Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The date the bailiff came into my house was 12th Oct 2020 at 13:11pm
    • Thanks for replying, i informed the seller in December 20, they initially sent me the email below.   ""With reference to your valued order and our recent inspection of your images. We have now investigated your concerns and can confirm that there are no manufacturing defects present and your carpet is reacting normally. The change of appearance of your carpet is due to the way in which the pile has settled unevenly with use and can show in some areas more than others. This is caused by the heavy traffic concentrated onto a small area coupled with the twisting of feet as you turn. All carpets have places where it is walked on more than others. This is a normal characteristic of any carpet and pile reversal and pile compression is not considered a manufacturing defect and is a natural occurrence in any carpet with some showing the effect more than others In way of a more detailed explanation it is the sides of the tufts of your carpet that appear a lighter, more silvery shade than when the tufts are viewed end-on. As the pile settles, lighter and darker patches develop depending on the angle of the pile. It is quite common for pile to settle in different directions to the normal pile lay as foot traffic bends the pile different ways and this will dull the appearance and will distort very slightly the appearance as you must appreciate. The angle of the pile has no effect on the durability of the carpet and we are confident it will continue to give you many years of satisfactory service. This effect can be rejuvenated to a degree by regular use of a vacuum cleaner with a rotating brush mechanism on the head In conclusion, we would confirm there are no manufacturing defects present with your carpet and we hope our explanation will further clarify your understanding of the carpet’s characteristics.""     i objected to their explanation and they have agreed to send one of their surveyors when restrictions are lifted, my stance if they say there is no fault then surely the carpet does not posses reasonable durability based on the purchase price.   Thanks
    • Marsdens did not even acknowledge any of the letters. I think they ignore them so people get bored. I am just thankful that it was not me who owed the money. I do not know what I would have done. Do they usually collect debts from at least 8 years ago? I am just getting the date from my son he has the cctv record. I really wanted to know if they were allowed to go into an address that had nothing to do with the debt. Mostly because I am afraid anyone can just walk into my home. My daughter moved into the property 6 years ago . The man Richard whos name was on the paperwork moved out of that property approx 8 ytars ago. He never lived at my address.
    • Ok thanks. Understand, i thought it added to the time, so if held up in court you added that to your time. Assuming its discontinued
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Legal Action: how to start off. IMPORTANT IF YOURE BEING SUED


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3513 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

Aww thanks Angel,

I can't take any credit for the content though, I'll just be the ghost writer, LOL.

Your help would be most appreciated,

Happy New Year to you hon,

 

Elsa xxx

PLEASE NOTE... I AM MOST SORRY BUT I HAVE VERY LIMITED AVAILABILITY AT THE MOMENT DUE TO EXTREME PRESSURE OF WORK - IF YOU REQUIRE URGENT HELP ON YOUR THREAD AND ARE GETTING NO RESPONSE PLEASE HIT THE TRIANGLE FOR SITE TEAM ASSISTANCE. ELSA XXX

 

Please check out my BLOG for the quick guide to debt threats - it has all the info & letter template links you need to get started on your journey of TAKING CONTROL. :roll:

 

All opinions are my own based on research. I am not legally qualified, if in doubt please consult a legal expert.

Hope this has helped or made you smile. Keep your chin up, you're among friends now! Elsa xxx

Please click the *star* of any CAG member who has helped you .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Here's the seperate thread for collecting info for the legal blog, so we don't clutter this thread up

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?288755-New-Legal-Action-Blog-suggestions-for-posts-for-inclusion&p=3242897#post3242897:

 

Elsa x

PLEASE NOTE... I AM MOST SORRY BUT I HAVE VERY LIMITED AVAILABILITY AT THE MOMENT DUE TO EXTREME PRESSURE OF WORK - IF YOU REQUIRE URGENT HELP ON YOUR THREAD AND ARE GETTING NO RESPONSE PLEASE HIT THE TRIANGLE FOR SITE TEAM ASSISTANCE. ELSA XXX

 

Please check out my BLOG for the quick guide to debt threats - it has all the info & letter template links you need to get started on your journey of TAKING CONTROL. :roll:

 

All opinions are my own based on research. I am not legally qualified, if in doubt please consult a legal expert.

