Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I've been reading the invaluable advice on this forum and reading about the problems with Evri and lost delivery of items.  From what I gather the initial steps after having exhausted every's own lost item claim process is to draft a Letter of Claim, I think it is called and to register with the government Money Claims.  I have got a login for Money Claims and have made an initial stab at the letter but I'm not certain I have got it right. Am I right to assume that having exhausted Evri customer service's claims process and having received the denial of any compensation because the laptop I was sending is on the non-compensatory list that my next step would be to send the Letter of Claim to them? Let me provide some basic details which I hopefully have addressed in the letter. I purchased a laptop through Amazon.co.uk which a business in Belfast sold refurbished laptops through.  They had a 30 day money back guarantee for a full refund if you have any issues with the laptop.  I have the invoice from Amazon showing the purchase.  On 27 April, 2024 before the end of the 30 day period I used their ParcelShop (inside a Tesco) to send the laptop back and have the tracking reference mentioned in the letter.  As mentioned in the letter there was they advised they could not give me or sell me any insurance because laptops are on the non-compensatory list so I just paid the normal delivery cost.  It was scanned as leaving the ParcelShop on 29 April and the tracking has been like that ever since.  After a 28 working day Evri claim process they gave the expected response that they could not provide any compensation and simply could not proceed with my claim. I was hoping to get some advice on whether I go ahead now and email this to Customer Services straightaway and should I send a hard-copy to the Evri address as well?  Or are there any steps I have missed out on first?  I believe 14 days is the reasonable period of time for them to respond so if I were to send it tomorrow, for example 12 June then I should expect a reply by 26 June, is that correct and fair?  And assuming they don't reply with a full refund then I would then go down the government Money Claims site to proceed with that? Sorry for all the questions, I want to make sure I go about it properly.  I'll continue to read through other cases on here so I can get an even better handle on the process. I attached a LOC, happy for any edits or updates that will make it even better. Thanks so much for anyone's help! Regards, Matt Evri letter of claim.docx
    • The date was 3 June. Get on MCOL now. The legal principle is that, even if you defence is late, if the other party hasn't requested judgement, then your defence takes priority and is accepted. You might be in time. When I say now I mean now.  Recently we had someone who was nine days' late and this was pointed out to them at 5:30pm.  They faffed around till 11pm.  When they went on MCOl they saw that judgement had been entered at 7pm. Every minute is vital. File the below standard defence if you still can - 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Hi friends,  I’m a bit worried I may have got confused with timings here. I thought I had 33 days from my acknowledgment to submit a defence but the date added above says 3/6/24.   have I missed the date?   if so how can I apply for an exception due to my disability and problems with deadlines and dates etc (ADHD)?   what should I submit as a defence?   I’ve had no reply from BW so far    just been back on MCOL and it says 28 days from service if I completed an acknowledgment of service so does that mean 28 days from that of acknowledgement (I.e. 16/5) which would make deadline for defence 14/6?   Thanks! Panicking here.
    • Normally we don't advise playing your cards early in a snotty letter, but as you have appealed we might as well use what you wrote in the appeal against them. There is no rush, you have until 6 July to get it to them.  See what the other regulars think too. How about something like this? -   Dear Rachael & Sean, cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea you'd actually thought I'd take such tripe seriously and would cough up! As usual you'll have been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so you would have seen that I appealed to your client.  Indeed the driver on the day is a textbook example of having done exactly what you should do when you do not wish to be bound by the T&Cs in a private car park. Of course none of that mattered to the spivs you represent but do you really want to put such a useless case in front of a judge? To be fair, your clients are very useful members of the human race - as comedians.  How I loved the page turner of their antics at The Citrus Building in Bournemouth.  It was chuckle after chuckle reading about them, letter after letter, month after month, insisting they were legally in the right, even through someone who had done just the first day of a GCSE law course could have told them they weren't.  Until the denouement - BOOM - an absolute hammering in court.  In fact - SLAM, BANG - managing to lose twice against the same motorist for the same car park in front of two different judges. Your client can either drop their foolishness now or get yet another tolchocking* in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend the dosh on a nice summer holiday, while every day laughing at your clients' expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO COUNTRYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD   *  This word is used under licence from Brassnecked
    • Well yes, ... and the tax dodgers ... Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows A previously unknown focus of an I.R.S. audit is a dubious accounting maneuver that effectively meant taking the same write-offs twice on a Chicago skyscraper. nytimes.com WWW.NYTIMES.COM  
  • 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

Cabot/Morgans going to court with copy/illegible CCA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4959 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

When you go tomorrow, just tell them you have the Cabot Fan Club behind you - they are going to have to better than that to get this one passed the judge would they like to settle before going into court or wait for the slaughter?

