Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • As you have made this so black and white, I have just realised I have probably made a total mess up here 😕   Yes, the original RBS mortgage from 1999 changed in 2009 to a buy-to-let with a different mortgage company, for the same property.   As I thought I had to have a life assurance, this would be ok, even though it was a much smaller amount.   It states the policy holder as myself and the property address and says 'in return for the payment of agreed premiums the company will pay the benefits in accordance to the policy conditions' it doenst really specify who would be paid. I have actual document here.   Something to mention, when I bought this property it was uninhabitable and I have never actually lived there. It was empty for ten years until 2009 when I got some additional borrowing, renovated it and let it out.   In 2011 therefore when it changed to Aviva, that mortgage had been paid off 2 years before.   I have a feeling you are going to say it was my responsibility to have cancelled the policy in 2009 with RSA or with Aviva?     As I had been advised by RBS, I thought I had to life insurance/assurance of some kind as I had a mortgage.      
    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3876 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

What's the kerfuffle? Let them post and be damned, I say!

 

Good grief people, aren't there enough of us to send that lot packing?

 

If every time one of Lowest's finest posts to "advise" something which we all blatantly know to be bad advice (you know the drill, contact us, tell us who you are, sign here, here and here), then 10 CAGgers saying: "DON'T DO IT!!!" should be more than convincing enough to see that person see reason, and maybe it will in fact open their eyes to the underhanded tactics of that company.

 

As far as I am concerned, a mutual backslapping self-congratulating congregation is weakened to the outside dangers. It's far too easy to become complacent. As such, I think it's not a bad idea per se to let them post... as long as it is recognised that they do not "work" in conjunction with us.

 

In the same way that we allowed bank workers, PPC owners, bailiffs etc... to post on here, why not DCAs? the better to shoot them down IMO. :-D Kind of them to make themselves known so we can paint a better bullseye. :-D

They'll get tired of it soon enough, when they realise they have scored an even bigger own goal than they realised before, and will soon go back to posting covertly, posing as genuine innocent people... and we'll still flush them out quite quickly. :razz:

 

Enough of the hysteria. By reacting the way you do, you are giving them the edge, and you are giving them the satisfaction of tearing us apart. Let them post and let's demolish them, as we always have done. Honestly, how many people can you find on here who paid them after seeking our advice? Yep, me neither. ;-)

 

Personally, I think it shows have desperate they must be to even pretend to like us in order to try and entrap people. :razz:

 

 

On a different note, and before more accusations of having "sold out" and "been gagged" and other nonsense, may I suggest some of you do a wee search on the "libel" forum and see what happens when CAG gets under threat, or let me sum it up for you: It doesn't matter how truthful a statement may be. If you, the person, makes that statement, if the person/company complains of libel and the website doesn't take it down, then that website (and its owners) become liable too. It doesn't matter whether the statements are true or not, CAG can not afford to DEFEND any libel action. End of. Sorry if it upsets people, but money talks, always, and the libel cards are stacked against a forum which struggles to meet its running costs month after month in the 1st place. If you want to sound off to your heart's content, then start your own site, rant away and see how long you stay open before you come under threat. Or deposit £15K in CAG's account as a deposit to be used in case of a libel action brought on by your comments, with confirmation that you will meet every other cost incurred in defending such an action, in exchange of which you want the freedom to say what you like about whoever. Yep, sorry to point out the bleeding obvious: freedom of speech is expensive these days. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, it's frustrating, yes, it's annoying, and yes, it may even be questionable as to why some people are allowed to post. But where do you draw the line? There are people on CAG, long-time posters, who IMO are a waste of cyberspace and whose advice is as p*ss-poor as any of Lowest's minions, yet they now have a considerable amount of posts to their names. It's down to a few of us to make sure that when they plaster their rubbish again, we encourage the OP to think for themselves and decide what they think is best. I can happily report that so far it has always worked rather well. I see no reason for things to be any different in the case of Lowest.

