Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I left a trustpilot review and P2g have emailed me with the obligatory apology and have refunded the postage costs and are will to give £10 extra pre pay as a good will gesture. However,  as i wrote this the Buyer has just txt.me.to say they have received the parcel !  So obviously im now going.to suggest that she pays via Paypal ... I rang her this morning to see if it had arrived but she said she was on holiday and there was someone in her house she would have to contact to see if it had arrived which she obviously has ... So now i know its been delivered i cant go for P2g But i Can accept the exta £10 ...
    • The defendant in this case is Parcel2Go.com Limited The claimant sent a parcel using Parcel2Go Ltd as a broker and Evri as the shipper via the Defendant's service containing which contained two handmade bespoke wedding trays to a customer with  under  tracking number P2Gxxxxxxxx. The parcel was never delivered although the defendant stated that three attempts had been made to deliver the parcel.  The claimants customer waited in for four days to receive the delivery but no delivery was attempted. There was no communication with the claimants customer.  Despite many web chats and emails the parcel was not delivered and on the Parcel2Go website it stated that the customer had refused delivery. This was not true as no delivery had been attempted.  I was The Defendant informed me that the parcel was being returned to me but after waiting three weeks I was informed by the courier that the parcel was lost. I was offered compensation of £20 + shipping fee which I refused and after sending Parcel2Go a Letter of claim this was increased to £75 which I also refused. The Claimant did not purchase the Defendant's insurance policy as requiring people to pay extra for rights already guaranteed under the consumer rights act 2015 is contrary to section 57 and 72 and therefore unenforceable. The Claimant rejected the Defendant's standard compensation offer. It is clear that the defendant is responsible for the loss of the parcel as they did not act with reasonable care and skill when handling the claimants parcel, contrary to section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   By failing to ensure the safe delivery of the Claimant's parcel the Defendant breached section 49 of the CRA 2015.   AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £370.00 being the value of the lost goods £xx.xx being the price of shipping and interest pursuant to s69 cca 1984.   See what BF thinks but I think something like this is better. Remember you are suing P2G not evri.
    • I disagree with the charge and also the statements sent. Firstly I have not received any correspondence from DVLA especially a statutory notice dated 2/5/2024 or a notice 16/5/2024 voiding my licence if I had I would have responded within this timeframe. The only letter received was the single justice procedure notice dated the 29.5.2024 this was received on 4.6.2024. I also disagree with the statement that tax was dishonoured through invalid indemnity claim. I disagree that the licence be voided I purchased the vehicle in Jan 2024 from RDA car sales Pontefract with agreement to collect the car on the 28.1.2024. The garage taxed the vehicle on the 25.1.24 for eleven payments on direct debit  using my debit card on my behalf. £62.18 was the initial payment on 8.2.24  and £31 per month thereafter the second payment was 1.3.24.This would run from Jan 24 to Dec 24 and a total of £372.75, therefore the car was clearly taxed before  I took the car away After checking one of my vehicle apps  I could see the vehicle was showing as untaxed it later transpired that DVLA had cancelled my tax , without reason and I did not receive any correspondence from DVLA to state why it was cancelled or when. The original payment of £62.18 had gone through and verified by my bank Lloyds so this payment was not declined. I then set up the direct debit again straight away at my local post office branch on 15.2.2024 the first payment was £31 on 1.3.2024 and subsequent payments up to Feb 2025 with a total of £372.75 which was the same total as the original DD that was set up in Jan, Therefore I claimed the £62.18 back from my bank as an indemnity claim as this payment was from the original cancelled tax from DVLA and had been cancelled . I have checked my bank account at Lloyds and every payment since Jan 24  up to date has been taken with none rejected as follows: 8.2.24 - £62.15 1.3.24 - £31.09 2.4.24 - £31.06 1.5.24 - £31.06 3.6.23-£31.06 I have paper copies of the original DD set up conformation plus a breakdown of payments per month , and a paper copy of the second DD setup with breakdown of payments plus a receipt from the post office.I can also provide bank statements showing each payment to DVLA I also ask that my licence be reinstated due to the above  
    • You know hes had it when they call out those willing to say anything even claiming tories have reduced taxes on live tv AS Salmonella says: The Conservative Party must embrace Nigel Farage to “unite the right”, Suella Braverman has urged, following a disastrous few days for Rishi Sunak. The former home secretary told The Times there was “not much difference” between the new Reform UK leader’s policies and those of the Tories, as senior Conservatives start debating the future of the party. hers.   AND Goves replacement gets caught booking in an airbnb to claim he lives locally .. as of yesterday you can rent it yourself in late July - as he'll either be gone or claiming taxpayer funded expenses for a house Alongside pictures of himself entering a house, Mr McGuinness said Surrey Heath residents “rightly expect their MP to be a part of their community”. - So whens farage getting around to renting (and subletting) a clacton beach hut?   Gove’s replacement caught out on constituency house claim as home found on Airbnb WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Social media users quickly pointed out house Ed McGuinness had posted photos in was available to rent     As Douglas Ross says he'll stand down in scotland - if he wins a Westminster seat - such devotion.
    • I've completed a draft copy to defend and will post up here for review.  Looking over the dates and payments this all stemmed from DVLA cancelling in Feb , whereby I set up a new DD in Feb hence the overlap, why they cancelled when I paid originally in Jan I have no idea. Anyway now stuck with pending court action and a suspended licence . I am also firing off a letter to DVLa recorded disputing the licence revoke
  • 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

