Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • See if this is in order please. I photo of the chimney and Hale Surveys remaining.   Bundle 24 JanM.pdf
    • Any help would be appriciated.  I've sent this over to them via text to Amir who I been dealing with from Beaver Cars in Hounslow - I do not have an email for them.    Amir Beavers Cars 61 – 67 Salisbury Road Hounslow Middlesex TW4 7NW Dear Sir/Madam Ref: LY07JWN On 09/01/2022 I purchased, and took delivery of, the above vehicle an Audi A4 Avant 2007 from you. On 22/01/2022 I discovered that it was not of satisfactory quality: the turbo cut out and car would not go over 40 mph, even after restarting. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires dealers to supply goods that are fit for purpose, as described and of satisfactory quality. However, the vehicle is clearly not roadworthy. You are therefore in breach of contract. I am legally entitled to reject the vehicle and to be reimbursed the original purchase of £3200. I look forward to receiving your cheque or banks transfer refund to my account: Sergejs Makarovs – Account Number: XXXXXXXX Sort-code: XXXXXX the total sum of £3200 within 14 days. If you fail to reimburse me, I shall have no alternative but to issue a claim against you in the county court for recovery of the money without further reference to you. Yours faithfully     If they refuse to refund me, what would be my next steps? Thank you
    • Hi all,  A good friend of mine recently had a similar issue and this is my first car. I've had a consistent barrage of problems.  I purchased a vehicle from Beavers Cars Dealership - From Auto Trader.  This is a draft I've written: Dear Beavers Cars, I'm writing to you about the Audi A4 (2007) I bought from you for £3200 on Sunday January 09 2022. The vehicle had prior faults before purchasing the car, during the test drive the Engine Light came on. This being my first car as I've recently only passed my driving test, Amir who dealt with me re-assured me that this fault is nothing serious. I phoned a friend who advised me that this is a major fault and that needs to be looked at. Amir took me to a local garage 1 minute from the Offices and had a mechanic he knew inspect this fault. The mechanic advised that the throttle flaps are shown as an error code on his machine and need to be cleaned, he took the throttle flap device off to clean it, the fault still persisted, he replaced the entire unit which then cleared the fault. I spent roughly 3 hours in the garage trying to resolve the fault error codes. I then was shown that these codes were cleared and that its all now in good condition and working. I only test drove this vehicle at maximum of 40mphs and as it was central London taking it on the motorway was a long way away. I paid a £200 deposit initially on Saturday the 8th January 2022 and went to London on 9th January 2022 to check this car. Once everything was sorted at the time, I was convinced by a sales pitch of Amir that this car is road safe and I'm able to drive it back to Brighton with no issues. I paid the remaining £3000. Upon leaving to the motorway, the engine was struggling and it was making a very seriously bad noise, the turbo was not picking up properly and it really felt like there may be something seriously wrong with the car, when I would pull up to round abouts the car revs would flicker and the car would shake. I then had it serviced and got a Carbon Clean on the engine and everything seems to be in order, it started to drive a little better, but I barely ever gone over 40mph. I wanted to speak with Amir to discuss this and tried calling on the 20th January 2022, knowing I still have my rights under the Consumer Act 2015, but wanted to address the issues and find a solution. I was unable to get hold of him. The third time I went onto the motorway on 22/01/2022 after going around 65mph the Revs just went to 5 and my car started to slow down, I was not able to push more than 35mph in a 70mph, which almost caused a collision. I luckily was only 20 minutes away from home and was able to come off the Motorway and get home safely. During some of the inspections that I had the engineers that Amir took me to by Beavers Cars dealership is called Speedy's Autos. He said that the car is road safe and being a mechanic shop re-assured me. Since I had the car, the drivers seat-belt would unclip from time to time, I was told the thread on my left front tire is below the legal limit. I've had the sensors, electrics and front and read break lights needing replacement and in the end the by what it sounds like the Turbo completely went and I should not have been allowed to drive this car back to Brighton. It put me and others at risk especially when they knew I've only just got my drivers licence and was still a new driver. I would like a full refund for the £3200, I've already spent money on a set of new tyres, wheel alignment and brand new break pads and break disks and a repair on the seat buckle luckily the parts can be returned and wheels aren't due to be fitted until Monday 24/01/2022. I've also already paid for Road Tax, Parking Permit and insurance on this car which I will have to sort out. . The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract I have with Beavers Cars that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the vehicle for less than 6 years, I am within my statutory rights to ask for a refund at no further cost to me. I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days with details of how you plan to resolve this matter. Yours sincerely,  
    • The mediation went ahead in the first week of January and I was surprised at how confrontational the mediator was.  The call started on time and as usual I was asked to briefly explain the situation which was pretty standard.  Item posted using Hermes – item never made it from pick up to depot, Hermes deny any responsibility.  I was asked if I understood the mediation process and to confirm that I agreed to compromise.    I said I was happy to participate and that by way of compromise I would be happy to forgo the interest – but that I was looking for the full verified value of the item (sold price plus postage minus the £27 unilaterally paid by Hermes).  I went through the reasoning explaining the unfairness of the policy whereby the customer is asked to take out insurance to protect Hermes from its own negligence and criminality etc. and sat back waiting for the mediator to respond saying she would now speak to Hermes.    She didn’t.   She explained that this wasn’t a compromise, that mediation does not work like this and that she was ending the call and that I should now continue through the court.  I insisted that she puts my offer to Hermes but she refused.  I then knocked 10p from my demand which she could then not argue was a compromise and which forced her to communicate with Hermes.    I was on the call for about 30 minutes – I’ve read on here that others have ended the call and been rung back several times – I was placed on hold briefly during the mediators exchange with only a minute or so between interactions.  The frustrating thing is that every demand I made was immediately accepted by Hermes and it was the mediator who was the obstacle – at one point she even advised me that Hermes had no obligation to pay the costs and that I shouldn’t press for that.  I ended up negotiating it up to £350 which is £18 short of the total claimed; but to be honest I was past caring at that point.   It is of note that Hermes exploited every deadline and have made the process as long as possible.  I had to provide them with my bank details within 5 hours and they then had two weeks to make the payment which they did on day 14.  I’m happy with the outcome and that I forced them to pay but it’s frustrating that a company is obviously training their staff to treat their customers with such obvious contempt.    I will never use them again and have already bought something on-line from a company but only on the proviso that they don’t use their usual shipping solution (Hermes) – to which they agreed.   Thanks for the great work on this forum and to all who are taking action against Hermes – keep it up!!
    • Hi    Thank you very much indeed Mantis .  I really really appreciate your advice.  He had high blood pressure Thursday so I left it, but told him I had good news from CAG and arranged to meet up with him on Sunday to go through this matter.    Thank you again    Have a good weekend  Warm Regards  W.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Cabot/Mortimer claimform - old EGG card debt


