Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 160 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

M&S chargecard-changed to CCard - new CCA not reqd say M&S


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4973 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

Ok ....

 

I've started a new thread for this so that it gets attention for others who may receive the docs I've recd today, which seems to be a new tack by M&S.

 

This acct has been in dispute for 18 mths .. due to M&S sending an application form for a store card (no prescribed terms etc).

 

Advised them that :-

a:- the CCA was for a chargecard and not the credit card in dispute

b:- Either way, the CCA provided does not contain any prescribed terms or reference to them, and is clearly a one page singular agreement

 

Well this has ping ponged for over 1 yr .... they started citing S61(b) as an excuse that the pres terms can be in any other document ...

 

They were corrected that S61(b) is for general terms, and that its S61(a) the part that they need to be worried about - states the pres terms must within the executed agreement itself ...

 

They have just ignored any comments I have made regarding the fact that a store card was replaced by an unsolicited credit card ... until now ...

 

Well their bods in complaince must have been a think tank trying to make up what they can send out to peeps who are up on what they can and cant do ...

 

Today, I have received a letter (by recorded delivery no less !!) from a totally new person dealing with my complaint in M&S, whereby they inform me that the agreement they have sent me is complaint with the CCA74....

 

Saying ....

 

"When M&S Money introduced the &More Credit Card a letter was sent to you giving you the choice whether to accept the crdit card or by using the free phone number provided to opt out .. I enclose a sample copy of the letter sent".

 

"Having decided to accept the new card it was posted toyou, the enclosed correspondence included the varied terms and conditions assosicated with it"

 

"This process was recommended to us by the Office of Fair Trading"

 

They then go on with the usual blurb of .....

 

"The agreement is a single document in more than one piece. However even if this were not so, Section 61(b) of the CCA74 requires that the signed documentembody all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms". :lol:

 

They go to say they have complied with S78 of the The Act, and collection activity will continue.

 

Ignoring the fact that in the first place the CCA sent is a load of cr*p ... and why none of this has been put forward by M&S for over 12 mths ..

 

So what they are saying is that the issue of varied T&Cs covers the replacement of a store card by a credit card .. and as I didn't ring to refuse the card I accepted this.

 

Am I correct in thinking howver that they have not just "varied" the t&Cs, but changed the whole contractual basis of the card ... requiring a newly executed agreement .. not just a new set of T&Cs (which they say was cleared with the OFT!!):eek:

 

e.g ... For one thing a credit card allows the withdrawal of monies for which their must be detailed the relevant interest rate etc, whilst a store card certainly doesn't - thats not a variation of T&Cs but a contractual change to my mind .....:mad:

 

  • Either way the CCA is for a store card and unenforceable as no prescribed terms
  • I also have a DN that doesn't give enough time for remedy (but in mind of the new Brandon case not relying on this for now)

Your thoughts ... ???

 

Robin x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty standard response.

 

I'd see what they say to this:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I write in response to your letter dated XXXXX

 

Your letter is incorrect and frivolous, you are fully aware of legally valid reasons why no payment has been made on this account, namely that the agreement which underpins this account has not been supplied despite a perfectly valid request and furthermore, it is suggested that notwithstanding the failure to supply a copy, the agreement itself is improperly executed, devoid of all prescribed terms and deficient in respect of detail relating to APR, total charge for credit and statements of rights ,remedies and protections as required by schedules 1,2 and 6 Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983

 

Therefore the agreement as outlined in section 65 (1) Consumer Credit Act must be laid before the court to be granted an enforcement order before any further action can be taken

 

It is my view that the court would not grant such an order due to the deficiencies that I have outlined within the agreement, further more this has already been raised with (names of previous DCA's / Bank here) yet I note they have still assigned the account over to yourselves and the absence of any documents disproving my points itself speaks volumes

 

Therefore, I would indeed welcome the opportunity to place this before the court. furthermore should you proceed with the threats to issue a statutory demand or a court claim I will make an immediate application to have it set aside for the grounds outlined above, also I shall refer the judge to this letter when the matter of costs falls due

 

I trust this outlines my position clearly enough for you

 

Yours faithfully...:cool:

We live in an unmoderated country why should the net be any different?

Bring back free speech we miss it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

oops just re-read you letter not what you was asking.

 

to be fair they cite what ever makes the most sense to them.

 

They are doing what all OC do when faced with an unenfoceable agreement (especially a M&S store card), which is baffle with law.

 

The bottom line is none of what they say will stand up in court, none of it and thats what is really important, they know this.

 

You could argue for years you won't get anything out of them, they are robots stuck in non acceptance mode.

 

Do you have a letter from them stating that they do not have an orinigal agreement?

 

They will pass it round the usual suspects moorcroft, resolution, red castle are the M&S muppets, in which the case the letter might come in handy

We live in an unmoderated country why should the net be any different?

Bring back free speech we miss it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Back again ...

 

M&S have replied quoting the same load of balls, pres terms are allowed to be in the t&cs under 61(b) ... etc ..

 

They have now told me that they did not need to have a new agreement executed when they replaced a chargecard with a credit card, as the OFT told them all they needed to do was issue a variation of t&cs document ... can this be right ... surely not ? (even so what they have sent is a load of cr*p anyway ... so makes little difference)

 

Robinx

Link to post
Share on other sites

write and tell them if they feel that is enough you look forward to seeing them in court with an application form.

 

The reality is M&S will give up and farm out to a merry go round of DCA's (i'm on my fourth in two years) who will all try and scare you into the same thing.

We live in an unmoderated country why should the net be any different?

Bring back free speech we miss it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...