Help with Link Financial & County Court


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4896 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

You didnt actually expect to get one Selina did you?;)

 

 

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

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If they say it was assigned to Link Financial outsourcing LTD in 2002 this could be very useful as that company didn't exist until 2009. So how can a debt be assigned to a company that didn't exist until 7 years later.

 

 

Pumpytums

 

 

 

 

 

Name & Registered Office:

LINK FINANCIAL OUTSOURCING LIMITED

CAMELFORD HOUSE

89 ALBERT EMBANKMENT

LONDON

UNITED KINGDOM

SE1 7TP

Company No. 07059696

 

 

 

 

 

Status: Active

Date of Incorporation: 28/10/2009

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

 

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

None Supplied

 

Accounting Reference Date: 30/11

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 28/07/2011

Last Return Made Up To:

Next Return Due: 25/11/2010"

 

[Emphasis]:

Date of Incorporation: 28/10/2009

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the debt was assigned to Link Financial or Link Financial Outsourcing, I think Link outsourcing in 2002. Are theses not the same companies???

 

 

Regards

 

No, two separate companies!

Under the same umbrella, though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didnt actually expect to get one Selina did you?;)

 

 

Andy

 

Under CPR 31.14, she should have.

 

Time to use CPR 31.15, of which they have 7 days to comply.

 

After that, it will be a Draft or for Directions, when the AQ is received.

 

Unless, Andyorch has a better plan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AC,

 

What's the difference between 31.14 & 31.15???

 

If Link did not respond to the 31.14, why will they repsond to the 31.15???

 

What did the Court mean when thet said if Link didn't reply to them within 28 days of their letter the case will be Stayed??? Is this good or bad on my behalf??

 

Regards Selena

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under CPR 31.14, she should have.:eek:

 

Time to use CPR 31.15, of which they have 7 days to comply.Dont bother Link will not respond.

 

After that, it will be a Draft or for Directions, when the AQ is received.;)

 

Unless, Andyorch has a better plan?

:rolleyes:

 

I advised my plan Post 36 14th July.

 

Think carefully before submitting any application noticelink3.gif (N244) this claim for all intense and purposes should be SCT after further investigations of your missing payments,which you will get chance to raise at aqlink3.gif completion,therefore I personally would not waste the application fee of £75 for documents that you can request at aqlink3.gif stage.

 

 

Selena all is explained with regard to Stays Post 39 18th July.

 

Regards

 

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

Selena, when you receive your allocation questionarre (AQ), a Draft Order for Directions request, must be included within the AQ.

 

We will assist you with this.

 

I mentioned this in post 57.

 

Link Financial, do love their attempts at running rings around LIP's...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AC,

 

I received information from Link this am.

 

letter dated 27 July 2010 stating the following:

 

We write in relation to the defence you have filed and your previous request for infomation under CPR 31.14.

