Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all! I've now had a "final notification letter" through from ECP. I assume I should continue to ignore this, but is there likely any action I need to take? Do you need to see a copy of the letter? Thanks
    • Please will you upload the defence in a PDF format document
    • Afternoon All - after 3 weeks of silence, this morning I received an email from HMCTS advising that P2G have rejected my claim. Decide whether to proceed Parcel2Go.com has rejected your claim. You need to decide whether to proceed with the claim. You need to respond before 4pm on 25 June 2024. Your claim won’t continue if you don’t respond by then. This is their ‘defence’ Their defence Why they disagree with the claim When choosing a service on the Defendants website, the Claimant chose to book their order with Evri and selected to take out £20 parcel protection which comes with the service. On the first page of the booking process, the Claimant entered the value of £265 for the contents and was offered parcel protection for loss or damages against their goods for £13.99 + VAT. The Claimant selected no, which then produced a pop up which explained 'We strongly recommend that you protect the full value of your item(s).' however, the Claimant still did not take this protection out and instead continued with the booking process. At the end of the booking process, the Claimant was offered this again which was refused and the Claimant continued with the booking by accepting the terms and conditions which re-iterates the information provided in the booking process. The parcel was sent, however, seems to be delayed in transit. The parcel finally started to track again, however, when delivered the parcel was empty with no contents. As such, the claim was re-opened and attempted to be settled for the £20 protection taken out in the booking process. This was refused by the Claimant as they felt they should be paid the full amount of the value entered when booking. Unfortunately, due to the refusal of the parcel protection in the booking process the Defendant is not liable to settle the claim to the value and only to the parcel protection taken out. The Defendant shall rely on the Terms and Conditions of carriage in particular section 9. The Defendant understands that the contents have not be handled with due care and attention, which is not being disputed, however, they are disputing the amount they are liable to. They have requested mediation, I’m sure not least to drag the case out even longer, but I can see no benefit to me in this and so shall reject it. As ever, I’d welcome your thoughts guys. g59   
    • I doubt HMCTS holds any data on whether arrests by AEAs required police assistance.  They couldn't or wouldn't provide data on how many of warrants issued were successfully executed - just the number issued!  In my experience, arrest warrants whether with or without bail are [surprisingly] carried out with little or no fuss.  I think it's about how you treat people - a little respect and courtesy goes a long way. If you treat people badly they will react the same way. Occasions when police are called to assist are not common and, having undertaken or managed many thousands of these over the years, I can only recall a handful of occasions when police assistance was necessary. On one occasion, many years ago, I arrested and transported a man from Hampshire to Bristol prison on a committal warrant. It was just me and he was no problem. I didn't know the Bristol area (pre Sat Nav) and he was kind enough to provide directions - seems he knew the prison.  One young chap on another committal warrant jumped out of his back window and I had to chase him across several garden fences.  When he gave up (we were both knackered) I agreed to drive by his girlfriend's house to say farewell for a while.  I gave them a few moments and he was fine. The most difficult are breach warrants but mainly in locating the defendant as they don't want to go back to prison - can't blame them.  These were always dealt with by the police until the Access to Justice Act transferred responsibility from them to the magistrates' courts. The fact was the police did not actively pursue them and generally only executed them when they arrested someone for something else and found they had a breach warrant outstanding.  Hence the transfer of responsibility.
    • thats down to mcol making that option available for you to select, you cant force it. typically if there are known processing delays at northants bulk it will be atleast 14 days later if not more.
  • 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

Capquest


jacz82xx
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5230 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

Hi there i've recently recieved a letter from capquest about a sky credit card i had a good few years ago!! I haven't paid anything for over 5 years and believe this could be statute barred as i've been reading up on statute barred debts on this site and i live in Scotland!! The original balance was £1000 and now it's over £3000 i haven't heard anything for years plus i've moved address twice and out the blue i recieve this letter from capquest threatening legal action, Should i just ignore this letter or could someone please advise me on what letter to reply with, Many thanks J

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you live in scotland this will be statute barred. I would ignore them just now and let them waste more time and money sending you threat o grams. or if you wish here is the statute barred letter for scotland send recorded delivery and do not sign

Address

 

Date

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Acc/Ref No 4563210025897412

 

You have contacted me regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

 

I would point out that under The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Part 1 Section 6 "If, after the appropriate date, an obligation to which this section applies has subsisted for a continuous period of 5 years:

 

(a) without any relevant claim having been made in relation to the obligation, and

(b) without the subsistence of the obligation having been relevantly acknowledged,

then as from the expiration of that period the obligation shall be extinguished:"

 

I would also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that "it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period".

 

The last acknowledgement of this alleged debt was made over five years ago. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from myself in the relevant period under Part 1 Section 6 of The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 , I would respectfully suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against myself to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

Should you continue to pursue this account without providing this evidence I shall seek an interdict and damages accordingly. A formal complaint will also be made to Trading Standards along with a report to the OFT questioning your fitness to hold a consumer credit license.

 

I await your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that no further contact will be made concerning the above account after that last letter.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

Yours faithfully

 

finaly remember it is not unknown for a dca to claim a payment or atempted payment has been made inside the 5 years, but they have to prove this is the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou for the reply, I think i'll ignore it just now and if they keep sending threats i'll send the letter, Forgot to mention they don't even have my proper address the only reason i've been getting the letters is because my posty knows me, They have only been putting the stair number for this stair and the stair next door they haven't put any flat or door number lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

i to have received a letter from capquest concerning payments to t-mobile. I aknowledge there is a debt but the letter says very clearly if you contact us by the 13th feb 2010 we can offer a settlement figure on the monies that i owe. If you pay £.0.00 over a 1 month period your acount will be cleared and we will close your account.

 

If they state that then clearly this is a legally binding letter or am i very wrong in this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i to have received a letter from capquest concerning payments to t-mobile. I aknowledge there is a debt but the letter says very clearly if you contact us by the 13th feb 2010 we can offer a settlement figure on the monies that i owe. If you pay £.0.00 over a 1 month period your acount will be cleared and we will close your account.

 

If they state that then clearly this is a legally binding letter or am i very wrong in this matter.

 

I would hazard a guess that by making this offer :rolleyes: they're hoping you will take the bait and at least pay them something as there's a good chance they've nothing concrete to back things up

 

Sit back and bide your time, see what happens next, might be a better offer :eek:

 

R

Edited by Revenant
typo

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] I asked them to wait whilst I got my Bank card :violin:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Information that may help if a CCA request is refused due to the lack of a signature . . http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?248863-Signature-demands-fight-back-possible-!&highlight=

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a payment arrangement for £32 a monthe already but the letter states if i pay them nothing by the 13th feb 2010 they will clear my account lol. clearly before i cancel the direct debit i need to know where i legally stand with regards to their letter as i phoned them and the agent said it was sent out by mistake lol and they do not offer settlement figures for T-Mobile accounts.

 

But a letter saying they are offering a settlement clearly disputes what the agent said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...