Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
    • Sleep apnoea: used to require the condition  to be “completely” controlled Sometime before June 2013 DVLA changed it to "adequately" controlled. I have to disagree with MitM regarding the effect of informing DVLA and S.88 A diagnosis of sleep apnoea doesn't mean a licence wont be granted, and, indeed, here it was. If the father sought medical advice (did he?) : this is precisely where S.88 applies https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64edcf3a13ae1500116e2f5d/inf1886-can-i-drive-while-my-application-is-with-dvla.pdf p.4 for “new medical condition” It is shakier ground if the opinion of a healthcare professional wasn’t sought. in that case it is on the driver to state they believed they met the medical standard to drive. However, the fact the licence was then later granted can be used to be persuasive that the driver’s belief they met the standard was correct. What was the other condition? And, just to confirm, at no point did DVLA say the licence was revoked / application refused? I’d be asking DVLA Drivers’ Medical Group why they believe S.88 doesn’t apply. S.88 only applies for the UK, incidentally. If your licence has expired and you meet the conditions for S.88 you can drive in the U.K., but not outside the U.K. 
    • So you think not pay until DN then pay something to the oc to delay selling to dcas?    then go from there? 
  • 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

Curious twist on two CCA requests-they are taking me to Court!


Laiste
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6064 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

Paul, I think what you are actually saying here is that the request has never been received by the creditor. Did you send it by recorded delivery or has the £1 cheque been cleared from your account? If you can prove they did receive it then their defence is not reasonable. Otherwise Trading Standards are probably right and you will have to start again with a request but this time make sure you use recorded delivery. There can be no doubt then and they cannot use non-receipt as a defence.

 

 

 

The £1 cheque was cashed i have this on a statement, it was used to reduce the balance.

The request was sent recorded and Trading Standards were made aware of this.

The CC company whilst in criminal default charged unlawful charges, interest, and a default notice was sent out, the amount as been refunded now but the dispute goes on.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi everyone,

 

Well just to put you all in the picture, a telephone hearing is set to take place next Tues. HFC and their sols are obviously worried about something though....I rang the Court yesterday and was informed as part of the conversation with the member of staff, that the sols were querying the hearing going ahead by telephone! I have the feeling that they are very concerned that the Judge will be able to hear both parties speak, but that they won't be able to hear what we're saying!

 

I have two Q's for you knowledgeable people. Firstly, is it possible to obtain a transcript from my telephone provider of incoming telephone calls? The reason I ask is, I want to gather evidence that the phone call HFC said took place on the 24th Jan between myself and them, didn't happen. Any thoughts anyone?

 

Secondly, can someone tell me about collection charges on a credit card? I have just discovered from some docs sent to me by the sols that HFC added a £1500 charge! My instinct tells me that this will be in contravention of consumer regs and other legislation, but I want to understand how they operate.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

Laiste,

 

You might not be able to get a transcript, but your telephone provider might have a log of who rang you. I am thinking something similar to the itemised bill you get of your outgoing calls. of course you could try to get a copy of the sols itemised outgoing account (fat chance). Have you spoken to your service provider about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, can someone tell me about collection charges on a credit card? I have just discovered from some docs sent to me by the sols that HFC added a £1500 charge! My instinct tells me that this will be in contravention of consumer regs and other legislation, but I want to understand how they operate.

 

 

Hi Laiste,

 

You may/may not find this thread useful... re-claiming charges...

 

HFC Bank taking me to court ... but thought I would draw your attention to it anyway.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Thanks for your replies, much appreciated!

 

The collection charge seems to be added on BY HFC AFTER they default you, BEFORE they pass to a DCA/ ''solicitor'' . They claim its 16.3% or something but refuse to provide a break down, and shock horror can't supply the original agreement that states this term.

 

Thanks Karnevil for that. I was furious when I received the documents from the solicitor, detailing this charge, as I wasn't aware of it. The cretins have said they are prepared to deduct this figure from the amount owing, obviously this is an act of sheer kindness of their part!:x Not! I have to say my 1st thought was that this had to be a penalty of some kind and their seemingly magnanimous act made me even more suspicious as to the legality of it!

 

It's very interesting that you say they didn't supply the orig agreement that states the term. I decided to write to HFC yesterday, asking them to explain what the charge is, provide a detailed financial breakdown of how its calculated and also furnish a copy of the terms & conditions highlighting the provision that relates to this charge.:D I have been dealing with a senior bod at HFC, I sent it by g/d and have given her 7 days to respond. I won't hold my breath....!

