Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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

Phoenix Recoveries vs D Kotecha - Court of Appeal


pt2537
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4799 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

  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

To Assit From Wakesman

 

(2) Second, because of the decision in McGuffick to the effect that a s78 breach does not remove any underlying

liability from the debtor. And it does not stop the creditor from referring the debtor's debt to a CRA. Many of the

cases that came before me at the time of the CMC on 8 October had been started very much earlier, before

McGuffick had been decided. Hence the claims for declarations as to non-enforcement and injunctions to prevent

reporting to CRA's. So the utility of having a determination of a s78 breach has much reduced;

(3) Third, I have already ruled that a s78 breach per se does not generate an unfair relationship;

(4) Fourth, because, absent any positive allegation of improper execution, a claim to that effect based solely on the absence of or defect in a s78 copy will not succeed; see my determination of the Applications below;

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

Would you advise Phoenix to go to the supreme court ?

 

M1

 

Not sure it would help - am sure the supreme court, if they dismissed the appeal, would only be told they could not do that, and had made the wrong decision by someone from CAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

Would you advise Phoenix to go to the supreme court ?

 

M1

 

No need the claim has not been overturned it just cannot be enforced untill a compliant copy is produced.

 

Again the claim was brought because of the default of the debtor.

Pete

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

No need the claim has not been overturned it just cannot be enforced untill a compliant copy is produced.

 

Again the claim was brought because of the default of the debtor.

Pete

 

And the defence was brought due to the non compliance of the creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we going around in circles?

If you don't satisfy a s78 request properly then you can't enforce. Simple as that.

 

What reason would the creditor not comply correctly with the s78 in the first place?

(Other than being lazy)

 

Either they have no idea what the original agreement was (so can't comply with the s78 request) because it is lost or that they know the original agreement was irredemably unenforceable so don't comply (naughty).

 

Nobody is saying they can't just come up with it eventually then enforce, unless it turns out to be irredemably unenforceable.

The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove it is a true copy.... e.g. How do they know it is a true copy, do they have other agreements on file from that time, etc.

 

It has been a long time since I seen anyone mention taking the creditor to court on here! Madness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if a solicitor and counsel are acting on CFA terms- what would be the advantage to them in "propagating myths" in order to take on cases based on these so called myths- in the full knowledge presumably that they would be non starters

You know as well as i do what CFA really means, in a lot of cases

 

I am sure you must have read the reports on other forums

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter,

 

For the record

 

can you confirm please if it is your contention that s78 cannot defeat a claim against a Defendant?

 

I just want to be clear what you are saying

 

am saing that a s78 can not be the sole cause of absolute unenforceablity.

 

So does anyone else who knows the act

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not "pursuing" any course at all far from it. I am certainly not burying my head in the sand far from it. We have proper expert consumer credit litigation solicitors (not pt's either) fully qualified to plead in Higher Courts in their specialist fields who in themselves have no problem in briefing expert counsel when required to do so. As they have taken our case on board as proper instructions I would defy you to affirm that we are burying our heads in the collective sand.

 

It would seem that you have nothing positive whatsoever to contribute. I asked you to provide sensible counter arguments to your negatives as a recognised expert. You have failed to do so on any question posed to you by me or any other poster.

 

You have not commented on the aspects of Carey which to date you have chosen to ignore. So before handing out the abuse you have , please respond in proper, ordered, reasoned way as properly and courteously requested.

 

You might be wise as well to realise that you nothing of my case and comments you have made are both rude and insulting, not only to me but to the other CAG members following this thread.

 

oilyrag.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You know as well as i do what CFA really means, in a lot of cases

 

I am sure you must have read the reports on other forums

 

Peter

 

Why so cryptic? Is this another unnecessary sideswipe at a particular individual?

 

Anyway, I repeat – and echo PT’s question – why is s78 irrelevant? It has not been repealed. What you posted from Carey does not mean s78 is invalid. Again, if there is an ongoing failure on s78, it has direct – and often fatal – consequences under s61 and 127.

 

And why shouldn’t it?

 

You seem to be implying that a creditor can take as many goes as it likes to get s78 right. Well, when it’s presented as fact under oath, it can’t.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not "pursuing" any course at all far from it. I am certainly not burying my head in the sand far from it. We have proper expert consumer credit litigation solicitors (not pt's either) fully qualified to plead in Higher Courts in their specialist fields who in themselves have no problem in briefing expert counsel when required to do so. As they have taken our case on board as proper instructions I would defy you to affirm that we are burying our heads in the collective sand.

 

It would seem that you have nothing positive whatsoever to contribute. I asked you to provide sensible counter arguments to your negatives as a recognised expert. You have failed to do so on any question posed to you by me or any other poster.

 

You have not commented on the aspects of Carey which to date you have chosen to ignore. So before handing out the abuse you have , please respond in proper, ordered, reasoned way as properly and courteously requested.