fairbyblue
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1246 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

great.

 

 

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

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...

This is reply from solicitors -

 

Further to your letter dated XXX

we are taking our clients instruction in relation to your request and will come back to you as soon as we can.

 

We confirm out client is willing to agree an extension of 28 days, for you to file your defence, pursuant CPR 15.5(2) please notify the court of the agreement.

 

For clarification,

the particulars of claim refered to agreement between you and Prime Credit S.A.R.L.

We have been informed by our client that the original creditor is Lloyds Bank.

This does not affect your liability to repay the outstanding balance to our client.

 

It would be possible for our client to seek to formally amend the particulars of claim: however we do not propose to do this.

We suggest that the parties focus on addressing the outstanding balance rather that procedural aspects.

If you take a different view, please let us know, and provide your consent fr our client to file and serve amended particulars of claim.

 

If you position has changed in view of the above,please let us know in 7 days the precise legal basis.

yours faithfully

Mortimer Clarke

 

 

So what do I do now.

 

 

My thoughts are they lulling me into complacency to file a defence after the time limit so the get judgement by default?

 

 

The POC is utter tosh. they want me to enter agreement to pay or consent to serve amended POC (I aint consenting anything!)

 

So do I file a defence saying I do not recognise this poc.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

rightly or wrongly the OP assumed it was an egg card.

