment fee, after accepting the original payment? Surely once they accept the payment, then there is no case to be answered. It doesn't make any sense. DHL have never asked me for this fee, nor has anybody else until now. If DHL had told me that there is a late payment fee when I actually made the payment they asked for, then I'd have probably paid it then and there. However, they didn't, and instead they appear to have sold on this mysterious 'fee' that I'd never heard of until now.

 

Ask them for a breakdown of CHARGES ;)

 

Thanks for the suggestion. Are they obliged to do this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are obliged to do this, they must state in clear english what charges have been added to any account and also give you prior warning (normally in the terms and conditions) of any charges that may be applied, ie late payment/none payment etc and so forth.

 

It sounds very much as if this charge is a penalty charge, rather than any cost incurred by your failure to pay on time, as such it would be an unlawful charge and completely contestable

Link to post
Share on other sites

as someone mentioned earlier tell them to sod off. You have no debt to pay. Given the fact that the whole banking industry can't justify excessive charges, i seriously doubt these can. It seems they are trying it on, in the hope you'll pay up and they make a quick buck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the scan.

They appear to acknowledge that I have paid the principal overdue amount and that the charges are for late payment under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts Act. However, they go on to say that I shouldn't make payment to DHL, but should make it to Control Account instead which seems a bit fishy. Also, I find that this act only applies to businesses and not consumers:

Section 2.1:

Quote
This Act applies to a contract for the supply of goods or services where the purchaser and the supplier are each acting in the course of a business, other than an excepted contract.

I am a consumer. I didn't sell these health products on. They were for m own useage. I'm not sure if the responsibility is on me to prove that though.

If I ever actually owed this 'late payment charge', I'd have thougt DHL would've asked me for it when I paid the duty and VAT (admittedly quite late). However they didn't, and stated that it was fine for me to order from them again and that the matter was resolved. This was either a mistake on their part, or this company are trying to make a quick buck on what is effectively a £0.00 debt.

To be on the safe side, should I contact DHL about this matter? If I do, what are they likely to tell me? I think Control Account plc are trying to scare me into paying with this threat of additional interest accruing and legal proceedings.

Further input appreciated :). Should I contact them to tell them I am not paying, or is there any chance that I'm in the wrong here? Thanks for the advice so far guys.

gscan1.jpg

 

There is another page in addition to the scanned one, but it  only reiterates what on the first one, so I haven't scanned that in.

I posted on another forum, and they appear to take that this is both unfair and unenforceable. If one or two of you would take a quick look at the letter I scanned it and my most recent posts and let me know if you agree that this is something I should ignore, I'd very much appreciate it :)

Thanks.

Edited by astounded
Link to post
Share on other sites

ISSUE RESOLVED (I hope)

 

I just called DHL (16:39 - 20 oct) after waiting about 30 minutes to get through :), and they told me that this matter should not have been passed on to ControlAccount PLC on multiple accounts:

 

1) I paid DHL all outstanding monies due before this charge was passed on to control account plc. She stated that it was passed on after payment was already made and in error.

 

2) I am an individual and not a business. I sent off for full priced health products, and as such the act they state doesn't apply to me.

 

It's a bit shoddy of DHL, to pass this on after I had paid, but I did take longer than is perhaps reasonable to pay (since I was away from the property) so perhaps I am lucky. She stated that she called ControlAccount PLC (she put me on hold) and that I shouldn't be hearing more from them. If I do I'll let you know.

 

I'm glad I held out and didn't pay ControlAccount upon receiving their threatening letter.

Edited by astounded
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at your air way bill ( address label) under the barcode it will be ticked ddp or ddu.

 

Did you get the DHL persons name and i would also keep a record of the phone call - just in case ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

iherb.com . A large supplement site.

 

Then DHL have no effective recovery option with you regardless of whether ddp or ddu terms.

 

Can't see anything on iherbs t&c's with even a suggestion of standing authority from consignee.

 

DHL will ship under HV, CMR, BIFA or a combination of same.

 

Unless they (DHL) are in receipt of a standing authority (usually a business) to recover duties at destination the onus returns to the shipper.

 

Usual practise would be to hold a lien over goods until duties paid and present additional storage costs, if the storage costs then outweighed the advantage of accepting goods you would be within your rights to reject consignment without penalty.

 

In basic terms its a little akin to royal mail popping a card through the door asking you to collect a package from the sorting office and settle short paid postage.......its entirely up to you whether you accept. The sender entered into the contract not the consignee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the first I heard about these additional payments was after I had alreadt signed for the parcels. The delivery man didn't state anything either. I feel that the process should be more transparent. They don't even have an online payment option, I had to wait on the phone for about 30 minutes in order to get through. And again I had to wait that long just to check that I didn't owe this late payment debt that they passed on to Control Account PLC in error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to CONTROL ACCOUNT PLC/DHL Hell - duty and VAT charges **RESOLVED**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...