Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
    • If it doesn’t sell easily : what they can get at an auction becomes fair market price, which may not realise what you are hoping.
    • Thank you. The receiver issue is a rabbit hole I don't think I'm going to enjoy going down. These people seem so protected. And I don't understand how or why?  Fair market value seems to be ever shifting and contentious.
    • Hungary is attempting to be a world power in manufacturing electric vehicle batteries, despite locals' reservations.View the full article
    • You can't, but you can (and really should) bring up the point that the lender isn't meeting their legal obligations in selling the property for fair market value. You'll have to do this in court, though. A receiver is bought in by the lender, not you. If they're a registered insolvency practitioner, you may be able to raise a complaint to the insolvency service but there are no guarantees here. Many receivers are also registered with the RICS and self-regulate so if you know the name of the receiver you can check there, again no guarantees. https://www.rics.org/surveyor-careers/career-development/accreditations/registered-property-receivership-scheme
  • 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

Gezwee v MBNA/capquest


gezwee
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5138 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

MBNA account (yep, enforceable), paying £1.00 per month for a sizeable sum for the last year.

 

MBNA DN a few weeks back, same as most on here have seen lately - full balance, no recognisable account number, roughly 10 days to rectify etc etc.

 

24hrs after rectify date, capquest letter arrives advising debt purchased (same odd account number). Followed by numerous calls which sadly I havent been at home to answer.

 

Have sent MBNA SAR to see what date they actually terminated. I'm inclined to think that if a new account number was issued on default then termination took place at the same time (or before) and balance will be shown as charged off pre default.

 

capquest using second class UK mail which would indicate that the account was assigned to them a good few days prior to rectify date on DN.

 

Unfortunately I do not have the defence of unenforceable agreement but.......... I have no intention of communicating with Capquest whilst they chase payment on an account which gives the appearance of being unlawfully rescinded.

 

I could go for the 'thanks for rescinding' letter to MBNA but if this went to litigation at a future date would it be seen as an acknowledgement that both account numbers were for the same agreement?

 

Don't particularly fancy being in front of a DJ who wants to get home in time for dinner with that one.

 

Any suggestions? Can't be bothered with CQ at the mo, no DN (or at least no compliant one), no termination, no NOA....... for all I know they could be [causing problems] me to pay a non existent account.

 

Should I just carry on with paying the OC the squid a month and wait for CQ to try the legal route or should I send the prove it letter and wait for them to go legal :rolleyes:

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

No calls for nearly 2 weeks............ then at 6 o'clock tonight

 

'Hello, is that Mr Gezwee?'

 

'Yes Mr Gezwee here, how can I help?'

 

'This is C**l from Capquest, could I run through the identification process with you?'

 

'Sorry, your back needs a rest and you've bent your what?'

 

'No, mr Gezwee, THIS IS C**L FROM CAPQUEST'

 

'No need to shout I know your back needs a rest but thats no need to take it out on me.'

 

'MR GEZWEE, YOU MUST ANSWER MY QUESTIONS SO THAT I CAN DISCUSS THE LETTER WE SENT YOU LAST MONTH.'

 

'Sorry, you want me to make your back better?? I think you have the wrong person....... bear with me and I'll see if I can find you the number of a good chiropractor.'

 

3 minutes and 20 seconds of silence later and............. brrrrrrrrrrrr

 

One unhappy Capquest employee.

 

Hopefully they'll issue claim soon so we can stop all the sillyness :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

have moved your thread to the mbna forum

 

Ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a scooby what to do now........ just opened this mornings post and I have a brand spanking new MBNA card same account number as original?

 

Now 'if' MBNA charged off my old account on a new number prior to selling to Capquest why would they issue a replacement card with the originating account number on?

 

No wonder people get confused with who owns the debt and who to respond to.

 

Spose it adds more weight to the argument should Capquest ever decide to go legal because i refuse to communicate with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

HL Legal letter arrived in the post this morning....... have printed off the prove it letter and added a few comments of my own :eek:

 

Will see if that gets a response, was hoping for a SD by now so I can chuck a few squid in the bank at set aside :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Thought I'd update.......