 

United we stand, let's kick the bstards where it hurts the most, we got pretty good at it over the last 4 1/2 yrs, long may we continue. Vive la revolution!!! ;-)

 

 

 

*off soapbox*

Capture-3.jpg

Edited by Bookworm
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Unfortunately Bookworm, it has now got to the point that to even make a statement that the FSA is defunct, that to breach Statute Law blatantly is unlawful or law breaking is being shot away by interlopers on this forum.

 

I did not make the laws but it is a fundamental principle that ALL obey the laws, not just a select few. I agree with most of what you say but soon it will be impossible to pass on experiences or advice without being ruled out because a post has offended one of the offending detritus in continuing breaches of the law. Seemingly fully backed by the site. Where do we go now? Who do we believe? Please tell us. In most of the detailed long threads like the Manchester case and invalid defaults etc there is so much contradiction and misleading information by supposedly very well thought of members. Frankly in the Manchester thread a significant proportion of the "advisors" have even got the basic facts incorrect as to the basis of the whole series of cases. So come on can we only suck up to DCAs now here or can we argue good points to help others. Remember a few good guys have already gone and the remainder are diluted by mis-information from interlopers.

 

oilyrag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If experience on here has taught me anything, it's that "good guys" who go either come back or they don't, but when they don't, there is always a crop of new good ones that takes their place. As my mum used to say, cemeteries are full of indispensable people. ;-)

 

This is not meant to diminish anyone's efforts on here, don't get me wrong. But it boils down to a few simple facts: if you want to keep on posting good advice, you have to do so in such a way that it doesn't give rise to complaints. If you post a copy of a letter that shows a DCA pursuing a SB debt, that can't be libellous and they can complain as much as they like, makes no difference. If you call them ******, leeches and bullies, then I'm sorry to say that however much approval you will get from your readers, it lays you and the site wide open.

 

What you say about the Manchester thread is a different thing: people are still disagreeing on what happened there and how it affected all of us. Where you have more than 1 person (and in my case, sometimes, it only takes one of me!), you will have differences of opinions. In the end, we do not spoonfeed people and they have to understand the arguments themselves before they choose to proceed, so it's not a bad thing that there are dissensions. Ultimately, you are trusting the advice of complete strangers on an Internet forum, so you should take on board everything, do your homework and then decide how you want to proceed.

 

Yes, it can be frustrating, confusing, etc... That's life. But I do believe that as long as we stick together and present a united front, newbies will soon learn to recognise the wheat from the chaff.

 

In the case of DCAs, as long as people stick to the basic advice (which is valid for EVERYONE, not just DCAs): Don't engage with them by PMs, don't provide them with means of IDing you unless you are very sure of yourself, don't phone them, keep everything on thread, then they can't do much harm, that's a fact. :-D They will hoist themselves on their own petard when it becomes clear very quickly if they don't actually help people on thread and instead insist on off-forum contact, in clear breach of the site rules and advice. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
If experience on here ...

 

Well said.

 

Surely by keeping a united front, anyone posting here with ulterior motives will be shown up for who they are.

Please note, I am not professionally qualified in legal matters. Should you have any doubts, you should contact a legal expert.

However, I can and will help with matters regarding payroll as I am fully qualified.

 

If I've helped in any way, you're welcome to click on my "star" and thanks, but I gain the most satisfaction simply by helping/reassuring :O)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookworm whilst I appreciate your two posts above. I feel that had you posted them earlier you may well have saved a lot of the problems on here. With so many posts cagbotted those remaiuning on here are not really getting a true picture of the depth of feeling in allowing Lowell to post. Simple questions that were even asked of ''James'' were deleted, not that he or she was ever going to answer them or ideed be able to justify them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are people on CAG, long-time posters, who IMO are a waste of cyberspace and whose advice is as p*ss-poor as any of Lowest's minions, yet they now have a considerable amount of posts to their names. It's down to a few of us to make sure that when they plaster their rubbish again, we encourage the OP to think for themselves and decide what they think is best. I can happily report that so far it has always worked rather well. I see no reason for things to be any different in the case of Lowest.

 

exactly why i fire fight on here.