 

 

matters not really

this is why they sell things around to confuse defendants when they do try to sneak these debts through court

hoping for an undefended default judgement.

 

 

you stick to your timeline and file the holding defence on time regardless!!

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

sorry, just reading through this thread and unless I've missed something, why are Lloyds the original creditor? I thought this was an Egg ???

That's what I thought as well, I have apex letter from 2009 with same amount and its egg card. So did lloyds take over egg?

Link to post
Share on other sites

plenty of threads here and the successes forum with the outline

of how it should look and what you need to adapt.

 

 

you've a wee while yet.

 

 

by 4pm 1st may

 

 

don't forget post here with it before filing

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

  • 2 weeks later...

1. By agreement between PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) and the Defendant on or around 5/1/02 (The agreement)

PRC agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card upon the terms and conditions set out theirin,

2.In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to make minimum payments due and the agreement was terminated.

3.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.

The claimant therefore claims £2.5k

 

 

Is this ok for the holding defence?

 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of agreement/contract/breach as requested by CPR 31.14 and a Section 78 request.

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement/contract with the Claimant; and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

3. As per Civil Procedurelink3.gif Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

4. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer creditlink3.gif Act 1974.

 

5. On the 16th March 2015 I made a legal request by way of a section 78 request to the Claimant. The Claimant has not yet produced the requested documents therefore I am currently unable to fully defend this claim.

 

6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

 

 

I sent my CPR to Cabot but the claimant looks like Prime credit S.a.r.l (prc) would I have to amend as I ve sent nothing to prime credit and in fact I don't know who they are. I ve had nothing of cabot anyway.

 

 

This has to be submitted buy 1/5/15, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

for sake of ref I've added their POC

 

 

is that ALL there is on the claimform and its exact wording ??

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

you did send a CCA to cabot?

nothing to do with PRA anymore

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

Paragraph 1 of the claimants particulars does not state that you owe any monies.....

 

 

1. By agreement between PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) and the Defendant on or around 5/1/02 (The agreement) PRC agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card upon the terms and conditions set out theirin,

 

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of agreement/contract/breach as requested by CPR 31.14 and a Section 78 request.

 

You need to respond to theirs points 1/2/3.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this better? The sec 78 went to cabot in march, solicitors replied to my CPR saying the claimant is Lloyds, which is wrong and they admit in this letter that the poc should read Lloyds and want me to agree to change, dunno if that relevant

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1. By agreement between PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) and the Defendant on or around 5/1/02 (The agreement)

PRC agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card upon the terms and conditions set out theirin,

 

 

2.In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to make minimum payments due and the agreement was terminated.

 

 

3.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.

 

 

The claimant therefore claims £2.5k

 

 

Proposed Defence

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.

The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

 

1. It is denied with regards to the defendant entering into an agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim (‘the Agreement’)I have no knowledge of who PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) are or ever had any contractual relationship with.

On receipt of the
link3.gif
the Defendant made request under CPR 31.14 for a copies of the credit agreement, Notice of Assignment and a statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached, to the claimant's solicitors.

 

The claimant's solicitors have yet to comply.

 

2.Paragraph 2 is denied as I'm unaware or ever had any agreement with PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC) to enable any breach.

 

 

Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with PRIME CREDIT 1 S.A.R L (PRC); and

(b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

 

3. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Until such time the Claimant can comply with my request for a copy of the agreement under section 78 of the CCA1974 that it relies upon they are prevented from enforcing or requesting any relief as pursuant to the CCA 1974.

 

 

4 By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be ok now I've edited your last post.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to your other point......

 

The sec 78 went to cabot in march, solicitors replied to my CPR saying the claimant is Lloyds, which is wrong and they admit in this letter that the POC should read Lloyd's and want me to agree to change, dunno if that relevant

 

The claimant requires your agreement and the courts to change details of the particulars.......this may happen after you have you have submitted your defence.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just submit your defence....that's a problem for them to resolve.....if they do amend the particulars you may have to submit an amended defence.....just so you are aware.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

so what happened?

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

good so case stayed

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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...