Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, the vehicle went to Audi Chingford on Thursday 13th May. I did state beforehand that I only wanted a diagnostic. The technician out of courtesy opened the drain letting huge deposits of water escape the seals. Video evidence was provided via AUDI cam. The link for the audi cam has been forwarded to BMW and Motonovo. I spoke to branch manager explained the situation and he stated he would sent me an email outlining the issue. Audi state this is not really an issue and more of a design flaw. However, the seals still have water ingress. I purchased the vehicle with £0 deposit on a 60 months HP plan for £520.00. The vehicle total was £21000. I did not go for any extended warranty. I live almost 70 miles away from the aftersales centre in Peterborough. I have previously uploaded the document I forwarded to BMW however it was in word format. I have had to buy a new tyre almost three days after purchasing vehicle. BMW still have not compensated me for the v62 cost as they said they would. 
    • I would suggest that you stop trying to rely on legal theory – as you understand it. Firstly, because we are dealing with practical/pragmatic situations and at a low value level where these arguments tend not to work. Secondly, because you clearly have misunderstood the assessment of quantum where there are breaches of obligations. The formula that you have cited above is the method of loss calculation in torts. In contract it is entirely different. The law of obligations generally attempts to remedy the breach. This means that in tort, damages seek to put you into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. In other words it returns you to your starting position – point zero. Contract damages attend put you into the position that you would have been had the breach not occurred but this is not your starting position, contract damages assume that the agreement in dispute had actually been carried out. This puts you into your final position. You sold an item for £XXX. Your expectation was that you your item would be correctly delivered and that you would be the beneficiary of £XXX. Your expectation loss is the amount that you sold the item for and that is all you are entitled to recover. If you want, you can try to sue for the larger sum – and we will help you. But if they ask for evidence of the value of the item as it was sold then I can almost guarantee that either you will be obliged to settle for the lesser sum – or else a judge will give you judgement but for the lesser sum. This will put you to the position that you would have been had there been no breach of contract. I understand from you now that when you dispatch the item you declared the retail cost to you and not your expected benefit of £XXX. To claim for the retail value in the circumstances would offend the rules relating to betterment. If you want to do it then we will help you – but don't be surprised if you take a tumble.  
    • I was caught speeding 3 times in the same week, on the same road. All times were 8-12mph higher than the limit. I was offered the course for the first offense and I now need to accept the other 2 offenses. I just want to be ready for what might come. Will I get the £100 fine and 3 points for each of them or do I face something more severe?  These are my only offenses in 8 years of driving.
    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower. I still believe that I should be claiming for the item's full value, rather than how much I sold it for, as this is the same for insurance: we don't insure the value we paid, but rather the value of the item to put us back into the position we would be in if we ever needed to claim. Its for the loss adjuster to argue the toss
    • amusing that 'bad economic judgement on behalf of prior party ISN'T a major reason to wingers to move to deform yet immigration is, where record levels of such has been driven by the right wings terrible brexit and the later incompetent dog whistle 'proposals largely driven to whistle to the right wingnuts Just seems to confirm the are clueless numpties 'wetting their own shoes   Has farage bought a property in Clacton yet?   yet concern for the NHS is listed as a major issue even by those saying they are moving to deform  
  • 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 
        • 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

Help! Husband's 18year old mortgage debt landed on our doorstep today. I'm terrified.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4058 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

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 822
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

update *** update *** update *** update *** update

 

Well Im sorry Ive been away from you so long (not, but in the best possible way!:wink:)

but its been all quiet on the western front until today...

I have just got home to find a letter from shoosmiths dated 11th October that consists, after the reference numbers and details of the account, of just two lines,

and i quote..

 

we refer to the above and your correspondence received.

we are currently seeking our clients instructions and we will revert back to you shortly....

 

again, as the last letter, it is signed 'shoosmiths' and not from an individual in the organisation, as the initial letters had been

so what do you think is happening???

 

the questions I have are...

 

why has it taken them until the 11th October to write back to me ( my last letter was sent on the 19th September)????

 

Why are the letters suddenly being signed just 'shoosmiths' rather than from an individual as the initial letters were???

 

so over to you good people........:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait for the next letter. At the moment they have got nothing to say. Perhaps they sent your last letter onto their clients and have not heard back. Their file had come out of the diary system, so they have sent a standard diary letter, just saying they will contact you in due course.

 

Just don't think about it and work on the basis that no news is good news. The matter is obviously not straightforward, so they will have to think about it. Personally I think they have left it all a bit late in the day to start pursuing this now and probably realise this.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because you have invoked the CML code of practice they will have to tread very carefully now so as not to fall foul of the OFT guidelines on debt collecting.