 

I have some more news! Nothing happens for a while and then it's frenetic activity! Firstly, the claimants are supposed to write to us b4 the telephone hearing to organise it, that's their responsibilty. Nothing in the post this morning and the hearing is on Tues!

 

Secondly, you will recall that I submitted a letter to the Crt, asking for the Judge's reasons for not striking out their app notice and granting us Judgment by Default. Well, the letter arrived this morning. His actual brief, but very interesting, response was, "The claimants application clearly warrants a hearing. I am not prepared to strike it out on paper."

 

So what do you make of that.....?

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"IF" being the operative word! I think they are very worried, having been found out in a big lie. Their sol has submitted a witness stmt attesting that the claimants (HFC) only received the Court Order on the 24th Jan. I sent to all parties last wk, amongst other things, a copy of the guaranteed delivery postage slip, which confirms it was the 17th Jan! Their whole case at this point hinges on when they say they received it and given that the postage proof is irrefutible, that's going to be one difficult corner to get out of....!

 

It's never a wise move to lie to the Court, you're bound to get found out at some point, particularly if said untruths seem to be habitual!

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

Laiste,

 

The Judges are itching to hear the Defences, but are not being given the opportunity because the banks et al are backing off at the last minute. I think also the Judges realise, we have researched our claims and the banks are using industry standard for their excuse and telling other untruths as to the receipt of mail and the like. We are one step ahead of the average joe blow and i don't mean to insul;t anyone with that remark, just that we are covering all bases and not allowing these Houses of Shylock any wriggle room at all.

 

Surprising that they haven't orgasnised a conference call, is this going to be a last minute rush on Monday eveing for it. It has to be booked for the hook up for the three way conversation. I used to have organise conference calls and we had to book them two working days before the event with all the participants notified that the call has been arranged for such and such a time. Makes me wonder are they going to offer a settlement at the 11 hour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Laiste

 

Given the history it may well be the Judge is quite excited about this case. It's certainly going to be a little more interesting than the usual uncontested claims they face. If he had granted judgement in default then presumably it could be appealed which would also give the other side even more time.

 

Your firing on all cylinders now, watch out HFC!

 

Regards

 

Lantana

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Battleaxe, we are one step ahead of many people, as we know we have to be absolutely meticulous in everything we do. Silly mistakes can be very costly and you have to be on the ball always! As you say, it pays to give them no wriggle room whatsoever, which will always catch them out, given their propensity to lie, and IMO they don't seem to know how to do anything else!

 

Well who knows what's going through their strange minds in respect of the telephone hearing! They are infamous now for doing things at the very last minute! I am preparing for it to go ahead, I think this is brinkmanship on their part. If they think I'm going to cave in prior to a telephone hearing, they're going to be very disappointed!:D

 

I hadn't thought of the situation like that Lantana! I imagine this David and Goliath battle is much more interesting for the Judge than the usual mundane uncontested claims! They could have appealed if the Judge had simply given Judgment, which would not have been a desirable outcome. Much better, that when (or more to the point if) the Judge asks, so why have you told blatant lies to the Court? I will be able to hear the err, um, oh, pass, can I have a less difficult question?:D

 

I'm ready to face them now!

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone!

 

As part of HFC's sols witness stmt received this week, in addition to removing the collection charge, they have said they are deducting the penalty charges, as there is no point in arguing over, to quote them, "minor" issue! What a nerve! There is no mention of the interest charged on these penalties, or compensation for levying them in the 1st place, which would be applicable under the consumer regs 99. My argument isn't really to do with the int + compensation, I am very much preoccupied with the thought that they may be able to take the charges out of the issues examined at trial (if we get that far);)!

 

Of course we all know they will do anything rather than go to Court over these charges. I have ideas to prevent them getting the charges simply deducted from the debt. However, I would be very interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this issue! As far as I'm concerned it's a term in their contract, also some of these charges were levied to the a/c, early on in the agreement, and merit scrutiny at trial. They cannot unilaterally remove them, just because examination of them would jeopardise a multi million pound industry. Comments anyone...?

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

Looks like the little devils don't wont the Judge to question them on the charges during the telphone hearing. This get more interesting Laiste

Link to post
Share on other sites

First they claim one amount, then deduct a big fat charge and claim a second, reduced, amount. Then they deduct more charges and claim a third even smaller amount - and this still isn't right because interest hasn't been deducted. They're making it up as they going along, m'lud.

 

Presumably by leaving the interest in they can be asked to account for it and therefore, indirectly, the charges. Alternatively, could you call their whole interest calculation into question and have the entire interest element of their claim struck out?

