Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3333 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

i think you have missed the point

 

we all agree what waksman said and he made it clear that he was ruling only on s78 applications

 

however

 

he also made it clear that he was NOT ruling on s61 and so his comments are at best orbiter dicter and cannot be used to argue to a court that the original agreement must be produced in court

 

the CCA says that in respect of enforcement and bringing legal proceedings the original agreement SHOULD be produced- and it is this one single solitarty word that puts a spoke in what would otherwise be an open and shut case IF ONLY the act has said "Must" or "Shall"

 

thus the only use in court (IMO) to the waksman ruling is to show the court that the creditor mis uses it- not that it sets any precedent in the proceedings

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gosh DD...you were a brainbox back in school days weren't you? :suspicious: Come on, admit it...we don't mind!

:lol:

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
the CCA says that in respect of enforcement and bringing legal proceedings the original agreement SHOULD be produced- and it is this one single solitarty word that puts a spoke in what would otherwise be an open and shut case IF ONLY the act has said "Must" or "Shall"

 

How many of us over the years have been stopped by the Police whilst driving for whatever reason and as we didn't have the requested documents with us we were issued with a HO/RT/1 --a 'producer'-- an example of what is required can be seen on the Hampshire Police page at

 

http://www.hampshire.police.uk/Internet/faq/drivingdocuments.htm

 

 

This form is a legal document but repeatedly the word 'Should' is used on this page.

 

We all know that producing the documents within the given 7 day time frame is not an option and that 'should' means 'must' or 'have to' unless we want to be fined so why is the word 'should' able to be interpreted differently when it appears in the CCA 1974?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

the CCA says that in respect of enforcement and bringing legal proceedings the original agreement SHOULD be produced- and it is this one single solitarty word that puts a spoke in what would otherwise be an open and shut case IF ONLY the act has said "Must" or "Shall"

 

thus the only use in court (IMO) to the waksman ruling is to show the court that the creditor mis uses it- not that it sets any precedent in the proceedings

 

That really is splitting hairs DD.... what the heck is the big difference between SHOULD and SHALL that makes the former less specific than the latter?

 

I agree that MUST is a stronger word but IMO, SHOULD is enough of a positive instruction for the original Agreement to be produced in court in support of a case. If I'm meant to have (allegedly) signed something (for example), then as a Defendant.... the Claimant is gonna need to prove their case against me.... no woulda, shoulda, coulda about it....

 

:-)

Edited by PriorityOne
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
i think you have missed the point

 

we all agree what waksman said and he made it clear that he was ruling only on s78 applications

 

however

 

he also made it clear that he was NOT ruling on s61 and so his comments are at best orbiter dicter and cannot be used to argue to a court that the original agreement must be produced in court

 

the CCA says that in respect of enforcement and bringing legal proceedings the original agreement SHOULD be produced- and it is this one single solitarty word that puts a spoke in what would otherwise be an open and shut case IF ONLY the act has said "Must" or "Shall"

 

thus the only use in court (IMO) to the waksman ruling is to show the court that the creditor mis uses it- not that it sets any precedent in the proceedings

 

Not sure I agree DD, HHJ Waksman actually said:

 

I would not be making a final ruling at this stage on whether the documents as supplied in Carey conformed to s61(1)(a). Moreover, although care needs to be taken with assumed facts it seems to me that a determination on the assumed facts here will be helpful and should provide some general guidance

 

Seems to me a 'determination' is synonymous with 'judgment'.

 

PS: 'should' is the simple past of 'shall'

Edited by basa48
Link to post
Share on other sites

well dont shoot the messenger.however the difference between the two words in this context is E N O R M O U S

 

just ask any of the caggers (there was one only yesterday) where the court has decided that although the original was not produced-" in all probability one did exist" what the difference is

 

(around £5-£7000 in costs on a fast track lost trial!!)

 

i am ALL FOR taking a stand- but you must not mislead people into thinking that there are not serious consequences in believing that "should" and "must" or not worlds apart

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many of us over the years have been stopped by the Police whilst driving for whatever reason and as we didn't have the requested documents with us we were issued with a HO/RT/1 --a 'producer'-- an example of what is required can be seen on the Hampshire Police page at

 

http://www.hampshire.police.uk/Internet/faq/drivingdocuments.htm

 

 

This form is a legal document but repeatedly the word 'Should' is used on this page.

 

We all know that producing the documents within the given 7 day time frame is not an option and that 'should' means 'must' or 'have to' unless we want to be fined so why is the word 'should' able to be interpreted differently when it appears in the CCA 1974?

