Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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 
        • 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

Mint Card case study - Might get interesting!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5093 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

Ok, this is going to get good.

 

Got/had a Mint card and after making a CCA request etc I was unhappy to find that the terms and conditions governing the account were incompatible (to my mind) with the credit agreement. Also the charging information on the T&C's differed to the charges they had applied in the past and Mint to date have not provided the original T&C's applicable at the time of opening.

 

Mint refused to answer my questions and the relationship broke down. I stopped paying placing the account in dispute whilst I awaited answers to my questions and eventually they issued a default notice. I have it and basically it's invalid as the date for remedy is non-specific merely stating that the remedy amount required of £60 had to be paid within 17 days.

 

Additionally, given the fact that unless they sent it 1st class, which they didn't, even this does not allow enough time for me to remedy, if that's what I wanted to do. Mint then terminated the account and started to pass it to a number of DCA's. I wrote and accepted their termination and asked for the correct arrears balance to be sent so I could clear it.

 

Since then Mint has passed the account to:

Triton (Threatened litigation immediately)

Green & Co. Solicitors (RBS In house, also threatened litigation)

Moorcroft (Threatened everything going)

Midas Legal Services (Part of Moorcroft so what's the point of that?!)

Home Collection Services (Also part of Moorcroft group!)

Wescot (Might lodge claim in Hull County Court...good luck with that)

Nelson Guest & Partners (Wescot...7 days to pay or litigation immediately)

Credit Security Ltd (Limited being the main word, doorstep visit promised)

All of the above have passed it around amongst themselves and had a go at threatening all sorts of nonsense. Quite why Mint doesn't just answer my questions instead of stamping its feet and holding its breath I have no idea :grin:.

 

Where is this all now then? After dealing with other priorities I recently wrote to them to remind them of the unlawful rescission, the invalid default notice and the fact that nearly a year after all of this I am still waiting for an arrears balance to be sent to me.

 

I demanded that they remove the invalid default notice from the CRA's and reminded them that as they had chosen to terminate the account on the back of the invalid default and I had acce[ted both in writing and by conduct that they were not able to re-issue another default. Unless they removed the defaults I would commence litigation to order the removal and if they put me to the trouble of litigation I would claim for unlawful rescission of contract and injury to credit. I even reminded them of the cases I would rely on.

 

Mint state that:

 

'The default notice, reference xxxxxx was issued on xx October 2008 giving you the opportunity to make a payment of £60 to remedy the overdue situation or offer your alternative proposals for repaying the account. As you did not contact us or make a payment to satisfy the default the account was terminated in line with standard procedure on xx November 2008 and our letter xxxxxx was sent in confirmation.

 

We consider that the balance is not in dispute and our standard letters confirmed our intention to register a default against your credit file and refer your account to agents if payments were not received in line with the T&C's'.

I responded and basically said they are having a laugh. I confirmed I would be proceeding with litigation and to expect my claim form shortly. Within 5 days of my letter Mint respond with a template letter informing me that they were investigating my concerns and they'd be back to me within 10 days.

 

2 days after this Mint respond with the following:

 

'As your last payment was received on xx July 2008 and the default notice was produced on xx October 2008, there can be no dispute by you that you did not satisfy this request, nor that it was unclear as to the amount you had to pay within the 17 day period specified.'

 

What? I've not disputed I didn't satisfy it? What are they on about? Answers on a post card please. They continue:

 

'The default notice clearly states the amount your account is in arrears. The Termination Notice was then issued giving you 14 days to set up a repayment programme by way of contacting this office. Both of these letters and wording is agreed by our legal office.'

 

Ah, so it's their fault is it? :p Legal office? Must be right then :rolleyes:.

 

'Once your account is terminated the full balance becomes due under the Terms and Conditions of use of your agreement'.

 

Would they be the original set I've been waiting for over a year to see?

'The termination of your account prevents/stops further use of your credit card, it does not prevent or stop you making payments to the account, nor does this mean that the agreement has been cancelled.' :!:

 

Un-frickin-believable. New one for the books, a terminated agreement does not mean it's been cancelled :lol:. It's like law as approved by Sesame Street!

'Our letter dated xx February represented the bank's final response in connection with this matter. The balance on your account remains outstanding, and as the debt is legitimate we shall continue to pursue you for repayment.'

 

Sure, why not. You haven't quite exhausted all of the DCA's just yet.

 

'Please note that we shall not reply to any further correspondence on this matter, as we have made our final position clear and have nothing further to add. If you wish to take your compaint further you may refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, details of which were enclosed with our letter dated xx February.'

 

Ah, the FOS. Yeah, you'd like that wouldn't you. Must think we're all stupid or something.

 

'You may take what legal action you see fit.'

Fighting words there for someone who thinks a termination notice doesn't end the agreement. That's where I'm at anyway. My next step is to write to the CRA's informing them the default that was issued was invalid and that the creditor has terminated the account so is not entitled to issue another. I will be writing back to Mint with a few kind words and to inform them that they had better not stand in the way of the CRA's removing the account history whilst this matter is resolved fully.

 

I will be pursuing this in court. I'll keep you all posted but I think this could be a useful example for other ex-Mint account holders.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

subbing - myself and OH both have Mint accounts - am sorting out other issues as you are aware and then I will look onto these. Don't want too many plates spinning at once. Good Luck!

Halifax Card (OH) -2.9% reinstated - Sucess!

Santander/House of Fraser (1) PPI Refund plus 8% plus LOC

Santander/House of Fraser (2) PPI Refunded plus 8% plus LOC

Penalty Charge Notice - Representation accepted and PN cancelled - £120

Link to post
Share on other sites

in similar situation. Working my way through the latest DCA. They are good to let me practice with them :)

 

Mint also sulked and said they no longer wanted to correspond. I have complained to ICO about them not providing all documents and they ahve now admitted they do not have any Advanta documents. Add to the letter some time ago from them stating the cca was no longer available.

 

Also subbing

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...