 

Addressing your preoccupation, I'm not sure it's legitimate for a creditor to unilaterally adjust an account, taking out the effect of unlawful charges and interest, AFTER serving a default notice on the debtor. Surely the default notice is then defective and enforcement by court proceedings cannot be initiated....

 

Dear HFC

 

GOTCHA!

 

Signed

 

Laiste

 

If I was HFC I'd look to fire my solicitor's if in-house, or sue if an outside firm. That to me is HFC's best option to recover monies in this instance.

 

Please God let me be right.

 

Regards

 

Lantana

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Battleaxe,

 

I think this is what one might refer to as a fight to the death! Comical I thought that the sol referred to the charges issue as minor! Yeah right! They are playing a high stakes strategy with this whole case now, which may just backfire entirely on Tues! We have proof that they've lied and it's only a short step for the Judge to conclude that there is no credibility in anything they've said!

 

As a further string to our bow, on Fri we discovered that the bundle of docs that had to be furnished to both us and the Court by the 31st Jan, haven't been sent to the Court!:D On Thurs the Court received a witness stmt from them which incidentally included also the same paperwork that was sent to us on the 1st Feb, but that's a mnth late! They are such morons! HFC only sent documents to us, when they were instructed to provide copies to the Crt also! How many cock-ups to date

is that...?:D I've lost count!

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lantana,

 

I was tickled pink by your "GOTCHA" comment!:p

 

They definitely are making it all up as they go along! Strikes me as panic setting in, as they keep changing their position!:D Perhaps they thought that taking off the collection charge + p.charges would make me go easy on them...? Me being inclined towards showing sympathy to the banks and c/c's!;)

 

Never mind the interest being struck out! I want their whole b****y case struck out!

 

Default Notices served on people are in many instances are legally invalid anyway, as they contain penalty charges. If the amount owing is inaccurate, which of course it is because p.charges have been included which are unlawful, then the contract should never have been brought to an end anyway, something for which damages can be claimed.

 

Ultimately, (if we get that far on Tues) it is for the Judge to decide the issue of the p.charges and their inclusion in the case or not. I will of course be putting some strong arguments forward as to why the issue must be examined at trial!

 

It's an outside firm of sols, they're using. What a double act!:D

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been studying the Civil Procedure Rules in relation to contempt of court. From what I've read there may be sufficient reason (given the proof I have) for applying for an order for at the very least the committal to prison of a senior officer/director at HFC for contempt. Their sols may also be in trouble. I'm still getting my head round it, but their non compliance with the Crt Order and my evidence fits the criteria!:o This situation gets more interesting by the minute...!:D If they continue with this case, I'm going to make the application. I think they should be very worried indeed....!

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry! I'm not at all distracted regarding what my main objective is! This is merely an aside. I haven't got the ball and chain just yet!:D

 

I was doing some research of the CPR and found out about the contempt argument. The most important thing is to be prepared for Tues, if they even bother to organise it!

 

That's another rule of the CPR in respect of telephone hearings, the applicant is responsible for organising it and so far they've done diddly squat!:rolleyes: It's completely farcical! Perhaps they're organising it by means of telepathy!;)

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the latest is, the hearing is going ahead at 3.30pm tommorow. They have left organising it till the 11th hour, which the Crt will be advised of tommorow morning.

 

There was nothing in the post this morning about it. They rang mid morning and left a message to contact them, which we did. So wish me luck for tommorow!:)

 

Regards to all,

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the latest is, the hearing is going ahead at 3.30pm tommorow. They have left organising it till the 11th hour, which the Crt will be advised of tommorow morning.

 

There was nothing in the post this morning about it. They rang mid morning and left a message to contact them, which we did. So wish me luck for tommorow!:)

 

Regards to all,

 

Laiste.:)

 

Go get em' girl!!! Good luck Laiste, will be thinking of you! xx:)

CLICK ON THE SCALES IF YOU THINK I HAVE HELPED!

 

I AM NOT SCARED ANYMORE!:rolleyes:

 

MBNA - To quote "The Carpenters", We've Only Just Begun..................;):D

HSBC - Settled.

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Goldfish - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) issued.

Tesco - SAR issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for your support! It's very much appreciated!:)

 

I am actually looking forward to tommorow, I say that not in an arrogant way. I am simply looking forward to putting my (hopefully persuasive and legally sound) arguments to the Judge. If they were under any impression that I am frightened of facing them I think I may have disabused them of that view with the phone call this morning and my witness stmt sent to them by fax this afternoon!:D

 

I'm off to have a very late bowl of spaghetti, then it's an early night and early start, to put together the final touches of my argument!

 

All being well, I'll post back tommorow evening!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...