Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.
Latest activity

Capquest new type of letter

stuscfc

By stuscfc
in Debt Collection Agencies

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5305 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

stuscfc

stuscfc

Posted
Posted

My wife has been sent a letter by this lot today.

Basicaly in the first paragraph they said they are decided to take court action then they go on to say if they take action lol.The interesting bit is they are going to PART SUE as you do not issue for the full ammount but they are going for half the debt.They say they can do this as it will go on her credit file and keep the time ticking for 6 years.Also by doing this(wait for it) the cost to us as in fees wont be as great sso they are trying to keep the costs down for us lol.They then go on to say they are not looking for an immediate payment in full as they can offer varied repayment methods so LETS WORK TOGETHER lol.

So i didnt think that when you sue someone it went on there credit history as there is no credit involved when sueing someone or am i wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
palomino

palomino

Posted
Posted

Only if their claim is successful.

 

As for keeping the fees down this is Bryan Carter's excuse. In practice it means keeping his fees down because, although you will have the liability of paying them, you probably won't in practice and he will have to.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
palomino

palomino

Posted
Posted

It is in breach of the County Courts Act which states that claims cannot be divided.

 

There is a thesis (untested in the courts) that the Act is not breached until the second claim is made.

If this is true (and I'm personally taking this stance) then you can pay off the amount claimed in the first claim knowing that the claimant cannot claim for any more. In effect the claimant is letting you off the amount not claimed for in the first claim.

In your case this would be half of the debt. In my case I've been let off a much larger percentage.

  • Haha 1

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
palomino

palomino

Posted
Posted

A claimant can claim for any amount at all - including any amount less than the total debt. There could be good and valid reasons for this. It is not until a second claim has been lodged that it is apparent that the claim has been divided.

A single/first claim for less than the total is therefore not in itself proof that the claim has been divided, and any challenge on that basis is unlikely to succeed. If you can convince a judge otherwise then you can choose to present your case on that basis. But I wouldn't.

  • Haha 1

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
diddydicky

diddydicky

Posted
Posted

yes i take you point

 

i was swayed by the fact that they have indicated in writing that they intend to part sue and the reasons that they gave (cost savings) would not be reason that would be acceptable to the court

 

given their "previous" for this sort of thing therefore i think that they would be on a very sticky wicket first off not to mention their particulars of claim which would have to detail how the sum claimed has been arrived at

Link to post
Share on other sites
stuscfc

stuscfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi so i should report this to the oft and ts then.Also she had a letter off hl legal today for a door step visit(they cant visit we have no door step) i know its a template letter.Only ever had one doorstep visit and that wasnt by this lot and she soon got rid of him and a right chav he was to lol.Part of that Moorcraft network.

Link to post
Share on other sites
stuscfc

stuscfc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Its quiet funny realy i had dealings with this lot myself this time last year for a SB debt went all the way to a set a side hearing and they ended up paying me and then with great pleasure phoneing them and threatening a warrent of execution on them as they hadent payed up so i know about there hl legal letters.The debt does seam to keep rising by £ 10 a time with no explination of this.So is it that they are trying to get to the golden figure of 750 to issue a State Demand maybe who knows.Would be interesting to see them justefy to a court where these charges come from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hungrybear

hungrybear

Posted
Posted

Of course if you are a complete twit (hello brian) you split the claim and sue for £300 on a £4000 debt with the threat that they will sue 13 times to get the whole lot - muppet.

 

They can sue for what they want - less than the total but it's the one and only time they can!

Link to post
Share on other sites
palomino

palomino

Posted
Posted

There is another aspect to this which I doubt anyone else has considered.

 

Normally your CCJs die after six years. If the creditor only claims for part, but then claims for another part when the six years is nearly up, then your credit record is trashed for 12 years, not six.

 

Naturally Mr Carter would never have thought of this. No, never at all...

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
hungrybear

hungrybear

Posted
Posted
There is another aspect to this which I doubt anyone else has considered.

 

Normally your CCJs die after six years. If the creditor only claims for part, but then claims for another part when the six years is nearly up, then your credit record is trashed for 12 years, not six.

 

Naturally Mr Carter would never have thought of this. No, never at all...

 

 

CPR rules do not allow a second claim on the same matter. So any second claim would be struck out if you defend it properly, even if the paperwork was enforceable. It is not possible in law to split a claim the way Mr carter et al try, unless of course the defendant does not know how to defend the 2nd claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NailPost

NailPost

Posted
Posted

I've been thinking that Carter's action for just a fraction of the alleged debt may not be for his costs but for the total amount he and his cronies have actually paid for the debt. £300 on a £3,000 account sounds about right for an old, undocumented, statute barred and otherwise unenforceable debt.

 

Challenging this muppet - Capquest, Carter or whoever - to come up with paperwork usually means he'll crawl back under a stone and leave you alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spidey41

spidey41

Posted
Posted

i hat bryan farter sue me for a cap one card he took me to court for £250 of a £1200 debt , it was great i paid the £250 plus court costs , then when he tried for the rest i used the already been sued for this debt defence and he dropped the claim instantly brilliant result

Link to post
Share on other sites
The GodMother

The GodMother

Posted
Posted

Normally when Bryan issues the first claim he states this is for HIS costs and he acknowledges that he can/will claim later for the actual balance.

 

I say this as i have seen it on POC posted on this forum.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hungrybear

hungrybear

Posted
Posted
Normally when Bryan issues the first claim he states this is for HIS costs and he acknowledges that he can/will claim later for the actual balance.

 

I say this as i have seen it on POC posted on this forum.

 

 

as usual, bri is trying to create a loophole that does not exist

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...