Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi.   You're in good hands with BF and Andy.   Is it these people?   http://www.decorium.co.uk/   HB
    • There has been no reply to the above question and so I am assuming that the claimant is prevented even from revealing that information. We have to respect their adherence to the agreement. However, nothing prevents me from speculating that the mediator would not have been allowed to impose a gagging agreement on either side and so I speculate that it is Hermes which wants to hide behind a gagging agreement and to prevent disclosure of how the negotiation went and how they were eventually obliged to pay the claim plus costs. Of course if Hermes really want to play this game of trying to gag people – then fair enough – but what it means is that people might decide to resist the gag from Hermes and instead insist on going to the County Court for hearing. Hermes will not be entitled to gag people when there is a County Court judgement against them. When there is eventually a County Court judgement against Hermes which discredits their prohibited items list for last items and discredits their so-called insurance scheme and also discredits their attempts to hide behind a contract with Packlink – when these things eventually happen then Hermes and the rest of the courier industry will be exposed. Then there will be a tsunami of claims and also I hope there will be a tsunami of back claims from people who have been unfairly/unlawfully deprived of their proper compensation because of the unfair treatment by Hermes and the other players in the industry.
    • You need to reply to the Letter Before Claim.  How about -     Dear CEL,   cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  My local supermarket has completely run out of toilet paper in these dark days of lockdown and panic buying, so it was very kind of you to give me a hand.   Now you know and I know and now you know that I know that your app is useless and your case is total pants.  You also scored a big own goal when you tried to sneak in £82 Unicorn Food Tax.  Remember DDJ Harvey's judgement at Lewes on 24 April?  Not very happy with these made up amounts, was he?   You can either drop this foolishness now or get a good hiding in court.  Up to you.  I quite fancy a well overdue holiday once all this COVID stuff is over and your financing it after an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) would do nicely.     See if the other regulars want to tweak the letter this evening, then send it off tomorrow with a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.   Well done on all the detective work you've done in sussing out you could only pay by phone which doesn't work, if they are stupid enough to take you to court further down the line you have all the evidence to smash them.   I don't really see the need to send a SAR in this case, the evidence is all pretty clear, you tried to pay by app and it was rubbish.
    • SO, next letter - i guess I state im needing debt advice and a 30 day pause on proceedings?   Send asap by post   Civil Enforcement Limited Horton House Exchange Flags Liverpool L2 3PF   Dear Sir/Madam, In response to your most recent correspondence: I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt,  the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
    • Can we see what he sent please And did you send the letter in December? Need to see that too   Dx
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Court Papers From Bryan Carter


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3489 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

But the claimant has remained constant (phoenix) it's only the claimants rep that has changed (allegedly) :-)

 

Since you have already filed your defence they can't pull the old trick of telling you they're dicontinuing and then going for a default judgment when you fail to file a defence.

 

As things stand I'd say you are in a strong position. You have the initial defence and if it does go to trial you now have a letter from the claimants reps advising you they have discontinued and another letter proving that they've passed the account over for debt collection acticity to be pursued by yet another DCA whilst the litigation is ongoing.

IMO you now need do nothing but wait for either an aq or hearing date or a formal notice of discontinuance from the court.

I suggest you object to any discontinuance on the grounds that it's in the interest of justice that this vexatious claim be heard and on the grounds that you have continued to be harrassed for the alleged debt whilst this litigation is ongoing by a third party company engaged by the same claimant.

 

I reckon if you play this correctly you could have grounds for a decent claim against Bryan carter.

I wouldn't bother pointing out the issue to Gothia (red castle Recoveries) at this stage I'd just leave them in that rather large hole they're digging for themselves.

 

You might like to use some of your spare time raising a complaint against Bryan Carters with the OFT, the ICO and the SRA.

 

And I would also advise you copy in the Ministry of Justice to any complaint as they need to be made aware of the systemic abuse of court process employed by some of the better know names in the industry.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites
But the claimant has remained constant (phoenix) it's only the claimants rep that has changed (allegedly) :-)

 

.

 

oh ok :) (had thought there would be new claimant as lesh said it had been sold!) so, there is no assignment (sale) but rather just a change of rep? continue as is then?

Edited by Ford
typo

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

first post says claimant is phoenix luxembourg and later post says claimant is now phoenix uk? does that make any difference?

Edited by Ford
typo

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claimant is Phoenix Recoveries (UK) Limited SARL which despite the rather somewhat confusing (some might say deliberately confusing) moniker is a Luxembourg registered entity not a UK Ltd company.

 

it's a bit like HFO Capital Ltd. there's an HFO Capital Ltd registered in the Cayman Islands and another HFO Capital Ltd registered in Eire but there's no HFO Capital Ltd registered at companies house. This is such a confusing arrangement that the good people at HFO Serviceswhich is the UK company which services the debts purchased by HFO Capital Ltd. often get confused over who actually does own the debt when they're litigating.... :lol:

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if it was me I'd write to the court manager seeking clarification.

 

I'd put on my most innocent sounding writing voice, enclose a copy of BC's letter of discontinuation and ask the court manager why they have failed to file the discontinuation as not only have the claimants discontinued the claim as predicted they have passed or sold the account on to somebody else whilst this case has been ongoing so it must definitely have been discontinued and now instead of being harrassed and threatened with litigation by Bryan Carter you're now being harrassed and threatened with litigation by red Castle for these purchases you know nothing about.

 

Of course as an LIP you aren't to know what sort of tricks these people play so if this letter inadvertantly causes BC some legal embarrassment it would just be a perfectly innocent accident and most definitely not an attempt at feathering out any subsequent counterclaim or claim for wasted costs or petty point scoring in anticipation :roll:.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if it was me I'd write to the court manager seeking clarification.

 

I'd put on my most innocent sounding writing voice, enclose a copy of BC's letter of discontinuation and ask the court manager why they have failed to file the discontinuation as not only have the claimants discontinued the claim as predicted they have passed or sold the account on to somebody else whilst this case has been ongoing so it must definitely have been discontinued and now instead of being harrassed and threatened with litigation by Bryan Carter you're now being harrassed and threatened with litigation by red Castle for these purchases you know nothing about.

 

Of course as an LIP you aren't to know what sort of tricks these people play so if this letter inadvertantly causes BC some legal embarrassment it would just be a perfectly innocent accident and most definitely not an attempt at feathering out any subsequent counterclaim or claim for wasted costs or petty point scoring in anticipation :roll:.

 

Do this, and add a complaint. Ask for your complaint to be put before a judge. A judge would not be happy at such a blatant abuse of process. Carter and Phoenix would be in deep do do. It's clearly not an admin error.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

just another update...

 

letter witten to the court to complain but still no reply back nor have i heard anything from the court.

 

BUT.. had two letters from arrow global and guess what same account number that is on going in the court at the moment.

 

but arrow global is now using a company called SRJ.

and they have had a phone call from me saying that this account is still on going in the court.

 

and that this amounts to harrassment,

but they still send letters threatening legal action if the debt is not paid.

 

am i correct in thinking arrow global and pheniox recoveriers are the same company .

 

it would appear they have the same address on their letters.

 

this is doing my head in. on the quiet. stress levels are through the roof.

 

also letters going out to t&s also oft. and financial ombusman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they are not the same company.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...