Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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
      • 161 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

Letter from RLP, For Son


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4721 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

Had a letter from them regarding my 18yr old son, He explained to me what happened, I decided to fire off this email.

 

Good Afternoon,

 

I have received a letter from you dated the 5th on May 2011,

 

Your Client: Boots the Chemist

 

Incident XXXXXX on XXth of April 2011.

 

Case Ref: XXXXXXX

 

Amount outstanding: £170.50

 

I would like you to confirm to me the address of where the alleged offence took place, Also a break down of the cost of the £170.50, that you allege that he owes.

 

I am happy to accept this to be done via email if you like, alternatively post if you prefer.

 

Kind Regards

 

 

 

I then get this reply

 

Dear XXXXXX

 

 

Our Client: Boots UK Ltd

 

 

We write with reference to the above matter, and in response to your email dated 10 May 2011.

 

 

We note your request for further details regarding this incident. Our client instructs us that on the morning of XX April 2011, you were observed selecting a pair of sunglasses. You removed the price tag from the sunglasses and placed them in your pocket. When stopped by security personnel, you stated that you needed a new pair of glasses but did not have the money to pay for them. This incident occurred in our client’s store at MSU10, Level 5, B2 4BE.

 

 

The following is a breakdown of the compensation that our client is claiming against you, which is a contribution to the actual costs that our client has incurred:

£

Value of goods removed from store that were not fir for re-sale

33.00

Staff and management time in attending upon you; going through the paperwork; monitoring and correspondence.

 

 

82.50

Administrative costs

24.75

Security and surveillance costs

30.25

Total

170.50

Your options now are to:

 

 

 

  • Pay the amount outstanding by one of the methods detailed overleaf.
  • Set up a Pre-Action Settlement to enable you to pay by instalments, please see overleaf.
  • Write a detailed letter of response clearly showing the specific areas of dispute and providing a defence.
  • Our client does not regard Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a suitable option given the value of the claim. They are however willing to negotiate a settlement if you contact our Collections Department, please see overleaf.

 

 

Please confirm which of these options you wish to pursue within 21 days from the date of this letter.

 

 

You should take independent legal advice about your position if in doubt. You are likely to be entitled to free legal advice from a law firm who hold a Public Funding Franchise (like the old legal aid scheme) or a law centre or other advice agency.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Legal Department

Retail Loss Prevention Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£82.50 + another £24.75 for admin, but already included in correspondence.

 

Classes not for resale? so who has them what was done with them?

 

 

Anyway another letter, which is not even 21days from the previous email.

 

 

rlpjt.jpg

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

 

 

 

After reading the stickies, and various other threads, It looks best to Ignore, as per usual

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha..what a load of crap they spout.The Practise Directions and CPR rules were not designed to be used in this way, i.e, as a threat but simply as a means to try and settle genuine disputes before they court stage, in any event it is doubtful that a failure to respond would have any consequences for you anyway.Their talk of legal costs are complete crap too as any such action would be on the small claims track.There is a very good report on RLP produced by CAB, have a read here, http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/unreasonable_demands_final.pdf I see that RLP have actually published a response to this, here, http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lossprevention.co.uk%2Fpdf%2FCAB%2520Referral.pdf&ei=-3zaTdSHCcq3hQeQhrTABg&usg=AFQjCNEmZK9yXGPsXw2e94YekVxGKalU0gbut their repsonse ....CAB’s assertion that “the threatened county court action does not materialise…. RLP has confirmed that it has never successfully litigated a fully contested county court claim”This statement is incorrect and misleading. We regularly issue claims in the county/sheriff court and regularly obtain Judgments. Those Judgments are often Judgments in default. Some cases are defended and we proceed to litigate those cases. Many cases settle throughout the course of the proceedings, as is the normal process in litigated cases, hundreds of which are resolved in this way every day. Settlement is always actively encouraged by the courts.Some cases go to a final hearing, but the Defendant fails to appear and Judgment is granted. Some cases are struck out for Defendants’ failure to proceed their defences.As is the norm, we have a number of cases awaiting trial at the moment. They may or may not settle prior to trial........ still implies that they have yet to win an actual case...........My advice would be either to just ignore the letter or write back saying that you will not be paying them anything, they are well aware that if they did start court action, they would be unable to recover legal costs nor the costs of travel, etc and they would have to send somone down to your local court, all for £107, I very much doubt it !............. Therir line, in the absence of a defence is also rubbish, you do nt have to give them a defence because they have yet to start (and no doubt never would) legal proceedings......Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...