Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

0800 repair


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3405 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

Sounds likea company my Mother would call. As long as they are clean cut £200 per day for a few odd-jobs is reasonable :crazy:

My Doctor says that I don't suffer from Paranoia

 

But I know what he's really thinking !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/1186196623bcac871ac12067068db484/compdetails

 

Name & Registered Office:

0800 REPAIR LIMITED

WEST PARK HOUSE

7-9 WILKINSON AVENUE

BLACKPOOL

LANCASHIRE

U.K.

FY3 9XG

Company No. 06610790

 

 

http://whois.domaintools.com/0800repair.com

 

http://www.pacificagroup.co.uk/managecontent.aspx?object.id=10836

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/1186196623bcac871ac12067068db484/compdetails

 

Name & Registered Office:

0800 REPAIR LIMITED

WEST PARK HOUSE

7-9 WILKINSON AVENUE

BLACKPOOL

LANCASHIRE

U.K.

FY3 9XG

Company No. 06610790

 

 

http://whois.domaintools.com/0800repair.com

 

http://www.pacificagroup.co.uk/managecontent.aspx?object.id=10836

 

 

 

now look at their terms and conditions......... and look at british gas homecare terms and conditions..... notice tey are word for word....

 

but ths company also forgot to remove timechoice ( a poduct British gas offer).

 

All it seems they have done is removed all British gas marking and put theirs in their place......

 

Wudnt touch these cowboys with a barge pole imo

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

0800 Repair 0800737247 JTM Contracts LTD Avoid this company like the plague!!! This company carried out a repair on my dishwasher which leaked after and ruined my brand new kitchen floor. They did refund the repair cost and promised to pay for a new floor which ended up being lies lies lies... They are now trying to worm their way out of payment by telling more lies. AVOID this company!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

0800 Repair 0800737247 JTM Contracts LTD Avoid this company like the plague!!! This company carried out a repair on my dishwasher which leaked after and ruined my brand new kitchen floor. They did refund the repair cost and promised to pay for a new floor which ended up being lies lies lies... They are now trying to worm their way out of payment by telling more lies. AVOID this company!!

 

 

oh dear... Scottish Power have ditched Carrillion and are now using...... 0800REPAIR!

 

http://www.scottishpower-onlinecomms.co.uk/boilersavings/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

This company are rip off merchants.

 

I rang them to get my fridge freezer repaired and they took £70 from me before they would send an engineer.

 

He arrived and announced that the freezer unit needed a replacement defrost heater and sensor that he would order

and that the company would be in touch with the price before they went ahead.

 

The engineer left the freezer in bits.

 

I didn't hear anything further so I rang them and

they said they couldn't obtain the parts, the fridge freezer is only three years old so I thought this very strange.

 

I then rang the manufacturer who sent out their own engineers (two of them) they stripped the whole thing down

and said the defrost heater was fine it was just the small sensor that needed replacing

and that they would get me one and that the parts are freely available.

 

0800 repair have taken £70 off me and done nothing claiming that the widely available parts are not available when they obviously are.

 

Additionally if they had gone ahead they would have charged me with the cost of a new defrost heater

which is by far the most expensive component when one wasn't required.

 

Avoid them like the plague!

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you not get the moneyback via chargeback

?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I recently had dealings with this company.

 

 

Our Tumble drier went wrong, so I checked on the internet and found a local High Wycombe number. This company turned out to be a franchise of 0800REPAIR. This was on the Tuesday afternoon. The earliest they could get an engineer to me was Friday morning but they wanted payment an advance of the £69 call out charge, which I agreed to pay.

 

 

Friday morning came and went, so I rang to find out when engineer would arrive after all I had paid for his services. Engineer phoned back to say he would be there in 10 minutes. At 12:30. Engineer arrived, examined the tumble drier said it needed a new drive belt and he would order one and phone to arrange a second visit to install it. He said that as it was now Friday afternoon (12:40) it would be Monday at the earliest before he could order the part as the office closed at 3PM (in two hours time). I said why couldn't he call the office now as he had a mobile phone with him, but this comment was obviously ignored.

 

 

Monday, came and went, Tuesday came and went, no phone calls. So I called the engineer's office (a local number), and after being put on hold for 20 minutes was told the engineer was trying to obtain a quote for the part and would phone me back.

 

 

Wednesday came and went, Thursday morning came and went, and still no phone call. I called again (a local number), and after being put on hold for 20 minutes was told the engineer was trying to obtain a quote and would call me back.

 

 

Friday came along, and still no phone call, so I searched the Internet (good old Google) for the manufacturer and model number for my tumble drier. What a surprise I got a hit straightaway - I emailed their customer services with my model number and serial number and they sent me an email back immediately confirming the part number and the price which included first class Royal Mail postage and that the part could be supplied in 48 hours from stock.

 

 

Armed with this information I called the engineer's office (a local number) at 9:30 and after being put on hold for 20 minutes was told the engineer was trying to get a quote for the part and would call me back later in the day, and that If the engineer didn't call back within the hour I was given the job number and the engineer's office direct number - to my surprise it turned out to Birmingham number even though I had been calling a local number.

 

 

Friday lunchtime came and still no phone call, so I though I would call the number I had been given and see what the problem was. So I phoned and quoted the job number. The person that took the call said the engineer was trying to get a quote for the part. I pointed out it took me 20 minutes to obtain details of the required part not the 7 days it had taken them, and that therefore the engineer probably wasn't competent to do the job. To cut a long story short they then decided to close the job.

 

 

I though, hang about I am out of pocket and still have a broken drier, so I called the first number and told them the engineer had closed the job and since he had done nothing to repair my drier I wanted a full refund or I would do a chargeback on my debit card, the said they had to contact the engineer's office to confirm the job was closed, so they put me on hold, 20 minutes later they came back to me and told me they would arrange a refund.

 

 

So I was now back to where I started, I had a broken dryer, so I ordered the part on the internet direct from the manufacturer. The confirmed my order and I received the part the following Monday. So I now had the new drive belt but did not understand how to fit it, so I looked for a genuine local repairer and phoned him to come and install the drive belt. He said he could come on the Wednesday at 10AM, so I agreed. He actually arrived at 9AM, it took him 15 minutes to fit the part.

 

 

Cost to have the dryer repaired - part £8.99, installation £50, I wish I had done it that way in the first place as from the time of ordering the part to having a working drier was all of 5 days, whereas if I had waited for 0800REPAIR I may still be waiting now, and it would almost certainly have cost more than the £69 call out fee!

 

 

And yes I did get the £69 back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...