Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Resume payments with the debt collectors? You say not to pay dca though do you not? 
    • yes they mostly would be enforceable, but that wasnt the point. even if they get a CCJ the very worst they could have done is get a restriction k which is useless to them. doesnt hurt anything. the CCJ would remain on file for 6yrs yes, but then gone same as a DN. the rest k charge does not show at all. and even so, the idea was to get your debts issued a default notice ASAP, them RESUME payments.. the advise is NOT conflicting, just you don't read things properly or understand.  oh well. dx
    • This is the dilemma I had then and still have it. The bit that stopped me was the post 2015 comments about them being enforceable now in most instances which I feel hasn’t been answered unless I am missing something. the bonus I guess is not all credit agreements now will be chasing me so less people chasing me down so to speak. this is the problem as there is conflicting messaging out there it is hard to plan a strategic way forward 
    • In 2017 my wife was given PIP and I finally, officially, became her carer. In 2019 she was reviewed and we were told it would be done by phone to make it easier for her as she has mobility issues and anxiety. The review was very simple, Has anything changed? No, ok, we'll stay as you are then. In 2022 a second review, this time by phone again but with an awkward given at the end for 5 years. Today, we got a new review letter (I know wait lists are bad, but I dont think the wait will take til 2027 for a decision). We're a bit confused because it's a letter, not a phone call as before. The form is just questions that ask "has anything changed" Now, since 2017, nothing has changed except we had our home adapted via disability grant. This was noted in the phone calls. So we should really write that nothing has changed in the last 2 years. The adaptations have been mentioned in both previous phone reviews, but not in writing so I guess we should bring it up. But we feel that they want us to explain everything as if it were a new claim again... And are worried if we miss something in the original claim or the phone calls she will risk losing part of the award (a 2 point swing could be really bad) It does just say "has anything changed?" But in dealing with ESA prior to getting PIP, answering the question asked "has your condition worsened or improved" at a review process with a simple "no, I'm still the same" somehow led to ESA ending and needing appeal. So just want a bit of guidance. How much detail is needed? Is minimal ok? Or should we be blunt with the fact nothing has changed, and bullet point the things she struggles with in each section?   I know the obvious thing is to just explain it all,but over 10 years the sheer amount of times the poor woman has had ESA or PIP stopped/refused just because something was missed out in their report, or they felt it meant a new claim should be made, or that they judged her healthy because we missed a tiny thing in our forms. During COVID it finally seemed like it was all just going to be smooth, especially with the phone reviews and the 5 year reward, but here we are. We just want to make sure we have the least chance to trip ourselves up, but making sure we have what is expected if you get me? I wish I still had a copy of the forms from 2017, because I could just verbatim copy them and add in about the adaptation, but (ironically) we lost our photocopies we kept of them when the house was being adapted
    • might of been better to have got them all defaulted 2yrs ago as we carefully explained before then you'd already be 1/3rd there and your current issue would not be one.    
  • 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

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4649 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

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi Oilyrag, Saddler & Andrew1

 

I hope you don't stop posting Oily because its people like you that are giving hope to people like me.

 

After advice from people on CAG I recently wrote to a number of creditors (that I had received dodgy agreements for) offering them a full & final settlement of 15% of the amount outstanding. Not had any written replies yet except one has just contacted me to confirm they will accept my offer and mark my credit file as 'account satisfied'. He says they'll confirm it all in writing and give me 28 days to pay.

 

 

I was getting a bit down with the whole job (especially after so much misplaced negativity following the Waksman judgment) but this has really pepped me up - the whole unenforceable credit palava - its not a myth!

 

 

 

The other thing is that this company did provide me with a microfiche copy of an agreement which on its own wasn't enforceable but did contain a line of text that said something like 't & c on the reverse'. They provided a typed copy of these t & c which did appear to make the agreement enforceable.

 

 

 

The relevance to this thread is they have provided a signed copy of an agreement and the alleged t & c. But they obviously don't have the original and presumably know that without it the court couldn't enforce. Back to the old 'better to be defendant than claimant'. And they settled for only 15%.

 

 

Some might post that I should have offered nothing - but the thing that drives us all nuts is the 'uncertainty'. Provided they are as good as their word I now have 'certainty' and in my view at a small price

 

 

Thanks to everyone who posts and please keep posting. 1 down only 8 more to go!

 

 

 

Hi brooooooooooooce

 

That's very truth, it seems that this could be another way out, especially for some they do not want to endure the ongoing pressure and not knowing the end result. Do you mind me asking which creditor has accpted your offer?

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sick to death of some people who appear to enjoy making sarcastic brain dead comments;

comments that are intended to annoy and annoy they certainly do!

 

We are supposed to welcome new members, not take the wee-wee out of them!

 

DD, you have done it to me re DN's; even though I was giviing sound legal advice.

 

This site desperately needs people with lateral thinking;

don't drive them away!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sick to death of some people who appear to enjoy making sarcastic brain dead comments;

comments that are intended to annoy and annoy they certainly do!

 

We are supposed to welcome new members, not take the wee-wee out of them!

 

DD, you have done it to me re DN's; even though I was giviing sound legal advice.

 

This site desperately needs people with lateral thinking;

don't drive them away!

 

and you didnt throw your toys out of the pram!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

DD, I am apalled...

 

STOP prodding oilyrag!

 

Your behaviour is akin to the school playground...

 

IMHO, oilyrag has made some excellent posts;

he/she clearly thinks out of the box, pity some others are not the same.

