Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • and more positive change From next year, mobile phone, paid television and broadband companies must inform customers of any price rises at the point of sale. The changes, ordered by Ofcom, will come into force on 17 January and mean that any mid-contract price rises must be given “in pounds and pence” and in a “clear and comprehensible” way.   Taken a change of government to do it after years of bluster about it eh?   Mobile phone companies banned from hiking prices mid-contract based on inflation WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The new year plan ensures providers are transparent on prices at the point of sale  
    • Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? It depends which country, I imagine. Most UK banks want proof of address and ID, probably more. If your friend/partner can use the house address and provide bills that could help. You would need to look at various online banks and see what their requirements are. Or there are expat accounts but I haven't looked closely at how they work. Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage) I'd have thought the DWP would pay to a new account, as long as the person they're authorised to deal with asks them and provides details. The international pensions people in Newcastle are pretty helpful.
    • HB - he has certainly given me a challenge ! I set a plan in motion. A refinance plan that would have enabled me to take time to sell one asset and sort out another for him.   The bank account blockage has hindered the plan.  His partner seems to think I can do everything w/o paying anyone for anything.  I don't mind helping - but it's not normal to clear out 2 properties, organize storage or sale of possessions, get properties ready for sale/ rent - w/o being paid.  He has the money to pay for things and services - and for my help - but the blockage prevents that. If the refinance plan could still be actioned then at least I would have some time to sell one asset.  Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage)
    • It's a shame that your friend didn't take care of this while he had capacity and before he left the country, isn't it? He seems to have made your mission impossible. HB
    • HB - this form and process is as I remember it from handling relatives cases.  It's a timing thing.  Which has passed in terms of my friend
  • 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
      • 162 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

section 78 clarification


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5101 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

i had a dispute with a creditor over their failure to meet their requirements under a section 78 request. this was three years ago. they just provided an application form with no prescribed terms. no original terms and conditions, just the ones current at that time. since then the alleged debt has been sold to a DCA. they are adamant that there was no dispute with the previous creditor, even though i have the correspondence.

 

my question concerns the recent waksman case. do i still have a valid dispute that has not been rectified? waksman seems to make it clear that a reconstituted agreement is acceptable. is this retropective? does the fact that no original terms and conditions have ever been supplied mean that i still have a valid dispute?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Barfly,

 

There was I thinking that it might have gone down;)

 

Do a bit more reading on this,

 

Judge Waksman also said the following:-

 

Where an agreement has been "varied" (eg, where the interest rate has risen), a copy of the original and the varied terms must be produced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've informed the DCA that the account was in dispute and should not have been sold to them. they've investigated and found no original dispute whatsoever! what a surprise! i will now show them some of the original correspondence with the OC. but i've a feeling they'll now respond with: so what if it was an application form etc we are allowed to omit all these details. however, neither they, nor the OC have ever been able to produce the original terms and conditions. so i'm thinking that would be my way of still claiming the account is still in dispute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks rebel. so the OC was always in default of the section 78 request for not providing the original terms and conditions. i haven't sent a section 78 to the DCA but i can now state that the account was most definately in dispute and, if you are able, provide acopy of the original terms and conditions.

 

i'm always a bit wary of telling the DCA too much i case it ever goes to court. i'd rather let them, and the court, know that they have never sent the original t and c's and have sent a dodgy DN etc in response to the claim...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, Keep it simple, the DCA probably know the account is in dispute, but probably playing silly buggers, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to buy it.

 

thanks rebel. so the OC was always in default of the section 78 request for not providing the original terms and conditions. i haven't sent a section 78 to the DCA but i can now state that the account was most definately in dispute and, if you are able, provide acopy of the original terms and conditions.

 

i'm always a bit wary of telling the DCA too much i case it ever goes to court. i'd rather let them, and the court, know that they have never sent the original t and c's and have sent a dodgy DN etc in response to the claim...

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the advice rebel. so just to be clear, Waksman says that the orginal terms and conditions and the original agreement have to provided under section 78 if any of the terms have been changed? including the rate of interest? and whether this section 78 request was last week or three years ago it makes no difference?

 

surely this would mean they would have to provide the original in most cases as the interest rate will inevitably change once they have you hooked...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats my understanding, My problem with the ruling is how does a person

know if the Terms and Conditions sent are the correct ones. What if the

credit card company just send any rubbish. I thing the Original Credit Agreement is the answer.

 

thanks for the advice rebel. so just to be clear, Waksman says that the orginal terms and conditions and the original agreement have to provided under section 78 if any of the terms have been changed? including the rate of interest? and whether this section 78 request was last week or three years ago it makes no difference?

 

surely this would mean they would have to provide the original in most cases as the interest rate will inevitably change once they have you hooked...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...