Hope this has helped or made you smile. Keep your chin up, you're among friends now! Elsa xxx

Please click the *star* of any CAG member who has helped you .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I really cannot stress enough to follow the excellent advice given in this thread (read it all get the full picture).

 

I'd just like to add - that if done correctly, not only are you taking control of the situation but you can put the other party to boot over Costs.

 

Particularly where the debt had been sold on for peanuts (every N244 mean an appearance at courts costs them what £500?). It all adds up and can force the other side into considerable concessions rather than trawling up to court (or paying for someone to do so on their behalf).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Recently received a Court Claim from DCA. The POC states

1. Credit Card Reference (which is their own).

2. NOA sent.

3, £xxxx remains due.

4. Interest claimed under s.69.

 

Would this be considered an inadequately pleaded POC and, if so, should I ask them to re-plead.

There is no mentiion of an Agreement (they have only sent a reconstituted one to date).

 

I am a bit confused as to sequence here. Should I send a 31.14 asking for more information for items mentioned in POC and another Pt18 request for information on Agreement, statements etc. Or should I just request they re-plead.

Another query is the time factor as my defense needs to be in by Easter and it will mean I do not get the full 28 days, so should I ask for extension in one of the letters, whichever one I am advised to send.

Any help appreciated. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a completely lame PoC.

 

I assume you have acknowledged stating you are defending all the claim?

 

Too soon to bother with 31 disclosure or Part 18 requests.

 

I would defend on the grounds of inadequate PoC on which to base a defence. To do anything more would be tantamount to admitting there is something to defend!

 

Hopefully someone can find a suitably worded defence, but I'll take a look around in my notes.

 

EDIT: OK Ignore what I just said and read what PT suggests here >

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283443-Embarrased-Defences-and-the-problems-with-them

Edited by basa48
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently asked for copies of the original contract and a copy of the default notice. I was not sent a copy of the default notice because they said that my letter dated XXXX confirms that I am already in receipt of their clients default notice.

Do you think they are blagging it as they cant supply me with a copy? If they send me a copy of the one I sent them earlier in the year I will know as I have written on it.

Where do I go from here, any help please? Am I right in thinking that they havent complied fully with CPR 31.14 and I cant file a proper defense as I dont have all the documents I have asked them to supply?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I recently asked for copies of the original contract and a copy of the default notice. I was not sent a copy of the default notice because they said that my letter dated XXXX confirms that I am already in receipt of their clients default notice.

Do you think they are blagging it as they cant supply me with a copy? If they send me a copy of the one I sent them earlier in the year I will know as I have written on it.

Where do I go from here, any help please? Am I right in thinking that they havent complied fully with CPR 31.14 and I cant file a proper defense as I dont have all the documents I have asked them to supply?

 

Creditors rarely keep copies of Default Notices. Why would they need to provide a copy when it is clear you did receive one (you have sent a copy of it to them).

 

The DN would need to have been mentioned in the PoC for them to have to provide it under 31.14. Even then they could simply send the copy you have provided them with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I want to know if they have a copy. If they have then I want to see if its the same as mine or if they have "fabricated" another which may be different to the one issued to me. The one I have is invalid due to not giving a specific date to rectify the breach by.

 

The default notice is also mentioned in the POC so simply saying I have already got it I dont think is good enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see what you’re trying to achieve. Are you now trying to deny receiving the DN? That would be very dangerous.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am not trying to say I havent had it. I have never said that I dont owe the money either, Santander have been very unhelpful from the start and made it very difficult so I am playing them at their own game.