 

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

Well I am glad to see that at long last a reasonable explanation has been forthcoming although I suspect because of some of my heated comments this post will not see the light of day.

 

I for one was more than confident of being able to counter anything put forward by our friends from Leeds. I too was confident that the majority of Caggers could have 'put them in their box' and saw off their feeble attempts at justifying their 'procedures'

 

Next thing I know all hell breaks loose, the cagbot blows a fuse, people disappear, posts disappear, I become moderated and all because of an apparent lack of information from the top.

 

Im sure if Bookies statements had appeared earlier a lot of nastiness could have been avoided.

 

There are people on CAG, long-time posters, who IMO are a waste of cyberspace and whose advice is as p*ss-poor as any of Lowest's minions,

 

I hope I am not classed as one of the above as the thanks I have received from so many different people I have helped along the way speaks volumes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 110% in agreement with Bookworm. If Lowells come on here and post rubbish, then they will get jumped on by a million Caggers. If they do actually post good advice, what's the harm? It seems to me that by refusing to allow the "other side" a voice then CAG leaves itself wide open to the accusations that are constantly levelled at it on Credit Today, and in other similar places.

Link to post
Share on other sites
by Bookworm:

... "good guys" who go either come back or they don't, but when they don't, there is always a crop of new good ones that takes their place.[End Quote]

 

[Emphasis]: 'the crop of good new ones', may not have the knowledge and experience...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I am glad to see that at long last a reasonable explanation has been forthcoming

 

Im sure if Bookies statements had appeared earlier a lot of nastiness could have been avoided.
This is just my opinion, ODC, not an explanation, not a statement. People, as always, can take it or leave it. ;-)

 

 

 

I hope I am not classed as one of the above as the thanks I have received from so many different people I have helped along the way speaks volumes

LOL, no, don't worry, I was thinking a a few different people and you're not on the list! :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I am glad to see that at long last a reasonable explanation has been forthcoming although I suspect because of some of my heated comments this post will not see the light of day

 

I hope I am not classed as one of the above as the thanks I have received from so many different people I have helped along the way speaks volumes

 

With reference to you last para ODC, I doubt that very much!

 

Not sure, who that comment was aimed at?

Link to post
Share on other sites
by Bookworm:

... "good guys" who go either come back or they don't, but when they don't, there is always a crop of new good ones that takes their place.[End Quote]

 

[Emphasis]: 'the crop of good new ones', may not have the knowledge and experience...

None of us were when we first joined this forum AC, and we kind of managed... :-D People come from all kinds of walks in life, some with compassion, some with knowledge, some with common sense, some with years of experience... IMO, and again this is just me and my opinion, this is what makes us such a strong site.

 

Now, who's for a group hug???? :-D :-D :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
None of us were when we first joined this forum AC, and we kind of managed... :-D People come from all kinds of walks in life, some with compassion, some with knowledge, some with common sense, some with years of experience... IMO, and again this is just me and my opinion, this is what makes us such a strong site.

 

Now, who's for a group hug???? :-D :-D :-D

 

Agreed: we kind of managed...

 

However, many of the early members now have four/five plus years of experience in dealing with financial industry related matters.

These (sensible) members, should be allowed to air their (sensible) views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Quote=Bookworm:

There are people on CAG, long-time posters, who IMO are a waste of cyberspace and whose advice is as p*ss-poor as any of Lowest's minions:

 

?????

 

People not found in the Debt forum... :razz:

 

Very Good!

 

I believe, that we ALL do our very best to help vulnerable consumers/CAG members.

And yes, we do employ common sense as well as the OFT guidelines and Regs.

Edited by angry cat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like everyone who arrived on CAG I believed all the threats that were contained in the DCA letters and WAS very worried about them. With the knowledge I picked up on CAG I soon discovered that the threats were like the heads of the people posting them EMPTY. Thanks to CAG I learnt all about the Limitation Act 1980 and in particular S5. I am also very conversant with the CCA and the CUPTR as well as the OFT Guidelines. If I had been treated with the slighteste bit of respect by the DCAs I would have probably worked with them and cleared my debts. As it was they got my back up I used the law and as a result saved myself many thousands of pounds. Im not proud of owing money but I am extremely proud of defeating greedy parasites (sorry CAGBOT alleged parasites) who prey upon people who befall hard times through many different reasons.

