Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am sorry about getting your status mixed up.  I have noticed one thing in your excellent WS. On their claim they are only pursuing you as the keeper-I think it is  in their Point C that  states along the lines of -the driver did not pay , so the keeper is liable. So on your No keeper Liability section  You may prefer  to alter 13 to    . It is trite Law that the driver and the keeper cannot be regarded  as the same person and the claimant has failed to offer any proof who was driving.  BY  only pursuing the keeper  when the PCN does not comply with PoFA must mean that their claim fails. See what the Site team thinks as it should  stop the Judge from looking at who was driving as your statement preempts them from even thinking about it.
    • What would suffice as proof? I just emailed them back my date of birth. Should I send a copy of driving licence? 
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton   MCOL Northampton N1 ? Manual Claim CCMCC (Salford) ? New beta WWW.MONEYCLAIMS.SERVICE.GOV.UK ?   If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form.   This has been uploaded in my previous messages in the bundle of documents     Name of the Claimant ? Asset Link Capital (NO5) Limited   How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to./   14/02/2020   ^^^^^ NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING THE TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN THE COUNT [example: Issue date 01.03.2014 + 19 days (5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge) = 19.03.2014 + 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014] = 33 days in total Not relevant as his claim was set aside, and has now been brought to the court again by the claimant       Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? Please see bundle of documents in previous thread   What is the total value of the claim? £10,734.1    Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  Yes - this is one of the grounds for getting it set aside   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?  Apparently 2000   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? I do not recall entering into an agreement with Barclays   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ?  It was, but it is not anymore   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned to Asset Link   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No - although they have provided a copy of the assignment notice in their bundle of docs for the hearing   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I don't remember - but again a copy of a letter has been provided (see bundle on previous thread)   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No    Why did you cease payments?  2015   What was the date of your last payment? December 2015   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved?  I wrote to Barclaycard back in 2015 to ask them to send proof of the original agreement but they just sent me a reconstituted document which had no personal deals on relating to me   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? yes - step change took control and set up payments of £1 pm
  • 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

Paying A Loan Agrement On A Credit Card, Which Is Incorrectly Executed....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5019 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

HAHAHAHA. No, I didn't ask for it to be moved. But I DO think its new home is somewhat appropriate. Unfortunately, you credit me with far more powers than I actually possess, and I'm afraid I have upset too many who DO have power, for me to have any influence on what goes on here.

 

I suspect that someone on the site team finds your theory hilarious.

 

OK, I'll bite... point me in the direction of Martin Lewis's Marvellous Nuggets of Wisdom where he says this is a sensible thing to do. I'd love to tell him he's talking shoite. :D

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol: ;-)

 

HERE IS ALL THE HARD WORK DONE FOR YOU!!!!

 

Section 75 refunds: Free protection for ALL spending...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll simply quote from his page (and I'm very upset that I cannot fault him after all)...

 

A. While the bulk of claims are made to credit card providers, the law also applies to other types of credit agreement (except where the supplier is also the creditor, eg for some car finance).

 

And in any case, the provision of credit is NOT the same as supplying you with goods.

 

I trust this clarifies things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you seen the OFT leaflet 303??

 

I didnt pay using a welcsum credit card so your point is wrong.

 

supplier of credit - the ****

credit grantor - credit card (who pays the **** with a cash payment to the supplier of credit)

debtor - emanevs

 

ITS THE MISREPRESENTION OR BREACH OF CONTRACT THAT IS IMPORTANT.

 

EQUAL LIABILITY UNDER S75 OF CCA 194.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case, your assumptions are even funnier.

 

I do see what you are trying to say here, but the truth is, the scanario you imagine is a little different in reality. You have NOT used your card to buy anything. You have simply used it to part repay an existing loan.

 

I'm sorry, but I am a very simple person who needs everything spelt out in plain English. So unless you quote the exact part of ML's blurb, I just cannot see that he is backing you up here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, fair enough.

 

I know its a long shot, but to be honest I can see some merit in it.

 

Its no different to this:

 

1) Welcome 'supply' me with credit

2) my credit card pays the loan amount of £400 quid

3) the supply of credit was misdescribed by the fact that the interest rates are incorrect.

4) welscum and my credit card are jointly liable for the misdescripton or breach of contract on the supply of fautly credit.

5) I reclaim all of my 'losses' - thousdands of it!

 

hope that makes a bit of sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no and no.

 

NO... you have not bought anything from Welcome. And you cannot argue that you used the loan to buy anything either, since that would make Welcome, technically, a third party and so S75 does not apply.

 

NO... A loan is NOT goods. (And do beware the dangers inherent in assuming your interest has been incorrectly calculated, as it's not usually the case that YOU will have calculated anything accurately.)

