Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
  • 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

CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4607 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

Both approaches have no real value of law, i.e. if push turns to shove into court it will have no sway with a judge

Imo, you're right in essence but I beg to differ on this particular point.

 

The very reason why the "prove it & follow correct procedure methods" do 'work' is because they have value in law. People can't just come demanding payment for allegedly owed sums and then trying to enforce collection without proving that they 1. have the legal standing to do so 2. that you actually owe the alleged sum 3. that there is a legally enforceable agreement of some kind and 4. they've followed the right legal process to enforce collection.

 

By actually asking those vital initial questions and showing the would-be-claimants that you know "something of the law", you are showing them that they can only successfully pursue you if they have followed and will continue to follow the correct procedures in order to do so.

 

To me, that has a lot to do with 'the law' even when push comes to shove!

 

Wherever the correct processes are not adhered to (for whatever reason), claimants have an arduous task and can only be successful where they are able to circumvent 'the law' in some way. We've witnessed this repeatedly on CAG with dodgy CCAs, signature forgeries, false witness statements, lies about postage and document issue dates etc etc. They often have to resort to these tactics to have any hope of enforcement because they know they've messed up and 'the law' as it stands would prohibit them.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 354
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I find the two most useful tools of our trade are the 'prove it' letter and CPUTR.

Haha, not sure what to make of your use of the word....trade...:madgrin:

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Further to my posts on the previous thread a quick update. I have been pursued for years by a creditor and the usual DCA suspects. In fact they had five DCA`s pursuing the same debt at the same time during one period.

 

Saturday morning received a letter from the O.C.

 

" Due to your persistent requests for information and you quoting CPUTR 2008 and the fact various collection agencies have returned the account we have decided for commercial reasons to discontinue any further action and close the account in question."

 

I call that a result thank you CPUTR 2008 and thank you Priority for all your work.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my posts on the previous thread a quick update. I have been pursued for years by a creditor and the usual DCA suspects. In fact they had five DCA`s pursuing the same debt at the same time during one period.

 

Saturday morning received a letter from the O.C.

 

" Due to your persistent requests for information and you quoting CPUTR 2008 and the fact various collection agencies have returned the account we have decided for commercial reasons to discontinue any further action and close the account in question."

 

I call that a result thank you CPUTR 2008 and thank you Priority for all your work.

 

Very good to hear this, who is the OC Jonoh?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think if any part applies to the case it could be added to the defence.

I am sure someone will have a clearer answer.

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

Further to my posts on the previous thread a quick update. I have been pursued for years by a creditor and the usual DCA suspects. In fact they had five DCA`s pursuing the same debt at the same time during one period.

 

Saturday morning received a letter from the O.C.

 

" Due to your persistent requests for information and you quoting CPUTR 2008 and the fact various collection agencies have returned the account we have decided for commercial reasons to discontinue any further action and close the account in question."

 

I call that a result thank you CPUTR 2008 and thank you Priority for all your work.

 

Fabulous result.... love it!! :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies the creditor the knicker people if you get my drift!!!!!!!!

 

Looking through my correspondence I believe that when I stated they had sent misleading information to hundreds of people and they tried to coerce money by misleading information , I believe this was the point with ref. to CPUTR 2008 that they decided to call it a day.

 

Various posts on here conclude with the same misleading information they sent out and false information about a certain clause in the consumer credit act. Factually misrepresenting the information by missing certain information out.

 

I can understand that this even fits in with Peter Bard`s interpretation of CPUTR 2008 or lack of it!!!!!!!!!

 

For me a result and what I say is the proof is the account is now closed. Only £1.5k but that is good for me.................

 

Once again thank you Priority one for your outstanding work!!!!!

 

I would ask Peter Bard if something works why knock it????????????????????????

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

But they're all 'Pants' too!

 

Sorry still can't figure it!!

 

Could be my blonde hair or my age :|

 

I keep going through all the names I can think of and still nothing! :???:

 

I know someone will eventually taking pity on me and tell me and I will feel really stupid because it was so obvious, but it won't be the first time!

 

Or the last, I expect!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarification purposes, the CPUTR, which was implemented in to UK legislation on May 26th 2008, was the result of the UCPD (unfair commercial practices directive) 2005/29/EC.

 

There's an old thread of mine started at the onset of this giving TS and LACORS views on CCA 1974 and the new regs, which, unfortunately are not retrospective)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?147392

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking of Marks, but that's not a word you would want to associate with knickers... :lol:

 

Ah thanks omwo, I keep forgetting that a lot of shops have entered the Financial Services market, I was just thinking of bankers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, i have a question,

 

I have an account with RBS ( credit card) which goes back 10 years. Back in 2008 i sent the usual CCA request to Idiots & Jokers for compliance, they returned the postal order and the account back to RBS, the account entered into a dispute status shortly after.

 

RBS then even though the account was disputed involved Mr Watson at AIC whom threatened legal action and placing a charging order on my property if i didnt pay the outstanding balance ( i have the letter to prove). I got shut of him with a simple letter and he passed the account back to RBS. They then instructed Apex to harrass me for the money owed. Apex had no alternative but to pass the account back to RBS also as i made a formal complaint to the OFT, which i made them aware of.

 

Heard nothing since January 2009, however i found a carrier bag full of old statements ( gold dust). The account included PPI. :whoo:

 

Anyway i have written to RBS listing my grievances and asking them for a full explanation of their actions as the mis-sold PPI would have covered the payments on the account. They sent an arrogant letter stating that regardless the account having PPI on it they will still chase me for the balance owed.

 

My question is have AIC & Apex violated and CPUTR Guidelines and if so which ones, also i would assume they have flaunted the OFT DCG aswell by insinuating they can take action when they obviously can't.

 

I am in the middle of writing a detailed letter to RBS before i log a complaint with FOS as i have no intention of playing letter ping pong with them, so therefore i need as much information as possible which i can quote as they have stated that they do not depict AIC's & Apex's involvement as breaching any harassment laws, which i disagree with.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Regards

 

PB68.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...