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


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dx100uk
      Judge & Priestly

      By dx100uk · Posted

      when did they (who) inform you there was a 'police case' and when was this attained? i will guess the debt is now SB'd as it's UAE 15yrs. have you informed the bsnk ever by email/letter of your correct and current address? you can always ignore anyone else accept the bank,  Block and bounce back all emails. Block any text messages  Ignore any letters unless it's: - a Statutory Demand - a Letter Of Claim - a Court Claimform via Northants bulk.  
    • Bhindi lover
      Judge & Priestly

      By Bhindi lover · Posted

      I left Dubai 8 years ago and intended to return. However a job prospect fell through. I’d been there for 15 years. I decided to pay my credit card and the bank had frozen my account. There is no means to pay the CC so completely unable to pay when I wanted to other than the bank advising me to ask a friend in the UAE to pay it on my behalf!  fast forward bank informs there is a police case against me for non payment. Years later IDR chased me and after months/ years they stopped. Now Judge & Priestley are trying their luck. Now I have received an email in English and Arabic from JP saying the bank has authorised them to collect debts. Is this the same as IDR although I didn’t receive anything like this from them. Just says they are authorised?
    • dx100uk
      PRA Group - PAPLOC now Claimform - Halifax Loan £20k+

      By dx100uk · Posted

      Please fill this out   Dx Pl
    • Milos
      Loose mortar from neighbours roof falling into our garden

      By Milos · Posted

      The neighbour's house is built right on the boundary so the side of their house is effectively the 'wall' in our garden separating the two properties. It's a three storey house and so the mortar poses a potential danger to us. Because of the danger, we have put up an interior fence in our garden to ensure we don't risk mortar dropping on us. That reduces the garden by 25% which is not only an inconvenience, but it's the part of the garden where we had lined up contractors to install a patio and gazebo which we will use for our wedding reception in less than 2 months. We have spoken to the neighbour's caretaker who is on the case, has spoken with a roofer and possibly a scaffolding company, but there are several issues. They don't seem to understand the urgency. As long as there is a risk of falling mortar, we can't carry out any work in the garden, and unless they hurry up, we're looking at cancelling our wedding as it's not viable to book a venue because we can't use our own garden! Also, they want to put the scaffolding up in our garden which would be ok with us if it was a matter of a few days and they hurried up, but there is a tree (most likely protected by the conservation area), so most likely they can only reach part of the roof with the scaffolding if they put it up in our garden. We suggested a roofer with a cherry picker but they seem to want to use a company they've used before. Any and all comments, suggestions, advice is more than welcome.  PS. does it make any difference that the neighbour is a business (ltd) and not a private dwelling?
    • jk2054
      Shock !!EVRI has lost my parcel PS5 - court claim issued

      By jk2054 · Posted

      No apology needed, thank you for what you do I am glad to hear they paid. well done on getting back what is yours

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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.
      • 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
      • 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

  • Recommended Topics

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.

Why no news coverage in the media re manchester test case judgements last week?

dizzyblonde1966

By dizzyblonde1966
in Debt Collection Agencies

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4978 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

merlin100

merlin100

Posted
Posted

How are you supposed to be able to supply evidence of something that never happened?

 

I think thats the whole point middlemess!

The idea now is to back off and let the creditors do the running. That way, any burden of proof is solely on their shoulders.

It does make any CCA request a bit more of a gamble now. They may now be able to supply a "reconstituted" version of an original agreement, but that still doesnt detract from the axiom of why would they not simply produce a copy of the original if they still have it - after all, if they do have it then they almost have you bang to rights so to speak. Couple that with the fact that they now have to tell you if they have the original agreement cannot bode well for them in court should they then "fail" to produce it. This is of course, that you have this statement re the agreement in writing.

The more I read this, the more I am convinced that apart from a little bit more care placed on the consumer, the burden now lies heavily with the lender. A lender cannot now make claims that cannot be justified evidencially in court - if it gets to court then the lender MUST produce the original agreement. Having said that, the consumer MUST insist on seeing it and keeping the proceedings within those confines. Otherwise, from the many posts read on here, the opposition, even the judge may deliberately sway those proceedings away from the crux of the matter, hoping ( and I think this is what all this is about) that the consumer will become confused and lose/give in by default.

So how will this bode with the DCAs? Personally I think in the main they are pretty much stuffed. If you previously CCA them and they do not respond, surely its still game over for them?

Can you imagine the fun to be had, taking into account how lax OCs and DCAs have already been over the last few years with agreements? Now imagine an OC and a DCA working together not just to produce a reconstituted agreement, but also to explain its provenance and legality?