 

NO... you cannot argue faulty credit. Ignore for the moment that a loan is not "goods", then how is the credit "faulty"? Have you been prejudiced by them giving you money? Did they bung you a handful of forged tenners? No? Thought not.

 

No you don't. You've even got THAT wrong. Only if you have completely paid for the "goods", albeit only part of it with a credit card, would you have been entitled to that full amount to be refunded. I repeat... You have NOT bought anything, or been supplied with goods.

 

I really can't make it any plainer. If you can't grasp it from the above, I'll never convince you. And so I can only say, I'm dying to see what the response will be to your LBA from your credit card company. Now THAT will be worth a bit more than a giggle in The Bear Garden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no and no.

 

NO... you have not bought anything from Welcome. And you cannot argue that you used the loan to buy anything either, since that would make Welcome, technically, a third party and so S75 does not apply.

 

TRUE - I DID NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM WELCOME. HOWEVER, IF YOU BOUGHT A FAULTY TV FROM A*GOS, A*GOS WOULDNT MAKE THE TV EITHER SO YOUR ARGUMENT HERE FALLS FLAT.

 

YOU ALSO HAVE MISSED THIS OFF OUR FRIEND 'MARTIN'

 

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

 

 

NO... A loan is NOT goods. (And do beware the dangers inherent in assuming your interest has been incorrectly calculated, as it's not usually the case that YOU will have calculated anything accurately.)

 

TRUE - A LOAN IS NOT GOODS. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME WHAY A CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT IS REGULATED BY THE CCA 1974, A LOAN IS COVERED BY THE ACT - BUT IT HAS TO BE REGULATED - OF WHICH THE LOAN AGREEMENT WAS.

 

NO... you cannot argue faulty credit. Ignore for the moment that a loan is not "goods", then how is the credit "faulty"? Have you been prejudiced by them giving you money? Did they bung you a handful of forged tenners? No? Thought not.

 

THE CREDIT AGREEMENT WAS FAULTY - FACT. IT MISLEAD US IN THINKING THE LOAN WOULD COMPLETE IN XXXX YEARS, BUT ACTUALLY IT WILL NOT. IT WILL TAKE YYYY YEARS. IN ADDITION, THE LOAN AGREEMENT MISDESCRIBED HOW INTEREST WOULD BE CALCULATED.

 

THE IMPORTANT PART IS THE MISDESCRIBING....

 

....AND I HAVENT EVEN STARTED ON THE AGREEMENT BEING IMPROPERLY EXECUTED........

 

No you don't. You've even got THAT wrong. Only if you have completely paid for the "goods", albeit only part of it with a credit card, would you have been entitled to that full amount to be refunded. I repeat... You have NOT bought anything, or been supplied with goods.

 

NO, NO, NO - SEE MARTIN LEWIS LINK I UPLOADED, AND ONCE AGAIN READ IT.

 

FROM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOVE IS THAT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A FULL REFUND ON CREDIT CARD PURCHASES TO THE FULL AMOUNT.

 

THERE ARE MANY, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE RECLAIMED THE WHOLE AMOUNT

 

 

AGAIN, MY FRIEND YOU ARE REALLY INCORRECT....

 

I really can't make it any plainer. If you can't grasp it from the above, I'll never convince you. And so I can only say, I'm dying to see what the response will be to your LBA from your credit card company. Now THAT will be worth a bit more than a giggle in The Bear Garden.

 

I CANNOT MAKE IT ANY PLAINER EITHER....

 

LETS KEEP THIS CIVILISED, AND CONSIDER MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

 

I DONT REALLY SEE THE NEED FOR SARCASM ON THIS, AS WE ARE ALL TRYING TO HELP.

 

AS I SAID BEFORE, MANY "SENIOR" CAGGERS HAVE ALL TOUTED AGREEMENTS UNENFORCEABLE (INCLUDING MINE) AND ALL I HAVE HAD FROM YOU IS BORDERLINE INSULTS.

 

C'MON, GROW UP A BIT AND ENJOY THE DISCUSSION.........

 

YOU WOULD BE NO GOOD IN A LIVE TV DEBATE!!!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

PS. PERHAPS YOU WORK FOR WELCOME? :lol::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

I believe the operative words above are "GET BACK", as in it was his money he had a right to it back.

There was a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship for goods!

 

 

Debtor-himself

Creditor-Barclaycard

Supplier-Car dealership

Goods-THE CAR

 

He paid IN FULL for the car but never received it because there was a problem with the supplier, but because some of it was paid on his credit card, (regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974), he was entitled to get all of HIS money back under section 75.

 

And I definitely DON'T work for welcome or any other thieving barstewards, I just don't want to see anybody get further in to debt by paying their loans on their credit cards in the hope they can get loads of money.