 

You will appreciate that a CPR 31.14 request is a demand for sight of documents that one party has disclosed in proceedings. For the avoidence of doubt, the proceedings are, to date, soley the Particulars of Claim. As such, we would take this opportunity to enclose a copy of the application form relating to the agreement and as a matter of courtesy; we would also enclose a reconstituted assigment letter.

 

You have also made reference to payments not being credited to your account and we would therfore also take this opportunity to enclose a transaction printout. If you feel that you have mde any payments that are shown on the printout then please provide full details together with documentary evidence to enable us to investigate further.

 

in view of the balance, this case meybe allocated to the Fast Track so costs could be applicable. We are anxious to keep any costs to a minimum and are therefore prepared to consider resolving this matter by way of a Tomlin Order. This Tomlin Order would allow you to make monthly payments towards settlement of an agreed amount and provided these payments are mantained, no further action, costs or interest would be incurred. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact the undersigned.

 

A hold has been placed on your account, as we are confident that you will also want to resolve this case as it is noted that you were making paymnets of £30.00 per month up unitl the 29th Dec 2009.

 

The letter include a copy of the credit agreement signed 09.09.98 Payment protection cover was not ticked.

 

The reconsitituted assigment letter was not dated, this was addressed to my old address, which I moved away from in 2000. From what I can make out MBNA assigned the debt as of 21st June 2002 to Link Financial Ltd.

 

I can see from the print out that Link provided me that the amount was £3,360.00 before they added Litigation fee, summonds fee & interest, the amount ended up as £5,866.28.

 

However, I'm still baffled to a number of things.

 

The orginal amount of the debt to begin with, and no mention of the numerous telephone calls during 2006 they made to my work, or a letter instructing them never to call my work, (I kept a copy of this letter, but, can't find it) as their harrassment could have put my job on the line, I stared making payments only to stop the harrassement at work.

 

Also, the assigment issued to an address that I moved out of in 2000, and was assigned in 2002?????

 

How, should I proceed in this matter????? Any ideas!!!!:(

 

Regards Selena

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, I'd rather declare Personal Bankruptcy!!! And be rid of this debt & Link after 1 year!!!!

 

Hi AC,

 

Ignore, this previous comment!!!! Link getting the better of me!! I've been tolda Tomlin Order is bad news for me???:-(

 

Is this the case????

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Selena,

interesting why Link don't want to take this to court and are trying to settle on the steps so to speak. Basically as it's not small claims they will have to disclose everything i.e Deed, CCA and the DN. Also if it goes to fast track Sink are liable for costs too, so if they lose you get costs.

 

That first paragraph

"You will appreciate that a CPR 31.14 request is a demand for sight of documents that one party has disclosed in proceedings."

 

is a load of old bobbins. Have a read of the following :

 

Statement of Case | Court Documents | London litigation law firm | Statement of Case

 

Particulars of Claim are "Statments of Case" CPR 31.14 clearly states

 

Documents referred to in statements of case etc.

31.14

(1)A party may inspect a document mentioned in –

 

(a)a statement of case;

 

(b)a witness statement;

 

©a witness summary; or

 

(d)an affidavit(GL).

 

(e)Revoked.

 

(2)Subject to rule 35.10(4), a party may apply for an order for inspection of any document mentioned in an expert's report which has not already been disclosed in the proceedings.

 

(Rule 35.10(4) makes provision in relation to instructions referred to in an expert’s report)

 

I have a feeling Sink won't want to disclose certain documents. Have you heard anything back from the OC yet with regards to your SAR?

 

Have you received an Allocation questionnaire from Sink yet?

 

Pumpytums

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pumpytums,

 

thanks for your response. I never sent a Subject access request to the OC which are MBNA, as previous posts suggested this would be a waste of time.

 

No, I haven't received an allocation questionnaire from Link as yet. I have only received that letter dated 27 July from Link since the CPR 31.14 request, and this took longer than 14 days!!!

 

What will happen if I dont call Link??? As the Court gave 28 days for Link to respond to my defence.

 

Regards Selena

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Selena,

firstly I don't think this will get allocated to fast track. I'm not sure of the exact figure you have paid to Sunk over the last 4 years but I'm assuming at £30 a month is got to be more than £900. If so it's small claims so their letter about keeping cost down is a load of of bobbins.