 

the word "should" in the form refers to the fact that the Hort/1 SHOULD be produced with the documents- not that the doucments requested "should" rather than "must" be produced........ for the simple reason that it is not a legal requirement for the recipient of the HORT/1 to do so-(produce his copy of the HORT/1 with the documents) it just makes marrying up the documents with the officer/station/constabulary that issued it much easier

 

The documents should be produced with this form at the police station nominated by the driver.

the requirement to produce the documents within 7 days (and certain of them IN PERSON) IS a MUST (a legal requirement) the failure to do so resulting in the commiting of an offence- no "should" about it

Link to post
Share on other sites
well dont shoot the messenger.however the difference between the two words in this context is E N O R M O U S

 

just ask any of the caggers (there was one only yesterday) where the court has decided that although the original was not produced-" in all probability one did exist" what the difference is

 

(around £5-£7000 in costs on a fast track lost trial!!)

 

i am ALL FOR taking a stand- but you must not mislead people into thinking that there are not serious consequences in believing that "should" and "must" or not worlds apart

 

DD are you saying that the fact that a ccc cant produce an original agreement doesnt matter now? Is this avenue now closed for claiming unenforceabiltiy?

I've been reading on another thread that invalid default notices are being ''ok'd'' through the courts now too, so in your opinion, is there anything left now to claim unenforceability?

 

Thanks

BF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just me two pennuth on the 'Should' argument.

Maybe we should ( Sorry :smile:) be looking at the consequences of NOT producing the original and what limits the court has in enforcing something that cannot be proven to exist.

IE

Or , The original should be produced at court, the failure of which will result in striking out of the claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DD look up the word 'should' is it descriptive,prescriptive or NORMATIVE?

 

Secondly if should does not amount to must...then forget CCA 1974...use Kneale and CPR or get them to confirm or deny under CPUTR 2008 USE the results from that to then use as positve evidence to satisfy Kneale and CPR 16 OR even to satisy Carey when defeating the absence of putting forward any positive evidence as stated by Waksman

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites
DD are you saying that the fact that a ccc cant produce an original agreement doesnt matter now? Is this avenue now closed for claiming unenforceabiltiy?

I've been reading on another thread that invalid default notices are being ''ok'd'' through the courts now too, so in your opinion, is there anything left now to claim unenforceability?

 

Thanks

BF

 

i,m saying that i just read on another thread that the court ruled- in the absence of an original agreement- the reason for which was that the account was so old the judge had accepted it had probably been lost- that on the balance of probabilities an executed agreement probably had existed and found for the claimant(creditor)

 

thus the wording of the act that the original SHOULD rather than MUST- leaves an open door for the creditor.......................

 

 

there is also reference in the CCA to the debtor "having signed" (past tense) and agreement- rather than stating that there "must still be in existence " an executed agreement

 

 

my point was not to deter anyone from arguing their case but to alert them to the fact that the non existence of an original signed agreement is no guarantee of success

 

 

it is my own personal beleif- the more so in small claims courts- that the judges seem to be taking the line that they will find in favour of the claimant (creditor) in the knowledge that although they may be wrong- it is unlikely that the defendant will have the will or the resources to appeal

Link to post
Share on other sites

my point was not to deter anyone from arguing their case but to alert them to the fact that the non existence of an original signed agreement is no guarantee of success

 

it is my own personal beleif- the more so in small claims courts- that the judges seem to be taking the line that they will find in favour of the claimant (creditor) in the knowledge that although they may be wrong- it is unlikely that the defendant will have the will or the resources to appeal

 

And that is the important crux of the matter. We all want help with understaning our interpretation of laws and past cases such as Carey, Kneale, but we also want it tempered with a reality check. We definately do need to be forewarned of what is actually happening in the lower courts and not just what we think should (that damn word again!) be happening or just what we want to hear.

 

I have enormous respect for a lot of posters on this site, being relatively inexperienced, and I have especially paid attention to DD, M2M, Andy & PT. But I still like to read PeterBard's (?) posts, however pessimistic or unlikely, but jsut so I can also try to assimilate the 'other' view.

< < < < If I can help I will and if I have helped please tip my scales. :|

Please keep this site alive by downloading the great new CAG toolbar - keeps all your subscribed threads in one easy to use place. http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk/cag_plugin.php Use the search facility regularly and CAG generates much needed money!

Link to post
Share on other sites
well dont shoot the messenger.however the difference between the two words in this context is E N O R M O U S

 

just ask any of the caggers (there was one only yesterday) where the court has decided that although the original was not produced-" in all probability one did exist"

 

i,m saying that i just read on another thread that the court ruled- in the absence of an original agreement- the reason for which was that the account was so old the judge had accepted it had probably been lost-

 

 

There are cack judges out there DD... and going to court is a lottery. It shouldn't be, but it is. CCA 1974 is quite clear and so is sec 127(3) and on that basis, I don't intend to stress about it.

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
has anyone any comments on the Kneale vs Barclaycard case as I see this hasnt been brought up?