 

If you have that many issues with welcome's agreement, take them to court!

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I ordered and paid £15,991 in full for a new car but before I took delivery the trader went into liquidation.

 

Thankfully I had paid the first £100 deposit on my Barclaycard Goldfish credit card. So I made a Section 75 claim. It took 6 months but this week I received a credit to my card of the whole amount, just from having paid the first £100 on my card."

 

HOW DID THIS CHAP GET BACK £15,991 THEN???

 

I believe the operative words above are "GET BACK", as in it was his money he had a right to it back.

 

There was a debtor-creditor-supplier relationship for goods!

 

 

Debtor-himself

Creditor-Barclaycard

Supplier-Car dealership

Goods-THE CAR

 

He paid IN FULL for the car but never received it because there was a problem with the supplier, but because some of it was paid on his credit card, (regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974), he was entitled to get all of HIS money back under section 75.

 

And I definitely DON'T work for welcome or any other thieving barstewards, I just don't want to see anybody get further in to debt by paying their loans on their credit cards in the hope they can get loads of money.

 

THEY WONT UNLESS THEY HAVE A VALID REASON TO CLAIM......

 

If you have that many issues with welcome's agreement, take them to court! I HAVE!!!!

ABOVE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok have it your way, good luck.

 

Your post quoted below though, I find very unsettling. Prove it yourself first and then tell others to follow or you could be getting a lot of vulnerable people in to a lot of hot water. Do you really want that on your conscience??

 

And if you havent made a credit card payment yet on a misdescribed loan

 

MAKE ONE!!!!!

 

ha,ha,

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are actualy answering and making my point Emanevs. The key word is PURCHASED!!!

 

You do NOT purchase a loan. You received no goods, ergo there was nothing to misdescribe, go faulty, not be delivered, or whatever.

 

What you are after is FREE MONEY. And as always, the greedy can't see beyond what they want to see.

 

The way I see it is this: not only do you want to have your agreement declared unenforcable, but you also want to double your money.

 

I've had enough. The time for sarcasm has gone... now it's time for plain speaking.

 

IF YOU CAN'T SPOT THE OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THIS ARGUMENT, YOU HAVE THE IQ OF A ROCKING HORSE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the misdescribing, there are tolerances within APR allowances, so unless you have additional information you want to share, that's a none starter also.

 

Yes, if an interest rate is misstated, the agreement may be unenforceable. But then, I may win the Lotto at the weekend also. :rolleyes:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And We Have The "senior Caggers" To Thank For All Telling Us That Our Loan Agreements Are Unenforceable....

 

Where Are They All Now???

 

 

Dont start me on that one!

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has been returned to the BEAR GARDEN.

 

This has to be a spoof, no one could seriously consider that they could take out a loan, pay it off with a credit card and then because they believe the agreement to be incorrectly executed.. use the provision under the credit card terms and conditions to hold the Credit Card supplier jointly responsible for the return of monies paid.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont start me on that one!

 

Nor me!!!, Famous last words "I'll do you a Letter" :lol::lol::lol:

As always please check and double check what myself and other Caggers inform.

 

If you like my Post please dont be shy give my Scales a little tickle :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the misdescribing, there are tolerances within APR allowances, so unless you have additional information you want to share, that's a none starter also.

 

Yes, if an interest rate is misstated, the agreement may be unenforceable. But then, I may win the Lotto at the weekend also. :rolleyes:

 

have a look on legal tools

EDIT

Edited by MARTIN3030
No proof of permissions to post these links.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He/she doesn't just want monies paid to be returned CB. He/she is after the full amount of the loan.

 

Double bubble.

 

"it" is looking for a repayment of the monies paid.

 

no double bubbles - would be nice tho!

 

AND IN ANY EVENT:

 

WHATS THE DIFFERENCE OF THIS AND A DOGEY TV......?

 

AND OUR FRIEND MARTIN L*WIS!!!!

 

:lol::lol:

PS. WHY IS THIS BACK IN THE BEAR GARDEN????

Link to post
Share on other sites

have a look on legal tools

 

 

 

And that means...

 

PS. WHY IS THIS BACK IN THE BEAR GARDEN????

 

Sorry, friend, it's in the BG because I have admin tools and you don't. Of course, if you disagree with this, you can complain to Admin (admin @ consumeractiongroup.co.uk) who will review 'my' decision for you, but I suspect it will remain here until you either answer questions posed about the situation you seemingly believe we all understand, but clearly don't, or state the reasoning that you believe what you are saying is right and true, in the legal sense. Without any of that, this thread is dangerous to those reading it and belongs in the BG.

Edited by MARTIN3030

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5019 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

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...