Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • UK citizens will be subject to the same rules as other Third Country Nationals. Keir Starmer to warn of 'major disruption' risk ahead of new UK-EU border checks | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM Ministers will announce measures to try to blunt the impact of the changes, writes ITV News Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana. | ITV National...  
    • Oh I see! thats confusing, for some reason the terms and conditions that Evri posted in that threads witness statement are slightly different than the t&cs on packlinks website. Their one says enter into a contract with the transport agency, but the website one says enter into a contract with paclink. via website: (c) Each User will enter into a contract with Packlink for the delivery of its Goods through the chosen Transport Agency. via evri witness statement in that thread: (c) Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency I read your post at #251, so I should use the second one (and changing the screenshot in the court bundle), since I am saying I have a contract with Evri? Is that correct EDIT: Oh I understand the rest of your conversation. you're saying if I was to do this i would have to fully adjust my ws to use the consumer rights act instead of rights of third parties. In that case should I just edit the terms and stick with the third parties plan?. And potentially if needed just bring up the CRA in the hearing, as you guys did in that thread  
    • First, those are the wrong terms,  read posts 240-250 of the thread ive linked to Second donough v stevenson should be more expanded. You should make refernece to the three fold duty of care test as well. Use below as guidance: The Defendant failed its duty of care to the Claimant. As found in Donoghue v Stevenson negligence is distinct and separate to any breach of contract. Furthermore, as held in the same case there need not be a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant for a duty to be established, which in the case of the Claimant on this occasion is the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimant’s parcel whilst it is in their possession. By losing the Claimant’s parcel the Defendant has acted negligently and breached this duty of care. As such the Claimant avers that even if it is found that the Defendant not be liable in other ways, by means of breach of contract, should the court find there is no contract between Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant would still have rise to a claim on the grounds of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care to his parcel whilst it was in the Defendant’s possession, as there need not be a contract to give rise to a claim for breach of duty of care.  The court’s attention is further drawn to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), 2 AC 605 in which a three fold test was used to determine if a duty of care existed. The test required that: (i) Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) A relationship of proximity must exist and (iii) It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.  
    • Thank you. here's the changes I made 1) removed indexed statement of truth 2) added donough v Stevenson in paragraph 40, just under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 paragraph about reasonable care and skill. i'm assuming this is a good place for it? 3) reworded paragraph 16 (now paragraph 12), and moved the t&cs paragraphs below it then. unless I understood you wrong it seems to fit well. or did you want me to remove the t&cs paragraphs entirely? attached is the updated draft, and thanks again for the help. WS and court bundle-1 fourth draft redacted.pdf
  • 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

creditor threat to use insolvency act


shabz25
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5046 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

Hi,

I have received a letter today for my creditor stating that if i did not pay the £861 they will use the insolvency act to recover the money. The debt is for electrical equipment paid for in installments. can you advise me if the credit act applies to this debt, should i have received a default notice etc. Can they use the insolvency act for this amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mention electrical equipment paid in installments...is there any kind of written agreement ? Also they can only use the insolvency act if the amount you owe is OVER £750, it might be a wise move to get the figure under the £750 mark...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

They can issue a statutary demand if the sum owned is more than £750. If you have not paid the sum, or apllied to have the demand set aside, within 21 days they could oetition for your bankrupcy.

If you can pay them the difference of £111 they cannnot issue a statutary demand in which case they cannot petition for your bankrupcy.

Bear in mind that it will cost them £1,000- £1,500 if they do try to bankrupt you and they will be at the end of the line when any assets are divided. HMRC come first, then any secured creditors such as a mortgage and possibly a secured bank overdraft. They could spend a lot to get 1p in the £.

I would try to pay the £111 if you can and then negotiate a payment plan for the balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no agreement, just to pay an interest free installment for 5 months. I offered to return the goos when i could not pay for them but the retailer refused. What if i bring the debt below £750 and they add interest to bring it back uip again. I cannot afford to pay a monthly installment plan because i haven't enough left to pay my creditors at the end of each month. My debts are over £140k so am having to prioritize at the moment. i will have to check but the original debt was about £600 so £200+ is made up of charges, i will have to check to make sure on this.

I could gather the £110 as a last resort to prevent them issuing a SD. What if i offer to pay the £110 but they refuse to accept it, where do i stand if this happens, do i just pay it to them anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning,

If the debt was £600 and the balance is made up of interest and penalty charges which have been applied unlawfully ( you say there is no contract) then your reason to set the SD aside would be that the debt was below the £750 threshold.

 

If you owe £140,000 and cannot meet your monthly obligations I would be inclined to write to the creditor outlining your financial position and offering a full and final settlement figure that you can afford.

 

I don't know your full financial position, you may be asset rich but cash poor, however, as I have stated above it will cost the creditor well into 4 figures to petition for your bankrupcy and by the look of it they will not see a great return on their outlay.

 

Only you know your true position and CAG generally suggests you avoid bankrupcy however with your kind of debt I am sure that you must be under great pressure. I would suggest that it is something you should look at look at for your own wellbeing.

 

Martin g

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, i want to avoid bankrupcy and save myself the sense of failure. I have no assets what so ever. I have not means to repay my debts in full. I have made some full and final payment offers to some creditors but never heard anything back from them. I can only assume the offer was too low for them. I have recently had another SD set aside successfully. I don't think it is in their interest to issue a statutory demand as they will not get anything at all, they are way down the list to get anything. Do you think it is worth writing to the DCA and telling them that making me bankrupt would not be in their interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankruptcy is still a dirty word, but nowhere as bad as it used to be. Although its still a bit of a bad stigma, most people who declare themselves, or indeed anyone who has been petitioned are usually relaesed from it within 12 months. this was introduced under The Enterprise Act 2002 I believe.

 

If you have a genuine consience and truly want to pay your debts, then why not go into an IVA. this will last for six years and once youve made the arrangement with the IVA Practitioner, youll only have to pay what you can afford. Its on your credit file for 6 years, but so is everything else, like defaults, CCJ's, the lot.

 

If as you say youve got no assets, then the liklihood that anyone will chace you with diligence is unlikely. No one in thier right mind will petition you considering what it costs them aganist what they are going to get out of you. If you got debts of 140k, you could pay 25% of that over 6 years. Thats just under 6k per annum.

 

As you have no assets, you are in a position of control. Just say to them, well look this is what Ive got, this is all you're getting - end of. If they dont like it well then tough, say petition me !! Dont tolerate crap from these bully boys, you have to take control of the reigns and make the rules.

 

SD's are abused in may ways, and to my knowledge the only creditors who will really go for Bankruptcy big time is Government depts like HMRC for example. They do it as a matter of principle, regardless of cost, just to eatch someone a lesson. Ive been told that by a friend of mine in HMRC Litigation.

 

The choice is yours to make, only you know the full extent of your problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon,

 

I obviuously don't know you, however I really think that the sensible thing for you to do is to go bankrupt. I appreciate that this may make you feel a failure but many businessmen and women who are successful today have been bankrupt in the past, or have declared a business insolvent.

In the States venture capitalists have no problem with ppeople who have been bankrupt on the basis that we learn from our mistakes.

I would suggest that you phone the National Debt Helpline who are, I beleive, sensible, non judgemental and who will give you unbiased advice.

 

Martin g

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...