 

I am not "prodding" and you will note that in his reasons for leaving the forum the ONLY person he unfairly cited was myself - i therefore have a right to reply

 

I don't want him to leave- i don't want anyone to leave.

 

Clearly from his job he is probably far better educated than myself or some other caggers - but that doesn't mean we have to put up with his arrogance

 

the guy clearly has a problem if people don't accept or accede to his point of view

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my Swansong to CAG.

 

 

 

From what I have been able to glean about the original case management conferences setting up Manchester in the first place a number of LEAD cases were to be heard in the Mercantile Court, note LEAD not TEST to establish a set of rules that could be applied and used by other courts in the light of SECTION 78 claims by claims management companies. Certain solicitors were also involved directly who also wished to establish some ground rules improving the advice to clients and providing a settled course of action to be taken on behalf of clients. The numbers of cases being heard was also settled I believe and have that in writing.

 

That is correct they are only lead cases not test cases.

 

Carey v HSBC therefore was a number of cases to be heard subsequently by HHJ David Waksman Qc,

 

In the cold light of day MBNA lost one case and settled two others. No dissection of these on here to any extent. Why? Their details are more than relevant to your/our troubles.

 

Because MBNA provided documentation that complied with s.78 after proceedings had been issued.

 

 

The other serious thing is that, unless my arithmetic is wrong there is still a case "missing" from the Manchester hearings which was within the numbers issued from the case management conferences. Nothing has been published about this case, if the numbers are to be believed then it wasn't heard by HHJ Waksman. Why was it "pulled"? Why no mention on here? You can all do the sums. What was or is the significance of this case and the implications it might have had for the people here? Does anyone know?

 

The case is Jemitus v Bank of Scotland. It was being handled by the same solicitors instructed in the actual case Carey v HSBC. It was discontinued becuase the Bank of Scotland provided compliant documentation after the proceedings had been issued. However an alternative case was put in in its place so numbers should have remained the same.

 

 

Goodbye I won't be drawn down further to the level of some supposed caggers on this debate

 

oilyrag.:)

 

 

Don't let the ill manners of some Caggers who think a lot of themselves get you down. Their philosophy seems to be that if you don't agree with them you are wrong. They then use the bully boy tactics of he who shouts loudest..............................

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been made clear now to Oilyrag that he has lots of support and that even those who disagree with him (or the way he expresses his views) also dont want him to leave.

 

so lets leave him to his decision and get on with the business in hand before this boils up any further ( i suggest)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think they are- that's why i posted them!!

 

it's called "a sense of humour" although as we have established in the past- yours is not the same as mine!!

 

Just stop jibing at members, it is not funny;

there is no humour to be found in taking the wee-wee out of other members.

 

Stop it and allow other members to have their say, without adding your little quips.

 

AC

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stop jibing at members, it is not funny;

there is no humour to be found in taking the wee-wee out of other members.

 

Stop it and allow other members to have their say, without adding your little quips.

 

AC

 

 

Hear Hear - it gets very boring..............

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not "prodding" and you will note that in his reasons for leaving the forum the ONLY person he unfairly cited was myself - i therefore have a right to reply

 

I don't want him to leave- i don't want anyone to leave.

 

Clearly from his job he is probably far better educated than myself or some other caggers - but that doesn't mean we have to put up with his arrogance

 

the guy clearly has a problem if people don't accept or accede to his point of view

 

You are doing it again;

the guy is not arrogant;

he was just putting forward very sound lateral thinking logic and quite frankly, I agree with his wider view.

 

Lets be nice and treat this member with some common decency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are doing it again;

the guy is not arrogant;

he was just putting forward very sound lateral thinking logic and quite frankly, I agree with his wider view.

 

Lets be nice and treat this member with some common decency.

 

I will indeed treat this member with common decency - as i did from the outset, and only responded when he suggested that i have only "half a brain cell" if i disagree with his views.

 

subject closed from my point of view

 

kindly do not re kindle it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Oilyrag, Saddler & Andrew1

 

I hope you don't stop posting Oily because its people like you that are giving hope to people like me.

 

After advice from people on CAG I recently wrote to a number of creditors (that I had received dodgy agreements for) offering them a full & final settlement of 15% of the amount outstanding. Not had any written replies yet except one has just contacted me to confirm they will accept my offer and mark my credit file as 'account satisfied'. He says they'll confirm it all in writing and give me 28 days to pay.

 

 

I was getting a bit down with the whole job (especially after so much misplaced negativity following the Waksman judgment) but this has really pepped me up - the whole unenforceable credit palava - its not a myth!

 

 

 

The other thing is that this company did provide me with a microfiche copy of an agreement which on its own wasn't enforceable but did contain a line of text that said something like 't & c on the reverse'. They provided a typed copy of these t & c which did appear to make the agreement enforceable.

 

 

 

The relevance to this thread is they have provided a signed copy of an agreement and the alleged t & c. But they obviously don't have the original and presumably know that without it the court couldn't enforce. Back to the old 'better to be defendant than claimant'. And they settled for only 15%.

 

 

Some might post that I should have offered nothing - but the thing that drives us all nuts is the 'uncertainty'. Provided they are as good as their word I now have 'certainty' and in my view at a small price

 

 

Thanks to everyone who posts and please keep posting. 1 down only 8 more to go!

 

Great but you must make it clear that your payment is in 'CONSIDERATION' (use the term consideration) of your early settlement of an unenforceable debt

 

Fail to do this & they'll be within their rights to come back for more:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...