 

For that I will be eternally grateful to CAG and the many friends I made along the way, some of whom are no longer posting.

 

Debt and DCAs are emotional subjects and the misery that these telephone jockeys cause is immeasurable. They really serve no useful place in decent society. The original Creditor has written the debt off and claimed tax relief on it so why should a DCA make huge profits on something that they purchase for peanuts. The government should be the people trying to claim the money back and not some greedy DCA

Link to post
Share on other sites
Booky, not sure that your posts will calm the trouble waters...
Seeing the response to these posts on and off thread, I think it is already doing so, AC. ;-)

 

Again judging from past upsets, you call it "troubled waters", I call it "storm in a teacup".

 

I believe, that we ALL do our very best to help vulnerable consumers/CAG members.
That kind of defeats the purpose of this thread then, doesn't it? :razz: Unless by "all" you mean "all but the ones I don't think actually do any good" in which case you are saying exactly what I was saying. ;-)

 

ODC, your post perfectly illustrates what I meant, thank you. Like you, I was at the power of the banks, DCAs etc... until I realised the only power they had was the one *I* let them have. Through luck, not skill, I have suffered less than many at the hands of DCAs, but the ones I have dealt with (and yes, that includes Lowell!) inflicted a massive amount of pain and distress on me and my family, and my biggest "if only" is "if only CAG had been around then". ;-)

 

I'm afraid to say that if people feel that they can no longer post on here because they have felt the sharp end of CAGbot's stick, then they need to look at their bruised egos, and ask themselves whether it is really worth handing the DCAs such an easy victory simply because they don't feel they should be censored, when effectively that's exactly what they wanted done to others, because in their opinion that was justified. If they can't see that double standard for what it is, then one has to wonder whether they are such a great loss after all?

 

(and before anyone asks, yes, I have been at the receiving end myself, I was even put on moderation -extremely unfairly :razz:- for a while. I didn't like it, I felt I was hard done by -still do-, but I dusted myself off, put it behind me and got on with what I'm here for. Once you take the ego out of the equation, it's amazing how things fall into place.)

 

Therein endeth the sermon. :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Guys I am a little surprised at the responses. I don't really give a damn about being cagbotted personally. Me and mine are going through it all at the moment and have gone through it for a very significant period of time. We now have legal representation which is and has worked for which I have received abuse and criticism from self styled egotists and experts on here. I have been accused of having NO ego and NO self esteem by one highly thought of "professional" or so it claims (false claim as it transpires).

 

I also am capable of reading and comprehending beyond primary school level like most of you. I also am grateful of the experiences and information freely available here as we came across you at the very depths of despair having fought our OC to a standstill stalemate over a period of two years singlehandedly without CAG when my health cracked up and the direst of warnings was dished out like "HALT OR DIE PROBABLY TOMORROW" We found proper professional legal representation in the end NOT a CMC and that is how I found out that a lot of the self styled experts here are just that self styled. I have explained several times both by PM when requested and in open forum the formula we used to get our representatives and how much it cost and how to put the files together to keep the costs down. Plus what they will achieve in what time. There were several good law firms which came out of this and we chose one which worked for us but stlll some caggers like to think that they are better placed and have rubbished these comments and have had the utter nerve to contradict proper professional advice. Thats life but some need to learn to stop insulting everyone else's intelligence and stop judging everyone else by their own appalling standards. Perhaps they don't know anything else. I still use and follow CAG threads and anything suspicious if it is serious enough I bounce off the professionals and let me tell you that some of those claiming falsely in my opinion to be professionals cause close to hysterical laughter over our solicitors coffee machine. I cannot name names because cagbot will intervene. I have tried to pass on as much as I can from the real professionals but I get a bit fed up of the self styled experts here trying to knock it down. I treat every CAG post and always have with the utmost caution. That is the very nature of research particularly when it comes to the law.

