Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good morning,   I just left bigmotor and return the vehicle. Staff from bigmotor wasn’t helpful they start from the beginning I need to have appointment. They mentioned there is no one today from after sell who can assist me today aswell. After few min  manager come to talk with me and collect all documents. All conversation has been recorded with full names for both people who was dealing with me in the store.   Thank you     
    • London1971 - he's sick. He & his partner would like to dispose of or utilise via a rental his uk assets and/or to have access to his own £s (including his pension) - to make his end of days more pleasant.  It seems that is now only going to be possible for his partner via probate if Barc won't unblock his account.   HB - sorry I didn't mean to appear rude. I just meant this post will probs end up having to be morphed over to barc threads ! I do appreciate your input
    • I am quite happy to give a breakdown of what happened yesterday in court, and most certainly if it helps anyone. As you can imagine it was quite nerve wracking, despite knowing I had done no wrong there is always a nervousness that things can go against you. As such, I will confess to not remembering legal terms used etc but will try my best. On arrival at court I was, once again, asked by the claimants representative if I wanted a chat in a consultation room. DWF / Adidas do not send their own solicitor , they use a local company of representatives who all seem well known to court staff and judges. This was the 3rd time I had been to the court and on each occasion it was a different representative. I believe the advice on here is to not get involved in these little chats but I felt comfortable with them. First two occasions they did try to talk me into coming to an agreement but this time he just ran through what would happen in court. Not relevant to anybody else's case but this guy was more interested in my Thai Tattoos as he was a Muay Thai fighter and planning a trip to Thailand to fight out there !! When the time came we were ushered into court and took our seats in front of a judge who was already seated. I have to say it was surprisingly relaxed despite my being nervous. The judge called the representative by name and advised that the rep knew him well, knew he had a "straight to the point" attitude towards civil cases and didn't accept pointless waffle. He then outlined the case and spoke to me advising that he was aware I had no legal background and if any of the legal terms he was required to use were not self explanatory to me just to ask a question. Adidas WS had been written by a Senior Manager of Risk Prevention based in Amsterdam and the judge asked if he was attending. He seemed a bit taken aback when advised he would not be. He questioned how it was deemed as "fair" that I could be cross examined but the Adidas employee could not. The adidas rep said that he had a list of questions he had been instructed to ask of me, but that he felt my replies would all be denial so agreed not to cross examine.  The judge, during his summary, came to the part where adidas said I had contacted them asking where my refund was, and they had paid me due to "customer appeasement". His exact words were "the defendant would have to have some brass neck to actually phone chasing a refund for items he knew he had not returned". He also commented that Adidas had claimed that the return went to an altered postcode but did not include an example of what their return label would have looked like at the time, which seemed and obvious bit of evidence to him. The judge then commented that he thought it would be very difficult to prove that I was responsible for Adidas not receiving their returned goods. He then handed over to the claimant to put forward their claim. The claim really consisted of their rep reading through their WS and highlighting things which "proved" my guilt. They had discovered on internet forums that people were altering the postcode and sending out empty envelopes in the place of the goods. This was known as FTID (False Tracking ID) and Instant Refund. Apparently I was refunded within 18 minutes of my parcel being scanned at the Post Office. He also suggested that the altered postcode was pretty damning. This took maybe 15 minutes for the full reading. The judge asked if I had any questions and advised that I didn't need to prove my innocence, they had to prove my guilt.  I did make a couple of comments but really could have said nothing. I advised that when returning items to a post office, the first thing they ask you to do is put the parcel on the scales, which made a mockery of the empty envelope theory. They then scan the bar code or QR code, which would require in depth knowledge to be able to alter. I asked if adidas had been to this "altered" post code to recover the goods. The tracking provided by Royal Mail remarked "delivered no signature" I pointed out that adidas claim I was refund within 18 minutes but also say they refunded me following a call I had made chasing my refund, a total contradiction The judge then moved onto his decision. He started by saying that he had no doubt whatsoever that Adidas not received the returned goods. At this my stomach totally dropped.  He then said he had absolutely no doubt that I had returned the goods in good faith, and that the return system was obviously flawed for Adidas to have lost £10.4m. Adidas had provided absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, and on that basis case dismissed. I walked out to the car park with the Adidas rep who advised me that there was absolutely no chance I was ever going to lose. If he had told Adidas what he thought of their case and evidence he wouldn't get any more work, they had no case whatsoever I am quite certain I will have missed some details of the day so quite happy to answer any questions that may jog my memory
    • Fair enough, I'll stand down. HB
  • 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

