Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
    • In anticipation of lodging my court claim next Weds 1 May (14 days after advising P2G that was my deadline for them to settle my claim) I have completed my first draft POC as below: Claim Claim number: xxxxx Reference: P2G MAY 2024   Claimant xxxxx   Defendant Parcel2Go 1A Parklands Lostock Bolton BL6 4SD  Particulars of Claim The defendant has failed to arrange for the safe delivery of the claimant's parcel containing a 8 secondhand golf clubs (valued at £265) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service (P2G Reference xxxxx). The defendant contracted Evri to deliver the parcel (Evri Reference xxxxx) and refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £265, plus P2G fees of £9.10, plus postage costs for two first class letters to P2G of £2.70, plus court fees, plus interest. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxx to xxxxxx on £276.80 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx   Details of claim Amount claimed £276.80 I look forward to your thoughts and comments guys! As ever, many thanks - G59    
    • Hmm, that's strange how they got my email then.  I assume the below is ok to send to DCBL, Nicky?  Hello, I am writing regarding our ongoing dispute and the upcoming court claim reference xxxxxxxx. To ensure fairness and transparency in our communications leading up to the court hearing, I request that you use postal mail exclusively for all further correspondence related to this claim. Please refrain from sending any communication or documents via email. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or need clarification, please feel free to contact me via postal mail at the address provided above. Yours sincerely, xxxx
  • 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

Capquest - New Tactics


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4624 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

Dear All,

 

I've been dealing with the parasites at Capquest for a number of years now. Been through all the particulars of requesting a copy of the CCA for an alleged debt, which when provided was completely unenforceable. They continued to bombard me with letters containing the unenforceable CCA for over a year, I responded each time by recorded delivery stating I acknowledged no debt to them and that the CCA provided was unenforceable. Eventually they appeared to give up and I have no heard from them in nearly a year, until recently when I received this letter. Now I think it's just a mass mail out threat letter as usual but I've never seen one like this before so thought I would post it and ask for your kind opinion on what I should write back.

 

 

Letter From Capquest.

 

You have not responded to our previous letters. Your account has been passed through to the relevant pre-action validations and checks. Your account will be passed to our solicitors with instructions to commence legal action on or after (date) unless you have reached a satisfactory arrangement with us before then.

 

The claim will be issued in the name of (Original Creditor) and will be for the unpaid ballance of the above account. We want you to contact us with your proposals for payment by letter quoting reference 332A33 or by telephoning our experienced team (bunch of cretins) of collectors on (Number Provided) to discuss possible repayment options. You do not have to pay the full ballance immediately to avoid a claim being issued. We seek to agree an acceptable arrangement for payment over a period of time. We will allow you a further 14 days to contact us. If you do nothing then a claim will be issued without further warning to you. This will involve expenditure on court fees and solicitors costs which we will seek to recover from you.

 

Through the litigation process we will seek a judgement of the Court, directing you to pay the monies outstanding. If we are successful and it is necessary to do so, we will seek to enforce such judgement by a Warrant of Execustion which will result in a bailiff visiting your address.

 

We refer you to the Practice Direction - Pre Action Conduct and particularly to paragraph 4 which allows xourt to impose sanctions on a party who does not comply with its requirements. We are willing to discuss with you any issues relating to our claim and seek to resolve any dispute through alternative dispute methods. Our preferred method is without prejudice discussion with you or your advisers.

 

(They then provided Independent Advice Organisation details)

 

Signed

illegible random signature

Capquest Debt Recovery Limited.

 

 

I always replied to their letters by recorded delivery of which I have copies and proof they received them. They haven't written to me since my last reply nearly a year ago. I was dealing in the end with a witch of a woman called Ms L Slater for over a year where many letters went back and forth and she even admitted that the CCA was unenforceable however that did not mean the debt ceased to exist.

 

What do you think I should do next, is this a bulk send out or are they seriously considering sending it to court knowing themselves they haven't got an executable agreement, I want to reply to the letter as if it ever did go to court at least I can show I always responded, I never ignored them (with variations of the same letter hundreds of times).

 

Would really appreciate any advise you may have.