 

False representation of authority and/or legal position

 

2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority

and/or the correct legal position.

oft664.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

no news is good news.

 

yes, UB I have been thinking that, but obviously I would prefer the letter to have said...'OK , we quit!' or something to that effect!! hhahahaha

 

2.3 Those contacting debtors must not be deceitful by misrepresenting their authority

and/or the correct legal position.

 

which they completely did in the first few letters!!! and if I had not found you and this site, I would not have known....

HOW do they sleep at night??????? :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

HOW do they sleep at night??????? :!:

 

Very comfortably, on big extra large king sized beds in massive houses, with all the trimmings. That would probably be the case with the owners of the company, plus their executives and not the normal staff who are probably on below average wages.

 

Shoosmiths, when they were Shoosmiths Harrisons were a decent company. But as with many of these large law firms, they have become involved with types of business including debt collection, that are all about earning as much money as they can. The legal trade used to be an honourable profession and still is for many, but there are loads of them, that don't really care about morality, it is just how much money they are making.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

*** UPDATE *** UPDATE *** UPDATE *** UPDATE *** UPDATE ***

 

Hi there, hope people are still following this sad tale.

I received a letter today from the ...HALIFAX!!!

 

After the property address they write....

 

 

" I refer to your letter of 29th September sent to your solicitors, Shoosmiths, which has now been referred to us,

as our internal complaints procedure has not yet been exhausted.

Please be assured that Halifax takes all complaints very seriously.

You will find enclosed a copy of our leaflet which tells you how we will handle your complaint.

Your concerns will be dealt with as quickly as possible, but if you need to speak to me in the meantime, please telephone me on 01422 ******"

 

It is signed, by a person (!) from Mortgage Recoveries

 

Now the thing is I have never sent a letter to the Halifax, it was briefly mooted but the idea was discarded......

and the last letter I sent to Shoosmiths was sent the 16TH September...So what's going on here?????

 

So....are they trying to trick my OH/me into entering a dialogue and restarting the clock???

.......Isn't the debt beyond recovery?

.......Internal complaints procedure not yet exhausted...who for???

 

What do you think of this development???

Link to post
Share on other sites

*** UPDATE *** UPDATE *** UPDATE *** UPDATE *** UPDATE ***

 

Hi there, hope people are still following this sad tale.

I received a letter today from the ...HALIFAX!!!

 

After the property address they write....

 

 

" I refer to your letter of 29th September sent to our solicitors, Shoosmiths, which has now

been referred to us, as our internal complaints procedure has not yet been exhausted.

Please be assured that Halifax takes all complaints very seriously.

You will find enclosed a copy of our leaflet which tells you how we will handle your complaint.

Your concerns will be dealt with as quickly as possible, but if you need to speak to me in the meantime, please telephone me on 01422 ******"

 

It is signed, by a person (!) from Mortgage Recoveries

 

Now the thing is I have never sent a letter to the Halifax, it was briefly mooted but the idea was discarded......

and the last letter I sent to Shoosmiths was sent the 16TH September...So what's going on here?????

 

So....are they trying to trick my OH/me into entering a dialogue and restarting the clock???

.......Isn't the debt beyond recovery?

.......Internal complaints procedure not yet exhausted...who for???

 

What do you think of this development???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoosmiths have obviously sent your letter to Halifax (as they are the client), if they want to deal with it under their complaints procedure, let them. When they investigate under their procedure they will no doubt find that the account is indeed statute barred.Do nothing - wait for them to communicate and then let us know what they say.By the way - if a debt is statute barred there is nothing that can re-start the clock.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter dated 29 Sept is I expect from Shoosmiths sent to Halifax asking them what they want to do with the matter. Halifax have then logged your letter as a complaint and will look into this and in due course respond.

 

Remember that in your previous letter you have suggested the Halifax are not acting correctly e.g CML code not to chase after 6 years, which is backed by the FSA and therefore the FOS. Due to this under FSA rules, the Halifax have to look into all of this and respond properly.

 

Wait for a proper response letter from Halifax.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter dated 29 Sept is I expect from Shoosmiths sent to Halifax asking them what they want to do with the matter. Halifax have then logged your letter as a complaint and will look into this and in due course respond.

 

Remember that in your previous letter you have suggested the Halifax are not acting correctly e.g CML code not to chase after 6 years, which is backed by the FSA and therefore the FOS. Due to this under FSA rules, the Halifax have to look into all of this and respond properly.