They are using the consumer credit act against me so if it goes to court I will do the same, they havent issued a valid default notice and then they terminated the agreement. Unlawful repudiation, they havent followed the prescribed path of the C.C.A. so I intend to use that against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see what you’re trying to do, but if they don’t take the bait, it’s not a line I would pursue further.

 

As far as I am aware, it’s not unlawful repudiation, I’m afraid. If the DN was dodgy, the account remains unterminated. Therefore they cannot enforce on the back of a dodgy DN (Link v Harrison). However, if you have furnished them with a copy of said dodgy DN, and they continue with court, apply for strike out.

 

I’m surprised they haven’t simply reissued a compliant DN. Have you a thread on this?

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read lots of threads on CAG about dodgy DN's and unlawful repudiation and the way I read it is they have to do it by the book, if they dont and close the account off the back of a dodgy DN once you accept their unlawful repudiation then all they can chase you for is the arrears. There is a very good thread which explains it all, I will try to find it and post the link. The account can be reinstated if both parties agree, which I wont.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m afraid it’s wrong!

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is not rescission. Harrison v Link made clear that an account could not be terminated under the CCA if the DN was faulty, but that a new compliant DN could be issued. There’s a few threads at the moment which have gone over this.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zentrix

 

Shortciruit the whole thing and simply ask them if they can confirm/deny that they have a copy under CPUTR 2008/1277.

 

This way you dont commit yourself as Donkey has suggested

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you elaborate a bit? Why is it wrong?

 

Zentrix9, its been shown on this site that this line of defence is very dangerous cost wise and has little chance of success I'm afraid... I believe there is one case already decided against and 3 in the pipeline with this kind of defence..........as DB has stated they should have stopped proceedings and then re-issued a new DN.

 

S.

Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zentrix9, its been shown on this site that this line of defence is very dangerous cost wise and has little chance of success I'm afraid... I believe there is one case already decided against and 3 in the pipeline with this kind of defence..........as DB has stated they should have stopped proceedings and then re-issued a new DN.

 

S.

 

But if they continue on the back of a dodgy DN, you have an absolute defence.

 

The jury still appears to be out on whether they can then come back, as this has not really been tested in court yet, but in theory they can seek permission.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zentrix

 

Shortciruit the whole thing and simply ask them if they can confirm/deny that they have a copy under CPUTR 2008/1277.

 

This way you dont commit yourself as Donkey has suggested

 

m2ae

 

Ok and if they cant supply a copy whats the outcome / next step likely to be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
But if they continue on the back of a dodgy DN, you have an absolute defence.

 

The jury still appears to be out on whether they can then come back, as this has not really been tested in court yet, but in theory they can seek permission.

 

Ok if they continue of the back of a dodgy DN what would be the likely outcome, would the judge throw it out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing is that I cant find out if my agreement is valid or not. I have posted on here a few times but had no reply. It was taken out 25/07/2005 and looks like there was a tearoff piece on the top. I cant figur out if its an application form or not. It does say credit card agreement at the top left. The back doesnt have any terms and conditions on it and on the front the terms go up to 3b which refers to section 4 and its not there. Nowhere on the form does it refer to a seperate document containing terms and conditions, only under the heading IMPORTANT - DATA PROTECTION, where it states that you must read sections 13 and 14 on the terms and conditions provided. Heres a link to the thread and photos if anyone would like to look and advise. Its hard to read not the best photocopy they provided. I signed it but never dated it.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?273135-MNBA-CCA-enforcable&p=3094765&highlight=#post3094765

Edited by ZENTRIX9
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have recently been passed an opinion of a barrister whom i have not debated my view on this whole rescission arguments, but i can say that his view mirrors mine in that you cannot terminate a regulated agreement unless the statutory requirements are met.

 

if they arent met then no termination can occur, this accords with Chambers view, and the view of many County Court judges and many many other counsel whom i have canvassed.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...