Securitization - Discussion


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3531 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

from the Capital One v HMRC case:

 

25. "He (Mr Bonsall) did not disagree with Mr Ingram's view that what has been achieved is a true sale, an essential condition if contextup.png capital contextdown.png relief is to be obtained for regulatory purposes in the US (it is not a UK requirement), though his opinion was that the arrangements, seen as a whole, are consistent only with what is in any real sense a borrowing by COBE." Both sides agreeing the assignment was a "True sale"!

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

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Probably a little early for such a question but I'll throw it in now and see what comes of it :D.

 

If a Credit Card provider 'sells' the account debt to a DCA, assigned absolutely and not just equitably, how would we know if this amount had been securitised and if it had been how does this impact on the subsequent claimed 'right' of the new owner to take litigation for recovery in their own name?

 

This is the whole point of this securitisation discussion after all I believe. Are we any closer to actually understanding this process and/or determining how we would gain access to such account history to show a court that the seemingly simple act of selling an account debt is in fact far from straight forward?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, something somewhere has to be wrong with this entire process.

 

The law is quite clear on the rights of a claimant to bring recovery action. If we can crack this we'll be able to attack the right of any creditor to initiate litigation. I'm not up for destroying the entire financial market but given the mess the global economy is in I feel it's not too much to ask that all of this is opened up and fairness applied across the board.

 

What documentation would show the owners/interested parties on a debt? There must be documentation of some kind detailing this process and specifically naming the debt totals (including your own CC account for example) that have been 'sold' to other institutions as part of this process.

 

Is it perhaps the 'promise' of future repayment that is sold meaning there is nothing tangible to look at? Can't believe there is nothing on paper that would confuse the whole assignment and ownership rights process!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, something somewhere has to be wrong with this entire process.

 

The law is quite clear on the rights of a claimant to bring recovery action. If we can crack this we'll be able to attack the right of any creditor to initiate litigation. I'm not up for destroying the entire financial market but given the mess the global economy is in I feel it's not too much to ask that all of this is opened up and fairness applied across the board.

 

What documentation would show the owners/interested parties on a debt? There must be documentation of some kind detailing this process and specifically naming the debt totals (including your own CC account for example) that have been 'sold' to other institutions as part of this process.

 

Is it perhaps the 'promise' of future repayment that is sold meaning there is nothing tangible to look at? Can't believe there is nothing on paper that would confuse the whole assignment and ownership rights process!

 

It is pointless us understanding this process when the judiciary doesn't. If and when they issue a claim the court is more interested in whether you owe the money or not, it doesn't matter(within reason) who is suing you the argument is too technical for 98% of the Judges at the county court level. They certainly don't like a learned LIP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely spot on and appreciate the county court is a pretty blunt and unsophisticated tool but the fact remains if we have a valid legal point that we can demonstrate the courts will simply have to respond, they cannot go on indefinitely pushing sound argument aside purely because of their own ignorance.

 

Sure, it may take time but if you go back even 10 years look at the amount of change that's been bought about. It may be a hard task but it's not impossible by any means. We should explore all avenues and aim to understand the process so that we can then explain the argument concisely and clearly. We have nothing to lose by doing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

emandcole

 

I agree with your sentiments, believe me I have some strong view after the injustice I was served couple of weeks ago. Where I knew what I was saying was the truth and the other side were cooking things up.

 

What you are talking about here is changing the establishment and it will take years. But you got to make a start somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any other day, humbleman, you would have ripped that lot to shreds...

 

Most judges do consider the law and well-formulated arguments. The problem is they don't often get them from defendants! That's what we can change here on CAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Bump

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...