 

Secondly you should really send that SAR to MBN@. Otherwise any info you get will be second hand through Sunks grubby mits. It will only cost £10 if MBN@ come back stating they have no information on record more the better for you. Not for a second that Sunk would manufacture anything but if they produce one of their famous hearsay witness statements you don't have much to counter it with. If you have a letter from MBN@ stating due to archival problems, time etc they are unable to produce any statements, CCA, DN or even Comms log you have a solid counter to Sunks rubbish. The comms log if it still exists will also give the exact date it was sold. I would bet big bucks that the account has a huge amount of £25 charges if it went back that far you can ask for these back. Additionally have sink produced any evidence that you have in fact paid anything in the last 6 years. You will need to see the deed of assignment proving this the Notice of Assignment proves nothing just that an assignment should have took place.

 

Interesting that they cannot seem to locate all your payments.

 

 

 

Pumpytums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Pumpytums,

 

Sink did provide me with a breakdown of payment with the monies paid.

 

Yes I have paid them over £900 they provided a Statement of Account dated 28 July 2010 the balance £as at 29 Dec 2009 was £3,360.00 then, 16 Feb 2010 £1 charge for SEC? 15 June 2010 DLIT charge £102.00? 15 June 2010 DSPC £190.00? 15 June 2010 £2,213.28 Interest? Balance as 25 July 2010 £5,866.28???????:confused:

 

What request should I send to MBNA?? Just a letter, asking for all information regarding the acconut? Shall, I send this recorded delivery or just post a letter to MBNA Customer Services?

 

Regards Selena

Link to post
Share on other sites

Selena, I have already advised you to make a 'FULL' SAR to MBNA, as per my post here:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-3018725.html

However, I did caution you that you would only be provided with information going back 6 years, with exeption to the credit agreement!

 

And to request, through the court, full disclosure of documents from Link.

 

[Emphasis] you cannot proceed, until you obtain disclosure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ac,

 

I'm doing the SAR letter to MBNA, but noticed that on the Letter of assigment that I recevied from Link was addressed to my old address in 2002, from which, I moved away from in 2000. Shall, I mention this in my SAR request to MBNA????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AC,

 

I have done the SAR to MBNA. However, 28 days are up tomorrow, so should hear from the Court soon. I think Link would have responded to them. I was told that I'd receive an Allocation Questionnaire where I can request full disclosure from Link.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello AC,

 

Still no news from the Court, even though link's 28 days that they were given have past by 2 weeks!!! However, I've had another letter from Link with a copy of the last letter asking my to contact them, so we can come to an agreement. Will this go against me in Court as I've not contacted them???

 

Still waiting for the OC to respond to my SAR, but, still haven't heard back from them either!!! Shall, I wait or contact the Court as I'm getting anxious

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Selena

 

DO NOT CONTACT THEM! DONT TALK ON THE PHONE AT ALL. I sent a letter in my thread which advised them that until they came up with what I asked for I wouldnt respond and would report them to OFT. They still sent a letter, but I felt I protected myself previously and didnt reply.

 

It all sounds very familiar to me! See my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?263512. Link didnt respond to my defence and it was stayed, but I had to ring them to find that out. It may be worth ringing the courts to see what they say. I did eventually receive all of teh details in relation to the Santander SAR, but this was after I had to make a court claim and they still didnt comply as conveniently the docuements showed details of another old, but live account, for which I have still not been sent any information. So awaiting a response t o my claim.

 

The SAR didnt show any copies of the letters of assignment link say Abbey sent to me in 2007 and 'copied' to me. It didnt detail any sale of the account to Link and there was absolutely nothing apart from the CCA held. No default notice and a cancelled balance. Nothing which mentioned Link at all. Now I know why they didnt proceed, but I am conscious that the OC did appear to be obstructing and still have not complied fully. I made a complaint to the Data Commissioner too.

 

I know each case is different, but when the tone of their letters started to change to something like, we would like you to consider this and agree to judgment, I knew there was something wrong. Previously, it was we will get this paid. Many Gaggers here were also helping me, so you are in brilliant hands!!

 

SF2010

Edited by SF2010
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...