Nor can I see the DCAs ceasing their attempts to draft some ridiculous pieces of paper together in the hope that the consumer will "accept" them as an agreement - maybe its time to CCA both DCA and OC in the hope that this will happen, if to do nothing more than create a "cloud" of confusion of our own! After all, if you appear in court and the OCs and DCAs have both sent their own differing "versions" of the agreement, what could be better?

I can see a lot of cock-ups between them here - and it wont take a genius to spot them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

spartathisis

spartathisis

Posted
Posted

very true.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
PriorityOne

PriorityOne

Posted
Posted
From the above...

 

He went on to strike out claims from two individuals, pointing out that they had failed to supply any evidence at all that they had never signed their loan agreements in the first place.

"The absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is no evidence that such an agreement was not made," ruled Judge Waksman.

 

How are you supposed to be able to supply evidence of something that never happened?

 

I always thought it was impossible to be able to prove a negative!

 

As they were the CLAIMANT in this action, they were supposed to prove their case; not the lender. That's how it works....

Link to post
Share on other sites
spartathisis

spartathisis

Posted
Posted

pennys dropped.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Basil Fawlty

Basil Fawlty

Posted
Posted

The penny has certainly dropped.

Dont be a claimant, be a defendant and put the onus on them.

 

Can someone confirm that a cc company or a DCA MUST now tell you, when asked, if what they have sent you is reconstituted, and also MUST they tell you whether or not they hold the original agreement?

 

I have CCA'd 3 different companies over 6 months ago and so far received nothing more than present day T & Cs; can I now write to them and ask if they hold the original agreements, and are they obliged to tell me?

 

BF

Link to post
Share on other sites
extrobe

extrobe

Posted
Posted

Interesting read.

May I add my thoughts on a couple of points?

 

With regards to OC's being able to supply a reconstructed CCA to fulfill s78 request, I sort of see his point. IMO, the scope of s78 probably wasn't meant to be a way of checking the legality of a CCA, but more for information purposes, such as if you have lost your copy and want a replacement, and a reconstruction (assuming you trust the banks etc!) would fulfill this. Doesn't explain why you wouldn't provide an actual copy if you had it, but I do see his point - Joe Bloggs on the street may not care if the bank has the original document he signed, he just wants to know what it was he signed.

 

Regarding the 'well we normally ask for a signature, so I'm sure we would have in this case' - as a defense, I think is quite common practice (note defense for those still a little unsure) If they can show they took Due Diligence, then this is a fair defense. Same principles apply elsewhere - if a retailer sells tobacco to someone underage, but can show they normally check for ID and refuse people (such as a log of refusals), this is acceptable defense and is usually taken no further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spartathisis

spartathisis

Posted
Posted

Basil F, yes according to this they must tell you if it is reconstituted and if they do not have an enforceable agreement. The copy must contain exactly what the original had, but the rub is that they can send the t & C's valid at the time (inc the prescribed terms) even if the were not on the sheet you signed.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Having_A_Knightmare

Having_A_Knightmare

Posted
Posted

Subbing....Another pain in the ass judge!!!

Click here for great help:razz:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
PriorityOne

PriorityOne

Posted
Posted

Ok... read through it and copy/pasted the relevant parts. Will post up if necessary....

 

To summarise, there is some mention of the CCA 1974; sec 127 (3) aspect of law that needs to be satisfied in order to have the Agreement re-enforced in a court, but the Judge does seem to be skating around this issue rather than dealing with it directly; referring to the risk (instead) that a creditor may come up with an enforceable Agreement at some point in the future and start legal proceedings.

 

Also, the burden of proof was on the claimant to prove his case all the time (Mr Adris et al)... which they failed to do.... as I've always maintained was the case here

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
merlin100

merlin100

Posted
Posted
Basil F, yes according to this they must tell you if it is reconstituted and if they do not have an enforceable agreement. The copy must contain exactly what the original had, but the rub is that they can send the t & C's valid at the time (inc the prescribed terms) even if the were not on the sheet you signed.

 

But how can the copy contain exactly what the original had in the absence of the original? IE, where do they get that information from? Their own records? If so, where is the proof that their records are accurate and/or have not been fabricated? The terms and conditions, at this point, have no bearing. Any individual, or institution can claim that something is true, but in a court they must prove it, and in the absence of a signature - what can be proven? The balance of probabilities is not balanced by the claims of one party.

A record of payment may help the creditor within the confines of CCA 2006, but not within CCA 1974.

So lets take this one step further. Lets assume that a defendant ( in this case the debtor) has reached the point where he KNOWS there is no original agreement, yet the Claimant, ( in this case the creditor) has already tried to submit a reconstituted agreement to the court.