 

oilyrag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bookworm whilst I appreciate your two posts above. I feel that had you posted them earlier you may well have saved a lot of the problems on here.

Sorry, just realised I forgot to comment on this: I have been mostly away from computers for nearly 3 weeks. I posted as soon as I became aware of the issue could write a longish post without interruption. Normal service is resumed now (although with school ending on Friday, gawd knows what "normal" is going to mean over the next 6 weeks! :shock:). ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Guys I am a little surprised at the responses. I don't really give a damn about being cagbotted personally. Me and mine are going through it all at the moment and have gone through it for a very significant period of time. We now have legal representation which is and has worked for which I have received abuse and criticism from self styled egotists and experts on here. I have been accused of having NO ego and NO self esteem by one highly thought of "professional" or so it claims (false claim as it transpires).

 

I also am capable of reading and comprehending beyond primary school level like most of you. I also am grateful of the experiences and information freely available here as we came across you at the very depths of despair having fought our OC to a standstill stalemate over a period of two years singlehandedly without CAG when my health cracked up and the direst of warnings was dished out like "HALT OR DIE PROBABLY TOMORROW" We found proper professional legal representation in the end NOT a CMC and that is how I found out that a lot of the self styled experts here are just that self styled. I have explained several times both by PM when requested and in open forum the formula we used to get our representatives and how much it cost and how to put the files together to keep the costs down. Plus what they will achieve in what time. There were several good law firms which came out of this and we chose one which worked for us but stlll some caggers like to think that they are better placed and have rubbished these comments and have had the utter nerve to contradict proper professional advice. Thats life but some need to learn to stop insulting everyone else's intelligence and stop judging everyone else by their own appalling standards. Perhaps they don't know anything else. I still use and follow CAG threads and anything suspicious if it is serious enough I bounce off the professionals and let me tell you that some of those claiming falsely in my opinion to be professionals cause close to hysterical laughter over our solicitors coffee machine. I cannot name names because cagbot will intervene. I have tried to pass on as much as I can from the real professionals but I get a bit fed up of the self styled experts here trying to knock it down. I treat every CAG post and always have with the utmost caution. That is the very nature of research particularly when it comes to the law.

 

oilyrag.

I'm sorry, but I truly have no idea of the point that you are trying to make here. :-?

 

Considering that most of the people who have been around on here for a while have a signature which confirms they are not legally trained and that in doubt you should take professional legal advice, I am surprised that the "self-styled" thing should take you by surprise. :-? As for the solicitors laughing around the coffee-machine, I wonder if they were the same solicitors who when the bank charges issues started showing up, all ridiculed the self-styled people telling them they had no chance? :rolleyes:

 

If you have a good solicitor, good for you. If you can afford a solicitor, great. Unfortunately, speaking for myself and no-one else, there is no way I could pay a solicitor for the same amount of time that I spend dealing with my cases myself.

 

Still not sure what you are trying to tell us here tough. :-?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing the response to these posts on and off thread, I think it is already doing so, AC. ;-)

 

Again judging from past upsets, you call it "troubled waters", I call it "storm in a teacup".

 

by AC:

I believe, that we ALL do our very best to help vulnerable Consumers/CAG members[Quote

 

by Bookworm:That kind of defeats the purpose of this thread then, doesn't it? :razz: Unless by "all" you mean "all but the ones I don't think actually do any good" in which case you are saying exactly what I was saying

 

My comment relating to the following quote:

 

by Bookworm:

There are people on CAG, long-time posters, who IMO are a waste of cyberspace and whose advice is as p*ss-poor as any of Lowest's minions:

Link to post
Share on other sites
by Bookworm:

If you have a good solicitor, good for you. If you can afford a solicitor, great. Unfortunately, speaking for myself and no-one else, there is no way I could pay a solicitor for the same amount of time that I spend dealing with my cases myself.

 

Many members have sought advice from specialist solicitors and obtained Counsels opinion on complex CCA matters.

