Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bozo's buddy Peter Cruddas seems to have switched parties. Tory peer Peter Cruddas shared posts supporting Nigel Farage and Reform UK | Conservatives | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: almost half of billionaire Tory donor’s last 100 reposts were in support of rightwing party
    • Have a look at this please check that it is all correct, fill in the blanks, if there is anything wrong then tell us. Anything you want to add. Anything you want to take away. So, broadly this letter
    • Thank you. Can you explain what part needs to be amended. I’m sorry, I don’t understand which part is referring to right to reject. Should I be including  they are in breach of contract because the vehicle is not satisfactory quality. Clearly because of the way the windscreen was fitted it was not satisfactory quality when it was purchased and it has not remained in satisfactory condition for a reasonable period of time – witness the leakage and the corrosion in the car.    instead of    Therefore, I expect Doves to take responsibility for the costs incurred, as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 “should a fault appear outside of 6 months, it's for the consumer to prove the fault was present at time of sale”     
    • I agree with you, UB. More parties might not be such a bad thing. More on Farage's manifesto - sorry, contract.  
    • Sorry but first of all you are still referring to your six-month right to reject – but you didn't assert your right within six months so this is not relevant. The situation is that you cannot reject the vehicle unless it is a write off or you have been deprived of the use of it for a significant period of time so that it can be said that you have been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. By my understanding that is not the case here. Your complaint must be that they are in breach of contract because the vehicle is not satisfactory quality. Clearly because of the way the windscreen was fitted it was not satisfactory quality when it was purchased and it has not remained in satisfactory condition for a reasonable period of time – witness the leakage and the corrosion in the car. On this basis you are holding them responsible for the cost of repairs which are £XXX and any ancillary costs reasonably incurred as a result of their breach of contract. You are currently without the car and this is not a situation which can continue. You are enclosing the evidence plus quotations for repair and you want that by the end of the week you want them to agree to the repairs. Broadly that. Please post a draft as soon as possible. You don't want to hang around on this
  • 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

Cabot Financial chasing me for someone else's debt?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5201 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

Just to give you a little background... About 18 months ago, we received several letters from various debt collection agencies referring to a woman who had lived in our flat some time ago (I'm assuimg - we didn't recognise the name and we have lived here for two years). I called these agencies and explained there was no one living here with that name and they apologised and promised not to send any more letters.

 

Then, just after Christmas, we had another letter for this woman from Cabot Financial. I called them and explained the situation. The woman at the other end of the phone asked my name - which I gave her - and while she was on the phone she started to ask lots of personal questions, including what my telephone number was (it's automatically withheld and I refused to give it out). She then told me she could see I paid the BT phone bill at this address (we don't even have an account with BT) and started to infer quite strongly that the woman and I were one and the same and I had changed my name to avoid paying my debts!

 

Since then, we've received a number of letters for this woman and I always return them to sender unopened. I'm concerned we're now blacklisted at our address and I'm not sure what to do as I've never found myself in this situation before.

 

Any advice would be appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know they can't blacklist an address only a person and if you truly are not the woman they want then i don't think they could mark anything against your credit file personally as they would need more then just your name I would imagine.

 

I would suggest at this stage just keep doing what you are doing, phoning them never works :-\

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Cabot are being real pains put them to strict proof to show they have contacted the right person. Tell them if they no proof, or refuse to provide it because of data protection issues, tell them to sling their hook. If they continue to harrass you after that report them - hard - to all and sundry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies!

 

Sorry, forgot to mention... The original letter from Cabot Financial gave no specific details about the debt at all - I have no idea of an amount of anything.... It just said that if their offices weren't telephoned "someone would call" on a specific date, which has since come and gone... I'm assuming they meant someone would call at our address and we're really not very happy about this! I don't want to be discussing this with someone on our front doorstep, in front of the neighbours!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't send anyone and in the unlikely event that they do you can tell them to sling their hook or you will call the police and have them removed for trespassing. Contact your MP to tell him/her what has happened and send a copy of the letter to Cabot's Complaints Department at the Cabot King's Hill address. This is nuisance but don't be afraid of Cabot - they have no power to do anything to you whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have occasion to return any further letters, I would put it in a sealed envelope, together with a letter informing them that if you receive any more communications and/or threats of home visits etc. you will take them to Court for Harrassment, will report them to the OFT for breaking their Guidelines and a copy will also go to the Trading Standards Department and your Local MP.

 

Then send it all by Recorded Delivery.

 

To prove harrassment you only need 2 instances, so 2 letters are all that is required, so keep all that they have sent, or do send.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As HS says, I am of the very firm belief that if these companies were taken to court for the criminal offence of harassment, then and only then, will they begin to clean up their filthy grubby act.

 

Some light reading for you!:D

 

Malicious Communications Act 1988 (c. 27)

 

Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (c. 40)

 

Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12) - Statute Law Database

 

Debt collection practices - The Office of Fair Trading

 

Boo;)

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...