 

Wait for a proper response letter from Halifax.

 

I agree, the penny has finally dropped so a little back peddling is going on.

 

Lets hope that this is the beginning of the end.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE*****UPDATE*****UPDATE*****UPDATE*****UPDATE*****

 

ok guys, we have just had a letter from the halifax, (from HBOS Lovell rd ????) thanking my oh for his complaint, but basically throwing it out!

i cant go into details at present, though i will when i have some free time, but basically they are saying that although the halifax signed up for the cml thing about 6 years, because the mortgage statute barred thing is 12 years and my oh last made a payment in 2000, it is clearly within the guidelines and yes, you've guessed it..they're going to pursue! got to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debt is statute barred they can pursue it for eternity if they like, but they can't take you to court for it.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK guys, here goes!

 

The letter we received from the Halifax Mortgage repossesions dept, was dated 19th October, so it seems our ' complaint ' which was acknowledged to us on the 11th Oct has been dealt with extremely quickly as in this letter, we are told that the person wriing to us is

sorry to learn of (my OH's) dissatisfaction with the Halifax and assures (my OH) they take all complaints received seriously and that they aim to provide an excellent standard of service at all times

This is the first paragraph.

 

The second paragraph states that they understand (my OH) is unhappy because he

disputes ever making payment to the shortfall outstanding[/B ]and has doubts the H are entitled to pursue him for the outstanding debt as he

believes that under the CML rules the H is not entitled to chase any debt after 6 years.

That is the second paragraph.

 

In the third paragraph and I quote it in its entirety...

H is a member of the CML and has signed up to abide by the voluntary agreement not to pursue debtors where debt recovery action has not commenced within 6 years of the sale of the property.

they then refer us to information taken directly from the CML website, specifically the section 'does this time limit apply to every case' and then says that

the voluntary agreement does not affect anyone...(gap Why???)...who has already been contacted by the lender'

they then say that as (my OH) clearly falls within this category, as H instructed agents with whom (my OH) entered into a payment arrangement in 1996

and therefore the H is within its rights to continue to hold you liable for the outstanding shortfall as well as to seek to recover its loss

 

this is sounding scary guys! and we are only at the end of paragraph 4 of 9!!!!

 

Paragraph 5 refers to the payments they allege my OH made, the last being received in July 2000.. they say that a mortgage lender has a period of 12 years from the last acknowledgement of a debt to continue to pursue for the shortfall and that a payment constitutes an acknowledgement and therefore the H is inside limitation.

He also notes from the file that (my OH) contacted our appointed representatives CIS email in November 2001 and February 2002 and then by letter in via our agents in June 2004 offering full and final settlement of £1000.00 which was declined (that must have been the unsigned letter they sent a copy of to us)

He also states that the letter, like the payments act as acknowledgement of the debt and therefore the H has until June 2016 to continue to pursue my OH

There ends paragraph the fifth.

 

in the 6th paragraph he notes (my OH's) request for proof of where the payments came from and states that my Oh set up a standing order in 1996 to make monthly payments to their agents Direct Legal & Collections.He says they have information about various conversations that took place between (my OH) and DL&C and he is therefore satisfied that our records are accurate and that (myOH) did make the payments to us

 

in the 7th paragraph he advises my OH that he is not in a position to uphold your complaint.and that now he has fully explained the situation my OH can understand why not.

 

Paragraph the 8th confirms S's as being instructed in this matter for the H and that they will have receive a copy of this letter to make them aware of the situation and that he is sure they will contact in due course to obtain proposals for making payment towards the shortfall

yeah, the immediate image I have is of vultures circling in the sky.vulture.gif

 

The last paragraph refers my OH to the leaflet received with the last letter, 'How to Complain' and says that should any of (my OH's) concerns remain unresolved to let him know what (my OH) would like him to do

alright, alright now; form an orderly queue please, there'll be plenty of time for all of your suggestions, nice and orderly... there you go..images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSDKEJryLmoLi_IpVkNtzu4UH-M6h_0hVZ3vaeye8iNqQF9tb63Vw

to put matters right phew! back on track!

they are, apparently keen to resolve (myOH's) concerns and if we are unable to do so, they will provide (my OH) with details of the Financial Ombudsman for help

 

Ok guys, that's it!

 

I'm scared. I'm exhausted and tired and sick of worrying about everything all the time and this is not quite how I had hoped the next chapter would start.

less

the beginning of the end.

more

we will continue to pursue you

 

over to you......

Edited by perplexedofdorset
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...