Some of this advice has been funded by, what used to be called, Legal Aid and some funded by the members themselves who have followed the Public Access Route.

 

I would be cautious about disregarding some of oilyrag's comments, especially the comment made in relation to Coffee Machine's...technical CCA matters can often be misinterpreted by the general consumer.

complex/ technical points of law can often be beyond a lay person's grasp

Link to post
Share on other sites
My comment relating to the following quote:

 

by Bookworm:

There are people on CAG, long-time posters, who IMO are a waste of cyberspace and whose advice is as p*ss-poor as any of Lowest's minions

Then it might have helped if you'd quoted that particular sentence instead of just saying "your posts". ;-)

 

But I am actually glad you mentioned it, because it further demonstrates my point about egos, incipient paranoia and trust (or lack thereof):

 

The moment I mention "certain people", there'll be different reactions:

a) The mildly curious: Oooh, I wonder who she meant... but I'll take her word for it.

b) The very curious: Oooh, I wonder who she meant... I'll go and track back on her posts to see who she may be referring to.

c) The paranoid: Oooh, does she mean me? It'd better not be me. Why would she mean me? I bet she works for "them". Or maybe she's a troll. That's it, I'm leaving, you can't be sure of anyone on here, you don't know who you're talking to, this site ain't what it used to be.

d) The "shy": Ooooh, I'm glad she said that, I agree but wouldn't have been the first one to say so for fear of getting shot down in flames. I think I'll post to say so. Or maybe I'll just give her an extra rep. Or message her to let her know I agree.

 

etc, etc...

 

The common factor is that this is it exactly: You (not "you" AC, "you" anyone reading this post) don't know who you're talking to, you don't know who they're talking about, odds are that you will never meet one another, and yet their written words have so much importance to you that you can't live without their approval? Think about it! The moment you switch off the computer, their words no longer exist in your world. THEY no longer exist. The only influence they have is the one you allow them to have, by taking (or discarding) their advice, by acting (or not) on it, but ultimately, it's on your head what you do or don't do. "The voices on the computer told me to do it" won't stand much as a defence if you fail or commit a crime, let's face it.

 

My point is that, as in per the above quote, this is MY opinion. ME, who you don't know, talking about someone you don't know, will probably never know and even if you did, you wouldn't know it's them I was talking about. So why let it affect you so much? Take it as read that on such a large forum, there'll be people of whom *I* think little, some *I* respect and admire, some *I* despise, and some *I* love. There even are combinations of those. But that's MY opinion.

 

Getting further away from the subject of Lowells here, but it all ties in: What's worse or better, a Lowell rep showing himself as who he is, or a Lowell rep pretending to be an average Joe trying to help? Someone with a bloated ego giving bad advice in a reasonably convincing manner to innocents or someone who doesn't know, but gives a reassuring cyber-pat on shoulder whilst waiting for someone who hopefully will know more? A self-styled "expert" with a world of life experience or a legally-trained brain with no empathy whatsoever?

 

For me the answer is all of them, because in even the unlikeliest of them, you may find the response that you were looking for, even if they give it to you unknowingly. In the end, though, the buck stops with you. Always. ;-)

Edited by Bookworm
Added quote for clarification, as other post typed in between.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Many members have sought advice from specialist solicitors and obtained Counsels opinion on complex CCA matters.

Some of this advice has been funded by, what used to be called, Legal Aid and some funded by the members themselves who have followed the Public Access Route.

 

I would be cautious about disregarding some of oilyrag's comments, especially the comment made in relation to Coffee Machine's...technical CCA matters can often be misinterpreted by the general consumer.

complex/ technical points of law can often be beyond a lay person's grasp

I'm not "disregarding" anything, please stop misinterpreting my posts. I truly, honestly don't understand the point Oilyrag was trying to make in his post, it read to me like a general rant, some of which may be grounded in a thread I have no knowledge of, maybe? All I know is we went from Lowell being allowed to post on CAG to a rant about solicitors versus self-styled experts, and I have absolutely no idea where that came from or the relevance of it. That's all. :-?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3876 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...