Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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

Mbna /experto credite


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4455 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

Experto Credite == Trust the Expert or should that :madgrin:be TRUSS)

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Let us know what happens,.

The Web site is egotistical cr*p!!!!!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

Welcome to The Consumer Action Group.

 

 

I am just letting you know that as you haven't had any replies to your post yet, it might be better if you post your message again in an appropriate sub-forum. You will get lots of help there.

 

Also take some time to read around the forum and get used to the layout. It is a big forum and takes a lot of getting used to.

 

 

Once you start to find your way, you will soon realise that it is fairly easy to get round and to get the help you need.

 

It can be bit confusing at first.

Please be advised that my time will be limited for the next few weeks.Thanks for your understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Update

Not at lot to report just yet i have received a DN notice from experto on behalf of varde "they state i am in breach of the 'payment' clause under under you MBNA agreement which has been terminated" this was the 19th sept nice of them to let me know. I have then received a letter off fairfax solicitors stating the usual blurb payment now ..serious matter...9 days etc

 

I think i will send experto a letter asking them to provide the CCA( again) that i have asked for and they have not provided but now refer to in their correspondence

by the way all letters do not have a wet signature so i am struggling to take them seriously but i will try :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity go back to the letter from MBNA (not sure you had one) but if so see if it states the debt has been sold to Experto,??

 

As I am having the same rubbish with Experto and I have re-checked all the paper work I notice MBNA state they sold the debt to Experto,and then Experto inform us that they represent Varde who purchased the debt from MBNA.It shows MBNA are telling porkies,and Experto doing the same

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi First

I have had a look and i have had nothing from MBNA stating it has been sold at all, just a letter from experto stating that varde is "the legal assignee" not one of the letters have a wet signature on them so its all just standard threats. I am expecting the next ploy will be to go through the Northampton bulk center or to send a statutory demand which i am ready for. As another pointer i am going to send this to experto which i sent to lowell and got a reply stating that they were closing the account (see my barclaycrap thread)

 

Claim: **********

16/09/2011

Dear Lowell Financial/Red,

 

AS YOUR RECORDS WILL SHOW THIS ACCOUNT IS IN DISPUTE AND HAS BEEN SINCE APRIL 2009. YOU ARE THE 4th AGENCY THAT HAS NOT BOTHERED TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR CHECK THIS INFORMATION WHICH WILL RESULT IN COMPLAINTS TO THE FOS AND OFT

 

 

If this matter is to be the subject of legal proceedings as you imply, you are obliged to disclose under the Civil procedure Rules, the information and documents detailed below. The information must be furnished within 14 days of receipt to provide what has been requested. If you fail to comply, this will be reported to the appropriate Court, a copy of this letter will be provided as evidence to the same and an Order enforcing your compliance will be sought.

 

1. A true copy of the executed credit agreement and any terms and conditions that applied to the account at the time of default and at the time the account was opened.

2. All records you hold on me relevant to this case, including but not limited to:

a. A transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, repayments and payments and both the original amount of the loan and any repayments made to it the account.

b. Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company, or by any previous creditor

c. Where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my account formerly held with Barclaycard

d. True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notice that you or the original creditor sent me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold.

e.Documents relating to any insurance added to the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, date it was added and deleted (if applicable).

f. Details of any collection charge added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers.

g. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied.

h. A genuine copy of any deed of assignment, or proof that you have a legal right to this money.

i. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998

j. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed.

 

3. Any other documents you seek to rely on in court.

4. A copy of your complaints procedure, as required by the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

5. Clarification of the date you acquired the debt, what organisation you acquired it from, their registered office, their company number (if any) and what legal title they had to this debt, and what credit license number they had at the time that the debt was purchased or entered into.

 

I will require this information within the next 14 days. I must advise you that if the information is not forthcoming, it will be reported to the appropriate Court that you are trying to frustrate proceedings and denying me the opportunity to file any defence on this serious matter if required.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

MR BUSYJEROME *** ****ED OFF AND PUTTING THE ONUS ON YOU

 

This is a letter off this site and i know it is when somebody has started court proceedings against you, but, slight alterations to it and just using their tactics of saying "we may take this and that action" seems to show them that they are in for a rough ride and you know a little about what they are sorry maybe going to do. After reading lots and lots off this site and other info on courts and procedures

they have to prove the issue, so they can do the work for it as far as i am concerned. The first reply from that letter was that they were not taking court proceedings yet so the CPR was not warranted, the next letter said account closed at the mo as they could not get the CCA

 

Hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi All

well after getting the letter off fairfax i sent them this slightly altered letter off this forum

 

Dear Sirs

 

I refer to your letter of 20/10/2011, the content of which is noted. No debt to you/your client is acknowledged.

 

On 06/10/2009 I made a formal request by recorded delivery to your client pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. They have failed to comply within the statutory time limit, or to state whether the agreement exists at all. It should not be necessary to have to remind solicitors that the provisions of s.78(6) now apply. If your clients have not informed you of this and/or you have not requested any proof concerning this matter, please regard this information as your official notification of the situation. In the circumstances you/your client’s threat of legal action would appear to be a breach of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Office of Fair Trading Guidance on debt collection . Should you or your client bring proceedings, they will be robustly defended, and the Court's attention drawn to the above statutory breaches. Any further actions/demands by Experto Credite, Varde or Fairfax Solicitors will be reported to the relevant financial bodies if my formal requests are disregarded. Furthermore I reserve the right to bring the conduct of you/your client to the Court when the issue of costs is being considered.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Their reply was that they are passing the information on to experto....that was the last i heard up to now

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...