Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

3 mobile cancelled my contracts


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5253 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 took out a contract with 3 mobile over 3 years ago, my husband had one with them too, we had financial issues and about 18 months ago went with a DMP, the mobile bills were being paid as normal (monthly by DD), my husbands phone got cut off so I took out a 2nd contract so he would have a phone for work, anyway about a week after taking out this 2nd contract and paying a £100 deposit they cut both my phones off due to the DMP..now over a year later they are demanding through a DCA the charges for teh line rental (no problem with that although £28 for a week is excessive) and the disconnection fee for breach of contract.

 

I am willing to pay the rental for that week and any call charges but I never had a letter of notification of disconnection or anything just got up one morning went to use my phone and nothing...not even the other phone..both phone disconnected.

 

The newer contract, as I said was a maximum of 10 days old but arranged and paid for over the phone. Is there anything I can do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult.

 

If you enter into a DMP, many firms look upon this as a parallel track to personal bankrupcy- and as you know in the latter case you are prevented from opening accounts and services without due disclosure.

 

Many contracts are clear that they will terminate the contract if the account holder is bankrupt 'or enters onto any financial arrangement with ther creditors'. Effectively, by opening the account whilst a DMP was active, you broke one of their rules, and the as such the contract was cancelled. This has the downside that any terms for early termination will work against you.

 

It mightr be possible to argue that it was the provider who cancelled, then you should not be responsible for their actions - but they could offer a rebuttal to this is the cxontract was entered into AFTER the DRM was created. Too close to call.

 

It will show on your credit file - and this is probably why the network cancelled it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is that the 2nd contract was taken out over the phone, days before they cut me off, they had cut off my husband already but left my original contract running until they did cut me off, so obviously no contract to read through the T & C and this was not explained on the phone. They were obviously aware of the DMP prior to me taking out the 2nd contract as they did a credit check on me to get that phone and I had to pay a deposit, and they never asked about a DMP..

 

I had held the first contract for 18 months prior to going on the DMP and they allowed me an upgrade on it too...

 

but yes the 2nd contract was entered after the DMP was created and they obviously knew about it as was shown by them disconnecting my husband and then me a few days later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How this will play out is anyone's guess - certainly, if you claim you acted innocently and haver not been seriously disadvntaged through no negligence on your part might lead to a slightly better resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how exactly do I do that? and surely as they cancelled less than 14 days after I took out this new contract they have not allowed for the cooling of period and thus negate the 18 months worth of contract fees they seem to be claiming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Buzby

 

ok but as I didn't get to day 15 before they cut me off the agreement has not been validated fully by them surely, and had I received a copy of my contract then stating a DMP was not acceptable for the continuation of the contract I would have cancelled it.

 

Even so I got disconnected as did my husband with no notice in advance. when I spoke to trading standards just after the event they told me the DMP was not a good reason for 3 to cancel the contract with or without notice and that 3 have breached their contract not me.... (the reason Trading standards were involved was because they kept disputing my deposit, saying they couldn't find it, even though it was paid on the card over the phone when i took out the second contract, then they conveniently never received emails with a copy of the bank statement either). so if trading standards say 3 breached the contract. and I did not hold the contract for more than 10 days at their discretion where do I go from here and how?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry no - there is no 'validation' period. This is a simple service contract, not a credit agreement that requires a number of additional safeguards.

 

Afraid TS is talking absolute nonsense - which is about right for them. Why not ask TS to tell you how the contract could be in breach by the network if they haven't read it? TS may be well meaning, but often misguided. I've already outlined how a service contract can be ended by indirect action (bankrupcy/DMR) and I know from memory your network does have this clause.

 

Your contract was rock solid from Day 1, but providing it was new and not an upgrade, YOU could have terminated and enforced a relaease to Day 14 - but as they did, that becomes academic. Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely as they had already done the credit check prior to sending the phone and giving me the contract they are at fault as they were obviously aware of the DMP when I applied for the new contract?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really their ball - you'd get nowhere trying to assert that it was all their fault because they didn;t refuse you a contract earlier! The way the system works isa there is a pre-check, that confirms the customer is who they say they are - this can be undertaken pretty quickly, either on-the-spot or within 48 hours. There is a further check, actually interrogating the credit file, which may be flagged with a marker that requires them to review it manually - perhaps due to a consumer-entered 'notice of correction' or similar. This requires manual intervention, so could take as long as it takes to complete - trying to shift this blame onto a company because they didn't do this in a timely manner wouldn;t hold water.

 

As I said - I cannot see any hope of you finding the company erred in offering the contract then withdrawing it - that remains their right under the T&C's. Your best tack is the unfairness, and it is to THIS you need to complain to them in writing about in the hope someone sees your PoV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...