 

" but did one more search last night and find one CRA has defaults listed in Cabots name and the original creditor?"

 

Are you saying you have 2 defaults registered for the same debt? That's a big No-No....!!

 

YES! OC default dated 22/11/7 and Cabot default dated 1/11/7 is shown on CRA. Claim was only made in Jan this year though and Cabot have sent a representation of a DN dated 23rd Dec 09. Im confused?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Rhia and Andrew say, the double entry on the defaults is a dead give away.

 

But do bear in mind that the registering of a default with the CRAs is NOT the same as the issue of a DN!

 

OK Donkey thanks for pointing that out because I was making that link, does the fact that the OC state the account ended in 31/10/09 make a link to it being terminated though?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shaarn,

If they have not issued a DN and it is not terminated, which is what they seem to be saying, that means that the account must still be live. If this is the case, they should have been sending regular statements of account.

How prepared are you?

Very best of luck.

 

No regular statements recieved since Sept 09 when the balance appears to have been zero-ed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shaarn,

Another thing, I read on a similar thread that the defendant gave the "agreement" to the oppo solicitor and asked him to read (a particular illegible part) of it. This should prove the point.

 

Great Idea!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OC has registered a default that's OK but if they assign the debt to a DCA the original default has to come off before Cabot can start to regsister it. In other words you can't have two defaults for one debt.

 

And yes pabrmu agree check if it's live or not.

 

How can I check it is live? (is this a stupid question)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shaarn,

If you have not been receiving monthly statements, then I don't think that it can be a live agreement.Someone better qualified than me will tell you the part of CCA 1974 that says this.

If it is not live, then it must have been terminated, in which case you should have received the DN and termination Notice.

Another error that they normally make is not sending the Notice of Assignment by registered/recorded delivery.

Have you acknowledged receipt of the NOA?

If not, and they do not have proof of posting, they cannot prove that they own the debt.

The law governing the correct serving of the NOA is the Law of Property Act 1925, Sect.196:

196.--

 

(1) Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.

 

(2) Any notice required or authorisd by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor

 

(3) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.

 

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned through the post-office undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just keep this simple for a minute and clear the complexities first:

 

Cabot do not act as a debt collection 'agency' they buy debt en-bloc...If they were an agency then they get 10% +/- based upon the value of the outstanding debt they are collecting against, they do not get ownership of the rights to the debt or anything like it, they just take a commission on the debt itself - or more spefically in this case - The Arrears which are due.

 

When Cabot buy debt the debt is Assigned to them and when a debt is assigned then the account as far as the OC is concerned and the LOP is closed. The Default would have happened earlier and when sold removed from the CRA and Cabot register their DN when they take the debt on. If the OC left their Default then they need to remedy that fast or suffer the fact that your credit history may be wrongfully affected. The Deed of Assignment has to be sent to you by both the OC and Cabot, check this thoroughly. These cannot be called ' Arrears unless Cabot are continuing to carry out the functions of the original contract, the rights, duties and all contractual obligations under the original contract - which they don't, so this cannot be referred to as arrears, they bought the account in toto so if they are asking for all the monies then they are pulling a fast one and need reminding they are... Geez, do they never learn?

 

Have they begun charging you their 12% interest rates yet? Let me know if they have and that is a part of their claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just keep this simple for a minute and clear the complexities first:

 

Cabot do not act as a debt collection 'agency' they buy debt en-bloc...If they were an agency then they get 10% +/- based upon the value of the outstanding debt they are collecting against, they do not get ownership of the rights to the debt or anything like it, they just take a commission on the debt itself - or more spefically in this case - The Arrears which are due.

 

When Cabot buy debt the debt is Assigned to them and when a debt is assigned then the account as far as the OC is concerned and the LOP is closed. The Default would have happened earlier and when sold removed from the CRA and Cabot register their DN when they take the debt on. If the OC left their Default then they need to remedy that fast or suffer the fact that your credit history may be wrongfully affected. The Deed of Assignment - NO , Not the DEED the NOTICE of Assignment, sorry!....has to be sent to you by both the OC and Cabot, check this thoroughly. These cannot be called ' Arrears unless Cabot are continuing to carry out the functions of the original contract, the rights, duties and all contractual obligations under the original contract - which they don't, so this cannot be referred to as arrears, they bought the account in toto so if they are asking for all the monies then they are pulling a fast one and need reminding they are... Geez, do they never learn?