 

You might be wise as well to realise that you nothing of my case and comments you have made are both rude and insulting, not only to me but to the other CAG members following this thread.

 

oilyrag.

 

I have shown proof that a section 78 cannot be used to render an agrement totally unenforceable what more can i do.

 

If by positve action you supporting a misguided theory then you are correct.

Peter

mean

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

PB is (deliberately IMO) confusing the issue of unenforceablity and liability

 

if the creditor fails to comply FULLy with s77/79 he cannot legally enforce the agreement- but of course we all know that the debtor still remains liable to the creditor for the debt

 

but it does not suit the creditors or their stooges- for us to understand the difference- lest it reduces our levels of fear!

 

YOur right i do not see your point, we all know that the liaility under an agreement remains even if it is totally unenforceable. So.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we going around in circles?

If you don't satisfy a s78 request properly then you can't enforce. Simple as that.

 

What reason would the creditor not comply correctly with the s78 in the first place?

(Other than being lazy)

 

Either they have no idea what the original agreement was (so can't comply with the s78 request) because it is lost or that they know the original agreement was irredemably unenforceable so don't comply (naughty).

 

Nobody is saying they can't just come up with it eventually then enforce, unless it turns out to be irredemably unenforceable.

The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove it is a true copy.... e.g. How do they know it is a true copy, do they have other agreements on file from that time, etc.

 

It has been a long time since I seen anyone mention taking the creditor to court on here! Madness.

 

to be " fair" to the creditor- there can be reasonable grounds as to why he does not supply a photocopy of the original agreement in response to a s77/79 request

 

one of which would be that due to the million s of records they hold- it is a fact that off site archiving has to be used- and whilst i often joke about it- i beleive it is possible that some archives are indeed in underground bunkers on dis used airfields- the retreival of same can present significant logistical problems

 

i believe that it is recognition of THIS fact that has led the courts allow the creditor to produce what after all is an information request- from other records- rather than any cosy arrangement with the creditors to "do the debtor down"

 

however, conversly i do not believe that it is right either morally or legally- for a creditor to bring a claim in court UNTIL he has retrieved the original agreement upon which he intends to base a cause of action

 

indeed the court rules are specific that the claimant must have his proof of claim before he commences an action- and i always find it hard to accept this trend for claimants to be able to drip feed such documents into a trial

 

at the very least- where a claimant produces documentation after a defence has been submitted- his costs should be ruled out entirely- as clearly by his obfuscation he is leading the defendant into making transactional decisions (in terms of the costs incurred in defending a claim) that he might not otherwise have made had the claimant produced the evidence to support his claim at the outset

 

It is about time the courts refused to process incomplete claims - which are responsible for clogging up the system and as far as northampton is concerned the claimant should sign a legally binding declaration that he has all the documentation at hand to support his claim before using the bulk system

Edited by diddydicky
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here is talking about unfair relationships or seeking declarations of unenforceability etc.

 

If they don't comply properly with the s78 it is a defence and they cannot enforce, as per this case.

 

You would go for the actual original agreement under CPR 31.14 anyway before even filing a defence. (Maybe get the train to their office and inspect in person too! LOL)

Link to post
Share on other sites

am saing that a s78 can not be the sole cause of absolute unenforceablity.

 

So does anyone else who knows the act

 

Peter

 

Yes, but that is not what i am saying either is it?

 

Section 78 can defeat a claim brought against the debtor however, that is what i am saying

 

not mentioning 127 at all

Link to post
Share on other sites

PB talks about the "existance" of true copies of credit agreements under a s.78 request.

 

I'd rather see the "existence" of one to be honest ;-)

 

That aside, it seems there is a clear issue of PB quote mining the Carey judgement and trying to make a case based upon single sentences. The reading of HHJ Waksman's judgement should be apparent to everyone in that it has absolutely nothing to do with when a debtor is defending a case in court.

 

Epic fail from PB, in my opinion, and catastrophic to his opinion in these matters.

 

The cases speak for themselves. Good work PT ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

PB talks about the "existance" of true copies of credit agreements under a s.78 request.

 

I'd rather see the "existence" of one to be honest ;-)

 

That aside, it seems there is a clear issue of PB quote mining the Carey judgement and trying to make a case based upon single sentences. The reading of HHJ Waksman's judgement should be apparent to everyone in that it has absolutely nothing to do with when a debtor is defending a case in court.

 

Epic fail from PB, in my opinion, and catastrophic to his opinion in these matters.

 

The cases speak for themselves. Good work PT ;-)

 

My case is made on the whole judgement, why not read it.

 

{eter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that is not what i am saying either is it?

 

Section 78 can defeat a claim brought against the debtor however, that is what i am saying

 

not mentioning 127 at all

Never in a million years at least not perminantly

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear hear seq.

 

It has been turned by a particular quarter, from a very promising discussion about a potentially beneficial judgement for the consumer into another bunfight over a previous judgement which is clearly not understood by the party concerned.

 

regards

oilyrag

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4799 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...