 

I consider the judgment entirely correct and reasonable.

 

Kneale did not state if he believed he had signed an agreement or not, the exercise was purely a 'fishing trip'. Barclays had not commenced proceedings, it was Kneale who was contemplating proceedings and wished Barclays to provide the evidence to 'hang themselves'.

 

Barclays probably wouldn't ever have been able to produce an executed agreement so why pull the Tigers tail?

Link to post
Share on other sites
but then doesnt that mean for those of us who actually want to genuinely question our agreement its just no longer possible as any recon agreement will do for the courts?

Effectively what you have to do is to start, and it means FROM THE START, query as to whether or not you DID sign any agreement or not. You CANNOT leave it till the end. You have to START querying this as soon as you even send the s.77/78 request and make it specific in your letter that this is one of the things you are quering. Read the Carey v HSBC judgement. As an answer to a s.78 request then a recon is ok. As to an IEA then Wakesman says "this is something different and if a properly made application is made then..........." (might not be exact words but basically what he said)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Effectively what you have to do is to start, and it means FROM THE START, query as to whether or not you DID sign any agreement or not. You CANNOT leave it till the end. You have to START querying this as soon as you even send the s.77/78 request and make it specific in your letter that this is one of the things you are quering. Read the Carey v HSBC judgement. As an answer to a s.78 request then a recon is ok. As to an IEA then Wakesman says "this is something different and if a properly made application is made then..........." (might not be exact words but basically what he said)

 

More than that 'satnewbie' I would press home in all correspondence that you dispute signing any executed agreement. Let them prove you did. Saying you don't know indicates unsureness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
but then doesnt that mean for those of us who actually want to genuinely question our agreement its just no longer possible as any recon agreement will do for the courts?

 

Well this now is the crux of the matter. A game of poker. Do the creditors have an enforceable agreement, or not. You can assume that if they have to reconstruct an agreement that they don't have an enforceable copy - maybe.

 

You are then faced with a choice. Stop paying and let them start action and hope there is no enforceable agreement, or agree a token payment which sorta goes to show you fully admit you owe the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
well dont shoot the messenger.however the difference between the two words in this context is E N O R M O U S

 

just ask any of the caggers (there was one only yesterday) where the court has decided that although the original was not produced-" in all probability one did exist" what the difference is

 

(around £5-£7000 in costs on a fast track lost trial!!)

 

i am ALL FOR taking a stand- but you must not mislead people into thinking that there are not serious consequences in believing that "should" and "must" or not worlds apart

 

I think that is right DD. Whatever the law says or intimates, you have to deal with the reality of the situation in lower courts. DJ's are not in gneral experts in CCA and would in all probability take SHOULD as produce it if you have it, or convince me that it existed. "In all probability" is what they would reasonably go for. After all, if you are convinced of your case, then there is always appeal, if you have the pockets.

 

Vint

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this now is the crux of the matter. A game of poker. Do the creditors have an enforceable agreement, or not. You can assume that if they have to reconstruct an agreement that they don't have an enforceable copy - maybe.

 

You are then faced with a choice. Stop paying and let them start action and hope there is no enforceable agreement, or agree a token payment which sorta goes to show you fully admit you owe the debt.

 

 

Hi Basa,

 

I think you have to be realistic in lower courts.

 

You can always try and convince your creditor of their predicament by using s61 and Carey 103. onwards, if your agreement has been varied.

 

Vint

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be going insane here. :???:

 

I've had situations where I've made token payments for YEARS and then stopped them after a CCA request produced no enforceable paperwork... and so have many other Caggers on here that I've assisted. To date, I've NEVER been taken to court but have argued my case effectively enough in writing for creditors... yes creditors ... (as well as DCAs) to get rid of the account pretty sharpish. Solicitors have even dropped action. So why, oh why are we having a shoulda, woulda, coulda argument on here in connection with CCA 1974 please? It makes no difference whether you've made token payments in the past or not.... under CCA 1974; 127(3)... an account is legally unenforceable without the proper docs.

 

I accept that there are some differences re. CCA 2006 in that sec 127(3) cannot be relied upon.... and I also accept that there are cack judges out there who's knowledge of CCA law is not good... but this conversation is becoming a bit misleading IMO and the facts really need to be straightened out from the "what if's" and the "maybe's"....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi P1,

 

Your letters obviously seem to have the magic touch!

 

I have used one that you posted for me on one of my threads and so far so good.

 

I still wonder at what point CCC's or DCA's decide to proceed with litigation, it seems to have happened very quickly for some on here (even whilst paying via DMC's or other ways) and then like yourself, nothing.

 

I do feel that with recent cases where the judge has not been concerned that an original cannot be produced that maybe we are just in a VERY VERY long queue! :ohwell:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...