Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3793 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

More for getting my own thoughts straight on defective D/N's

 

I understand that the DN must specify a date for settlement and not "28 days ( or whatever) from the date of this letter.

 

So, if a DN is deficient and defective can any DCA be told to get knotted on this or should it be initially via the CCA route/"Bemused" letter? and presumably it is not a good idea to tell the OC that their DN is rubbish? perhaps, if it ever gets that far, to wave it in Court?

 

In addition, I presume that being sent a specimen pro- forma DN letter, with no specific personal details, never mind exactitude of dates is also to be regarded as worthless?

 

Sorry if this appears silly questions, I am preparing a flow chart guide and want to get all aspects covered, I am very comfortable with CCA, bemused, defaulted, and all the other template letters so helpfully found here

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

A year ago, and more, Cabot picked up on some CC and one loan accounts

 

on one of these ( Monument) they were sent a CCA which they maintain was a payment ( despite the letter etc)

 

Next, a Morgan Stanley, for which they supplied only an application form

 

The remainder are a Halifax loan and a Visa, both of which had CCA's sent to Blair Oliver & Scot way back in 2007 and no result. Indeed the Halifax Visa has been to nearly all the DCA's all of whom have passed it on

 

I have also received "Reproductions of deeds of assignment" to Cabot obviously manufactured at Cabot. Summer 2008_

 

Now a year and more on, Cabot have sent a lot more paperwork ( including the T & C etc that were requested over a year ago and more)

 

All of the Card papers are application forms or reservation forms and the T & C are not applicable to the date of issue and are many sheeted copies

 

I am concerned that after so long with the many CCA to original DCA etc that Cabot can now provide so much paperwork, most of which is probably

not enforceable, when such aperiod of time has elapsed and, as said the original people approached, ignored, and defaulted on CCA's ( including at that time the 30 day section)

 

I would apprreciate some guidance on best response now ro Cabot, I have written to them a year ago advising their unlawful interventions, fasilure to provide etc |( at the time)

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

All you can do is write and advise (by rec. delivery) them that this matter is getting very tiresome after so long and although they've sent various bits of papework through the post.... these are clearly application forms; containing no prescribed terms and therefore, unenforceable. Unfortunately, the time scales mean nothing in the real world.

 

This is unlikely to make any difference to Cabot; who seem intent on pursuing everyone at the moment. If it does get to court however, you'd have a complete defence. Although they know this, they normally keep up the pressure in the hope that you'll give up and cave in.

 

I'm dealing with Cabot myself, but they've sent nothing so far.... which gives a slightly different scenario from yours. It's been going on for over a year though. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get very blunt with them. Here is the heading a wrote to robinson way with:

 

KINDLY PROVIDE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF A MATTER TO DISCUSS, TAKE ME TO COURT OR STOP HARASSING ME

 

At that point they have nothing left to threaten you with

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get very blunt with them. Here is the heading a wrote to robinson way with:

 

KINDLY PROVIDE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF A MATTER TO DISCUSS, TAKE ME TO COURT OR STOP HARASSING ME

 

At that point they have nothing left to threaten you with

 

 

Cabot will claim that they're not "harrassing".... since it's been their first contact in a year. Whether they take a person to court or not seems to depend on what side of the stone they've crawled out from under on a particular day, rather than the enforceability of any paperwork they may/may not have though...

 

Cabot are a strange bunch and will go out of their way to appear polite and agreeable on paper. That's been my experience anyway.

 

Doesn't mean they're gonna get any money though.... lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cabot will claim that they're not "harrassing".... since it's been their first contact in a year. Whether they take a person to court or not seems to depend on what side of the stone they've crawled out from under on a particular day, rather than the enforceability of any paperwork they may/may not have though...

 

Cabot are a strange bunch and will go out of their way to appear polite and agreeable on paper. That's been my experience anyway.

 

Doesn't mean they're gonna get any money though.... lol

 

maybe I just got lucky with the stone then.

 

Dont you just get pig stick of the dross though? I know I have. My view now with all of them - must be about 10 altogether - is oh for god sake either grow a spine and take me to court (and lose) or just admit you are useless and go away.

 

Unsurprisingly all have proven useless thus far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe I just got lucky with the stone then.

 

Dont you just get pig stick of the dross though? I know I have. My view now with all of them - must be about 10 altogether - is oh for god sake either grow a spine and take me to court (and lose) or just admit you are useless and go away.

 

Unsurprisingly all have proven useless thus far.

 

Yep... all of mine have been useless too. That goes for the company, their "clients" and their clients' clients.... lol :D

 

What a load of bowlarks eh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your thoughts and helpful remarks.

 

I am of the opinion that probably all of what they are involving themselves in are unenforceable for a variety of reasons, and they were sent very strong letters to the effect of you are third party intervention in a matter which is still in dispute, you are out of time etc etc.

 

As you say, perfectly polite( so far) replies of a very long winded kind, the latest, this week a yesr on, now tells me that this is the final response from Customer relations, and I should/must contact the vultures within 14 days to discuss payments.

 

In a pigs ear! They will get a short sharp note with copies of the letters sent telling them to foxtrot O and why !

 

Disnt I see that Cabot are having problems?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ken should stick to his swimming pool!

 

Thank you all for your thoughts and helpful remarks.

 

I am of the opinion that probably all of what they are involving themselves in are unenforceable for a variety of reasons, and they were sent very strong letters to the effect of you are third party intervention in a matter which is still in dispute, you are out of time etc etc.

 

As you say, perfectly polite( so far) replies of a very long winded kind, the latest, this week a yesr on, now tells me that this is the final response from Customer relations, and I should/must contact the vultures within 14 days to discuss payments.

 

In a pigs ear! They will get a short sharp note with copies of the letters sent telling them to foxtrot O and why !

 

Disnt I see that Cabot are having problems? only if you count a £6M loss as a problem:D:D:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, the CCA's that they have been served and provided application forms or similar are still in default of a CCA and where they have joined in on a CCA with another ( defaulted) they are not permitted to pursue?

 

If they do not supply documents under a cca request then they remain in default and may not carry out collection activities until the default under 78(6) is rectified.

 

so the simple answer is YES

Link to post
Share on other sites

agree vengeancedemon, after receiving yet another missive from crapbot about how they are going to continue to harrass and annoy me, i finally rang them and asked them quite politely to put up or shut up.. they have been adding interest to my account even when i was paying them told them 2 years ago to put it before a court, but no. they continued to rack up the interest, in effect trebling the original debt, i have had enough of them.. the threat monkey was quite upset after my rant.. 'im only trying to help'.. yeah well give the correct paperwork or put it before a court and explain your companies actions...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Being pedantic/belt and braces/thick

 

If original DCA who has been sent the CCA 1974 has NOT responded/responded correctly, and ANO i.e Craprot interceed even to the extent of providing some paperwork then section 78(6) applies to cabot and they can be told to FO?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much, sorry to appear a bit dim, but, well, it can be a bit fraught sometimes.

 

I shall refer them to section 78(6) if neccessary, any other sections of this Act?

I shall remeind them of DPA s10, Admin of J s 40, Pro from Harass (1997) s1-2

 

I appreciate that OFT, Info Comm and FSA are useless, but are Trading Standards eyeing these vermin?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading Standards are not keeping an eye on anything - they only get involved if you make a complaint to them. The OFT are monitoring some DCAs so it is always worth reporting any infringement of their guidelines to to them.

Every report to them is another nail in th DCAs coffins and could lead to a heavy fine or a lss of licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...