Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

co-op ex Northern Rockicon credit card


ltc1607
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3975 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

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 232
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Had a letter from Wescot should I just send the same letter as above regarding the defective DN and termination or do you think we are all flogging a dead horse with that now having read all in the invalid default notice thread thread ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ltc607

 

Until the precedent that was set in the Woodchester case is overturned, the defective DN/Termination defence remains valid. I would however seek additional factors to add to my defence and not base it exclusively on the defective DN though.

 

Having said that, you may want to put Wescot through the full line of queries to see how they respond (SARN, s78, charges etc) before hitting them with your main defence which is the Defective DN (am I right?). Btw, when was the credit item taken out?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre April 07? Well then, the protections of s61 and s127(3) of the CCA may well be yours then, not only the Defective DN & TN defence! What was it, a loan?

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pre April 07? Well then, the protections of s61 and s127(3) of the CCA may well be yours then, not only the Defective DN & TN defence! What was it, a loan?

 

bustthematrix, sorry to butt in, but do you think you could briefly explain why the date is important in relation to CCA's pre/post April '07?

 

Thanks.

 

MC.

The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Section 127(3) of the CCA 1974 was specifically repealed in the 2006 update to the CCA (CCA 2006).

 

This update came into effect on the 6th of April 2007. Fortunately, it only applied to agreements made on or after that date, not to those previously executed i.e. anything on or before 5th April 2007.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Section 127(3) of the CCA 1974 was specifically repealed in the 2006 update to the CCA (CCA 2006).

 

This update came into effect on the 6th of April 2007. Fortunately, it only applied to agreements made on or after that date, not to those previously executed i.e. anything on or before 5th April 2007.

 

Thank you. I have looked at the legislation here http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=consumer+credit+act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=436428&ActiveTextDocId=436587&filesize=6353

 

But still dont know what it means. As far as I can see the only ref' to (3) has not text and the link F2 explains bugger all. Sorry, bit of a thicko when it comes to this stuff.

The villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ltc,

The subject is very much up in the air at the moment, awaiting the result of the request to appeal the Brandon case.

However yours differs from Brandon, you're in a much better position as they jumped the gun and terminated on the same day. I note however that they terminated on the basis of a clause in your agreement, rather than for non response to the DN, so its a tricky one.

Clearly their actions are confusing and unfair, but at the moment its unclear how it would stand up in court.

Hopefully others may be able to offer more advice

Elsa x

Edited by Undercover-Elsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote back to the DCA to just say that I had an invalid default notice and the account was terminated on the back of this they have now wrote back and asked me again to put it in writing so they can go back to the co-op and investigate how do you think I should word the letter ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe something on the lines of:

 

Thankyou for your letter, however I feel I have more than adequately detailed exactly why this account is in dispute in my previous letters of (date) and (date). Assuming that you keep records of correspondence please refer back to these.

 

However, in an attempt to assist you I will again briefly outline the two main issues of the dispute.

  • The Coop have failed to supply a valid agreement containing the prescribed terms and conditions necessary for enforcement in Court of a Consumer Credit Agreement, in response to my request under Section 78 of the CCA 1974. Nonetheless I have been continually threatened with Court action, and would remind you of the requirements of the CPUTR 2008 which stipulates that it unfair to threaten court action when none can be taken.
  • The Coop has made a serious error in issuing a Default Notice AND a termination notice on the same day, a clearly unfair, confusing and prejudicial action as it denied me the prescribed 14 days in which to remedy the breach. As the account has now been terminated, a further Default Notice cannot be issued, without which the Coop has no right of action.

I trust this clarifies my position,

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

Just my thoughts....see what others think too.

 

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Yes.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should and shouldnt is difficult to argue, yes the OFT would probally disagree.A creditor can assign at any given time and therefore any DN

issued would become the responsibility of the assignee to collect or enforce.The owness is still with the Debtor irrespective of who issued or who now owns.

Unless there was serious dispute ongoing before the DN was issued.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Should and shouldnt is difficult to argue, yes the OFT would probally disagree.A creditor can assign at any given time and therefore any DN

issued would become the responsibility of the assignee to collect or enforce.The owness is still with the Debtor irrespective of who issued or who now owns.

Unless there was serious dispute ongoing before the DN was issued.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy,

 

Taking it another step; If a DN is issued which happens to be incorrect (dates etc) and then the account is sold on before the rectification date given on the incorrect DN, can this be corrected by the new owner of the debt by later (2 years later) issuing another DN in their own name? The 2nd DN demands the full amount by the way!

 

Mike

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without going into too long complex laws MandM if the initial DN is invalid it can be corrected by either the assignee or the assignor however the breach amount would remain the same.If the second was to request the full amount then that would imply the agreement had been terminated at some stage, pre or post.So if it had been terminated a fresh DN could not be reissued, as there would be no agreement to breach.

 

Andy

  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Andy. That's a great help.

 

Mike

________________________________________________________________

ALL unsolicited PMs and E-mails should be posted up - Not all on CAG are who they appear to be

 

 

My views are my own. If in doubt, seek professional advice. If I can help though, I will. CAG helped me!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

yes

 

sadly

 

however, its rare they do

 

typically the oc would have already defaulted you before it was sold on a phishing list.

 

then the dca's name is substituted wherever the oc's was.

 

as long as the original default date does not change

they can update as much as they like.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...