 

Have they begun charging you their 12% interest rates yet? Let me know if they have and that is a part of their claim.

Edited by andrew1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just keep this simple for a minute and clear the complexities first:

 

Cabot do not act as a debt collection 'agency' they buy debt en-bloc...If they were an agency then they get 10% +/- based upon the value of the outstanding debt they are collecting against, they do not get ownership of the rights to the debt or anything like it, they just take a commission on the debt itself - or more spefically in this case - The Arrears which are due.

 

When Cabot buy debt the debt is Assigned to them and when a debt is assigned then the account as far as the OC is concerned and the LOP is closed. The Default would have happened earlier and when sold removed from the CRA and Cabot register their DN when they take the debt on. If the OC left their Default then they need to remedy that fast or suffer the fact that your credit history may be wrongfully affected. The Deed of Assignment has to be sent to you by both the OC and Cabot, check this thoroughly. These cannot be called ' Arrears unless Cabot are continuing to carry out the functions of the original contract, the rights, duties and all contractual obligations under the original contract - which they don't, so this cannot be referred to as arrears, they bought the account in toto so if they are asking for all the monies then they are pulling a fast one and need reminding they are... Geez, do they never learn?

 

Have they begun charging you their 12% interest rates yet? Let me know if they have and that is a part of their claim.

 

Yes 12% interest is being applied.

 

There has been no statements from Cabot as part of the duties of the lender and the first statement only came during disclosure.

 

S

Link to post
Share on other sites

THanks for all your help given folks it definately assisted in court today. However the matter has been adjourned until January due to defence and disclosure issues.

 

I will keep you all informed how I get on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Id say....not another I hope

 

Hadituptohere

I'm far from an expert, but learning all the time!!!!!

 

If i've been at all helpful please click my star.

 

Hadituptohere OH V Capital One, **WON**

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (providian/Monument/Barclaycard cc) - ** claim struck out ** due to non complaince of CPR, Wasted Costs applied for, Default Cost Certificate issued by Court, Warrant of excecution and CC Baliffs instructed...lol 😎

Hadituptohere V Cabot, (morgan stanley dean witter/barclays cc) - account in dispute, LBA sent to barclays, awaiting responce, no responce.

Hadituptohere V RBS, default removal x 2, case dismissed, judge used Balance of Probabilities against hard Evidence.

Hadituptohere OH v Santander, Santander issue claim in court, settled out of court via Tomlin, less solicitors fees and interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes manchesteruni posters are not what they appear to be and Cabot and other DCAs regularly monitor these forums and pretend to be genuine seekers of advice. However, the Fan Club has all its antennae twitching and can spot 'em a mile off.

 

They are often trying to trap you into giving details away or posing with a similar case to one that's at a vital stage to see if you can give them some idea of the argument. We're onto them. And Shaaan here may or may not be one such and we are very happy to be proven wrong which is why DonkeyB has asked "what are the issues"?

 

Their modus operandus is to post details of supposed cases, asking for help. Sometimes they even add the odd document but, let's be honest anyone can add a document with personal details edited out (or redacted as we all now like to say) and pretend to be that person.

 

The Cabot Fan Club frequently gets PMs from such and we are happy to give them the same advice we would give anyone on open forums. However keep your wits about you as they're here, they're there, there every flipping where. So stay alert!

 

Shaaan please give us details of your case and we'll be happy to help you as much as we can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rhia,

I hope this is not what you suspect.

I will certainly be more careful with who I try to help, even with my limited ability.

However, thinking about it, I wouldn't put anything past these snakes.

Come on Shaarn, restore my faith in human nature.

Rhia, any chance of running your eye over my thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?280050-Help-with-Cabot-Set-aside-hearing.&highlight=pabrmu

Edited by pabrmu
Link to post
Share on other sites

oh right. Have to say I can't see anything that suggest that. And surely if they were a 'plant' they would be saying they lost in order to discourage people trying it themselves ? Shaarn has another thread on here about the same case too with copies of the illegible agreement on which probably gives a bit more info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let's see shall we? The devil being in the detail and all. And Shaarn if you are indeed a real person then do accept my apologies and ask the site team to merge the numerous threads you have started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...