 

Had a response to prove it letter....... apparently they are referring to lender

 

Followed by another letter asking me to confirm address in 2006

 

Followed by another letter asking me to confirm my MBNA account number

 

Followed by another letter asking me to confirm my maiden name in Oct 2006 ...... I'm a Mr by the way so not so sure on the maiden thing :p

 

Another one offering me a 30% discount

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand yet another one offering to match my payments to the account thereby halving the oustanding sum?

 

Not a single call though.

 

Reported them for continuing to chase in the absence of proof.

 

Me thinks somebody looking at my account hit every option key possible for the monkey brained letters!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had another letter from this bunch

 

Apparently a Mr Butterworth will be issuing proceedings on the 28th January. Not a 'maybe' but a 'will' and a very kind offer to allow me to settle at 50% over 6 months :rolleyes:

 

Amazing, 7 letters in 14 days and not one of them attempting to evidence the debt.

 

Filed under ignore again............

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Another update......

 

Won't be any surprise to any of you in the MBNA/capquest forums but after receiving various threats of SD etc over the last few months they finally decided to issue in February.

 

Reminded them that they were still in breach of CCA request and still no sign of a NOA from either party.

 

Strangely this was met with a very swift discontinuance (I've sent them a bill for my time in respect of this :p )

 

Checked at court and sure enough the discontinuance was filed on the date stated.

 

Anyway, got home from work yesterday and have finally received a copy of CCA - its an application from 2006 - it is in itself enforceable and contains all prescribed terms executed with pre printed signature from the OC, same copy MBNA presented yonks ago.

 

Also in the same envelope was a NOA from MBNA addressed to me stating that assignment had taken place on the 16th March 2010.

 

Me thinks its as I had assumed from reading many other threads on this, account shows sold on comms log and last statement dated 16th September 2009..... now at month 6 the DCA have 'lost' their contractual put back option and are stuck with collecting on this regardless of legal status.

 

As I've had the sale of account and termination pre DN rectification in dispute wih MBNA for some time now and to date they have declined to respond to any questions posed I assume I remind Capquest of the dispute and let them argue it out :confused:

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another update......

 

Won't be any surprise to any of you in the MBNA/capquest forums but after receiving various threats of SD etc over the last few months they finally decided to issue in February.

 

Reminded them that they were still in breach of CCA request and still no sign of a NOA from either party.

 

Strangely this was met with a very swift discontinuance (I've sent them a bill for my time in respect of this :p )

 

Checked at court and sure enough the discontinuance was filed on the date stated.

 

Anyway, got home from work yesterday and have finally received a copy of CCA - its an application from 2006 - it is in itself enforceable and contains all prescribed terms executed with pre printed signature from the OC, same copy MBNA presented yonks ago.

 

Also in the same envelope was a NOA from MBNA addressed to me stating that assignment had taken place on the 16th March 2010.

 

Me thinks its as I had assumed from reading many other threads on this, account shows sold on comms log and last statement dated 16th September 2009..... now at month 6 the DCA have 'lost' their contractual put back option and are stuck with collecting on this regardless of legal status.

 

As I've had the sale of account and termination pre DN rectification in dispute wih MBNA for some time now and to date they have declined to respond to any questions posed I assume I remind Capquest of the dispute and let them argue it out :confused:

 

Gez

 

 

To clarify, they issued a Statutory Demand without even going down the route of a county court claim?

 

 

That kind of says it all about how desperate they are , thats just scare tactics because they know they have no chance of a CCJ.

My Posts exist exclusively to assist me in preparing litigation against another party.

As such, it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege.

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute.

Communication between a solicitor, or the client, or a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominent purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting litigation in prospect: Re: "Highgate Traders Limited (1984)"BCLC 151.

 

Copyright Information: All information contained in this website , Associated websites, and Forum posts are Copyright "Reclaim The Right Ltd". If you wish to use the information on this site for publication elsewhere then please email the administrator for permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...