Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
  • 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

The law of the land does not apply to the Apple iPhone; JRP v. Orange


JRP1414
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4346 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

Here is a brief summary of a problem I am experiencing with Orange:

 

- Took out a contract with Orange for an Apple iPhone, paid £99 for the handset.

 

- 24hrs after receiving the phone, it developed an intermittent fault whereby the signal drops out and a message pops up - 'No SIM card installed'.

 

- Called Orange Tech Support who agreed it was a fault with the handset but said my only option was to take the phone to an Apple shop to have it repaired / replaced under the warranty. I explained that my contract was with Orange and therefore it was my statutory right that they should replace the handset as it was not fit for purpose / of satisfactory quality. Orange said that for any other make of handset, this is the case, but not for the iPhone! They said that Apple have stipulated in a contract between them and Orange that they must manage any replacements / repairs. They basically said the law does not apply to the iPhone!

 

- I requested to speak with a supervisor and was told one would call me back. Some 2hrs later, after chasing up this call, I did receive a call from a supervisor, who to my surprise, reiterated their stance that the law under the Sale of Goods Act or Sale & Supply of Goods and Services Act, does not apply to the Apple iPhone! He said I MUST speak to Apple to arrange a repair / replacement under the terms of the warranty.

 

- I have fired off an email to Orange Customer Services, demanding they honour my statutory rights and replace my phone. I cannot believe what they are doing!

 

I will keep you posted on the outcome. Has anyone else experienced similar problems?

 

JRP1414

Link to post
Share on other sites

After the most shocking example of customer service I have ever experienced in my life, I ended up giving up and calling Apple direct. They are sending me a replacement handset. Still no proper response from Orange, except for an answerphone message on the broken phone, leaving no return

contact details!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say - you may have been the architect of your own misfortune.

 

Firstly, the error message you get often is a problem with the SIM latch not being engaged correctly/properly, giving an intermittent contact, and the problems you experienced. In a similar situation, the SIM card itself can become slightly oxidised and needs a good clean with a lint-free cloth.

 

As for the repair/replacement procedure. Afriad, Orange is right - Apple have arrange to handle all service issues, so why you want to deal with the Monkey than the Organ Grinder eludes me. Since Orange don't hold replacement stocks, there is little point shouting at them.

 

Incidentally, as Applies is Orange's 'agent' for the servicing, there has been no breach - the proper procedures were followed. The same will hold true when your battery packs in and you need that replaced. If you buy into Apple, you play the game their way.

 

One of the main reasons I'll never touch them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, well you may well be correct with your diagnosis of the fault but nevertheless, being just 24hrs old when it developed the fault, it's hardly acceptable & I struggle to see how I could be at all to blame. On the SIM card front, that too is brand new & works perfectly in another handset, so that narrows it down to the phone. If you had it in your hand, you would agree with me that it's definitely a loose connection inside.

 

On the Apple/ Orange front, it is plain & simple; my contract for the purchase of the goods / provision of the service is with Orange. I have no contract with Apple (save for product safety issues) & they would be well within their rights to tell me to get lost and to go speak to Orange to get a fault rectified. Orange have provided me with a service & also goods within the provision of that service and consequently the Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982 stipulates that those goods must be of satisfactory quality & fit for purpose. It is quite clear there is an inherent fault with the phone & therefore the responsibility lies with Orange to replace it. I don't have to go to Apple, I don't have to dance to their tune, but yes I can see advantages of going direct. My biggest gripe was that I had to do all the running around, incurring time & expense for something that was not my fault. It is these losses which I will be seeking to recover from Orange for breach of our contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you refer to the described problem, it would be in the same league as a car door not shut completely, and you complaining of a warning light on the dash that prevented the engine starting. Close the door and the problem is solved!

 

Similarly - until/unless the contacts of the SIM/phone are checked (to eliminate the issue from the 'usual suspects', there's little I can add.

 

As to your second paragraph - I do not know if you are interpreting what I said, you are NOT being told to go off and 'see Apple' because Orange cannot be bothered to deal with you. Apple have their own dedicated repair centres around the country (there's one just 40 miles from me) so you are going to the so-called centre of excellence to provide a speedy repair, Orange told you this and you are dissatisfied with this. In my book that is your problem and not theirs. Why not follow their advice and get it fixed/replaced? IF it doesn't, then bring out the indignation and demands for restitution.

 

It may be clear to YOU that there is an 'internal fault' - how many iPhones have you had? A good many so-called out of the box failures are user error. A retailer isn't going to increase it's levels of graded stock because a customer cannot read the instructions correctly. In cases where genuine faults are identified, then clearly repair/replacement is warranted, but not until then.

 

Lastly. You have made some whacking assumptions (all incorrect) that will leave you looking foolish and any dealings with them, and probably lead to an impasse that will (unfortunately) leave you disadvantaged. Have you actually READ your contract? In it there are no 'service' guarantees - there may be if you have taken out a business contract but not a retail one. As such, compensation will not be payable, there may be some goodwill (line rental rebate) but these are discretionary, and if you are unreasonable (or appear to be so) this won't happen.

 

Lastly the Goods and Services Act doesn't really apply - you have a Service Contract for network service which transcends this, and affects your SIM. The phone is covered by SoGA, nothing else. There is no marriage of the items to one common goal. as problems with one do not equate to any waiver of the other.

 

Rather than paint yourself into a corner, do it their way, and if that fails. Complain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hello,

 

Aware this is a 2 year old thread but thought it helpful for others to update on similar experience and my approach.

 

I received a new iphone from orange - with an intermittent mic problem that manifested on the first day after receiving the phone.

 

I called orange support and was first advised to call apple, which I did and explained the problem, they advised they would repair or replace with a refurnished phone. I told them it was actually DOA (dead on arrival) as it was supplied faulty and that I would like a new phone, not refurbished - apple advised I would have to have reported it within 14 days to them and it was past that period

 

I then called orange back - I had reported the fault within 10 days to them, advised that it was NOT a warranty repair but actually a DOA handset and that I would like a new one to replace it - they eventually agreed and one should be delivered to me later today.

 

If you raise the problem within a certain time on receipt of the goods then it is a different process - one of faulty goods supplied, not of working goods then developing a fault and the process for replacement is different.

 

Regards the posting referencing SOGA - it is the company supplying the goods who are liable, not the manufacturer of those goods so respectfully disagree with previous posts - Orange may have a service agreement with apple to repair faults under warranty but that does not negate the fact that it is Orange who supplied them to you, not apple

 

Hope that helps others

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...