Under CCA 1974, this must fail. But putting law aside for a second - it can only fail if the defendent controls the proceedings within that court. The defendant MUST assume that the court, the judge and obviously the claimant are the collective enemy, and INSIST on the keeping within the burdens of CCA 1974 with regards to the creditors claims.

If the defendant is successful in this action (as he/she should be) then where does this leave the creditor? To my mind this leaves them at best open to false representation, and at worst, open to fraud.

Its too obvious.

So whats happened here? I think Judge Waksman has purposely and deliberately "merged" the options available to a claimant within both CCA 1974 and CCA 2006.

CCA 1974 is very definative in its demands for legal proof of a unilateral contract - ie, there MUST be a signed agreement. Whereas CCA 2006 does not have that requisite. And anything Judge Waksman says cannot alter this.

So the judge has tried to screw the consumer. But in reality he has screwed the lender - purposely or not - what he has done is leave the claimant ( the creditor) open to legal attack through false representation or fraud because the creditor has to admit, in advance, the existence or non existence of an original signed contract.

So if the creditor admits to the existence of an original contract ( which obviously must be signed by the debtor) yet cannot to produce it, preferring to furnish the court with a "reconstituted" agreement, how does this fair with wasting the courts time with this "agreement"?

Im other words what has changed here? How would a court look on a creditor saying they have an original and signed agreement but only giving the debtor a "reconstituted" version of it, and then producing it in court?

This has got to be wasting the courts time.

 

Anyway, Im smashed on Guiness, Jack Daniels, and Vodka. Its New Years Eve, I didnt finish work till 2.30am and Im now making up for it!

As usual all comments please - especially that bloody gorgeous PriorityOne! ****, am I going to regret this tomorrow!

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!!!!!!!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
PriorityOne

PriorityOne

Posted
Posted

Anyway, Im smashed on Guiness, Jack Daniels, and Vodka. Its New Years Eve, I didnt finish work till 2.30am and Im now making up for it!

As usual all comments please - especially that bloody gorgeous PriorityOne! ****, am I going to regret this tomorrow!

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'm flattered.... lol.:D That alcohol must have been working a treat... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jon888999

jon888999

Posted
Posted
I've started another thread on this because of all the mini threads popping up.... and people beginning to panic across the boards

 

Will get the link in a minute...

 

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

 

Good Idea. This thread seems to have a life of it's own. As 'i've said before don't make a claim. It's far easier to defend then to win a claim.

Then the onus is on the the claimant to prove what they say>

Link to post
Share on other sites
jon888999

jon888999

Posted
Posted
I think anyone (alleged debtor) who tries to persuade a court as claimant re the enforceabilty or otherwise of any agreement is tugging the tiger by the tail

 

this is utter lunacy-sit back and put the onus on the DCA's and OC's to prove their case

 

silly move IMHO

 

Fully agree, mox=st cases they know they can't prove it in court, so they never go to a court. Prefering to harrass instead

Link to post
Share on other sites
noomill060

noomill060

Posted
Posted

I have the standard goodbye letter from Lowells for Sharkleycard.

 

We dont have a CCA and neither do Sharkleycard.

 

The alleged debt £8000 odd includes £4000+ charges plus interest levied thereon.

 

Ive been debateing whether to reclaim the charges.

 

Where does the Madchester judgement leave me?

 

They admit they dont have the CCA and state in the goodbye letter, that they wont trouble me again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PriorityOne

PriorityOne

Posted
Posted
I have the standard goodbye letter from Lowells for Sharkleycard.

 

We dont have a CCA and neither do Sharkleycard.

 

The alleged debt £8000 odd includes £4000+ charges plus interest levied thereon.

 

Ive been debateing whether to reclaim the charges.

 

Where does the Madchester judgement leave me?

 

They admit they dont have the CCA and state in the goodbye letter, that they wont trouble me again.

 

If the debt includes charges, then by re-claiming them... you're just reducing a debt; which could be classed as an acknowledgement, even though it can't be re-enforced in court. Confused?... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
gyos

gyos

Posted
Posted
I have the standard goodbye letter from Lowells for Sharkleycard.

 

We dont have a CCA and neither do Sharkleycard.

 

The alleged debt £8000 odd includes £4000+ charges plus interest levied thereon.

 

Ive been debateing whether to reclaim the charges.

 

Where does the Madchester judgement leave me?

 

They admit they dont have the CCA and state in the goodbye letter, that they wont trouble me again.

 

CL Finance/HSBC have admitted no CCA in this case:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/239383-hsbc-cca-going-court.html

 

but have still gone to court. :rolleyes:

 

Will be interesting to see how that pans out and whether they try exploit this judgement.

 

.

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...