 

Kind Regards

 

NQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these letters are computer generated, and as for this paragraph

Through the litigation process we will seek a judgement of the Court, directing you to pay the monies outstanding. If we are successful and it is necessary to do so, we will seek to enforce such judgement by a Warrant of Execustion which will result in a bailifflink3.gif visiting your address.
They are way off the mark here and MUST be reported to the OFT&TS via http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/UsefulContactsByCategory/Governmentcitizensandrightscontacts/DG_195948

 

They CANNOT send out bailiffs just because they have won a court order, you first have to default on said court order or CCJ, then they have to go back to court, where a Judge will decide what is the best action to take in order to recover the money.

 

For that simple but intentional untruth i wouldn't even honour them with any response, they have shown that they are unfit to hold such a licence and the only people I would be getting in touch with is the OFT&TS and my local MP.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, this is a tactic to get you to respond to them. You have proof that you wrote to them (I hope you did keep copies of letters and the recorded delivery slips?) and they know that you have responded to them.

 

I note that they say that any claim will be issued in the name of the Original creditor. This means they are acting only as a collection agent and not as Owner of the debt.

 

So it appears to me that they can recommend that the OC take action, but as the OC didnt take any action before passing it to CQ for harassment purposes, they might not proceed.

 

I suspect you will be advised by others to ignore.. but you could for your own peace of mind, just drop them a short note saying something like..

 

 

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated ???

 

I am surprised that you have resorted to telling untruths, you are well aware that I have responded to all letters sent by CQ. I am able to provide proof of this by way of Recorded Delivery slips and confirmation of delivery taken from the RM website.

 

I would further question your statement that any claim instigated will be made in the name of the Original Creditor, especially as you led me to believe in previous correspondence that you were in fact the Owner of this disputed account.

 

Furthermore, I suspect that it will be discovered that it is CapQuest who have failed to abide by the Pre Action Protocols.

 

I await further instructions from the Original creditor.

 

Etc, etct.

 

 

 

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed that BB, you are correct they cant :) and should most defintely be reported to the OFT for that alone.

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes yes, I said ignore, but that letter is one up em, send them that, 2nd class post but obtain "Proof of posting" from the PO counter....I always like to have the last word too...

Edited by Bazooka Boo

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Missed that BB, you are correct they cant :) and should most defintely be reported to the OFT for that alone.

 

Your response you penned does make reference to them telling fibs, so I would send them that, and enclose a few sugar coated Jam doughnuts too for added pleasure...

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, What information have you had from this so far,just the ''unenforceable''

CCA?

Do you still have a copy of it that you could post up?

This is probably just a threatogram.

Has a DSAR been done yet:madgrin:

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

Hi Citizen B

 

I have letters from them stating that they have in fact bought this debt dating back to 2006. I did find that line in the letter odd, I think it's another trick, they do as far as i can tell actually own the alleged debt as they have recorded it on my credit file under CapQuest since 2006, the original creditor who I was in dispute with listed the debt on my file as paid.

 

Kind regards

 

NQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi BRIGADIER2JCS

 

I have posted it on here before (I have opened a new account as my old username contained my actual name and I know for a fact CapQuest frequent these forums).

 

When I posted it previously it was unanimously agreed by the good folk on here that it was completely unenforceable as it was missing some of the integral information to make it such. I'll see if I can find my original post to direct you to, it might still be there for you to look at. They have provided me with numerous copies of the CCA which they agree can't be enforced, and several copies of statements, no more than that really.

 

Kind regards

 

NQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi citizenB,

 

I think I will send your letter as well as reporting them, like I say I have always responded, and I would like them to explain how they feel after 5 years of harassing me for a debt they said they owned (and i convinced they do) that they appear no longer to own it

 

Kind regards

 

NQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK NQ, see what you can do it'll refresh old geezers like

me in the err memory department:madgrin:

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

OK NQ, see what you can do it'll refresh old geezers like

me in the err memory department:madgrin:

 

Sorry BRIGADIER2JCS, can't find the original posts; I can rescan a copy at work and post it though if you're still interested to see it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it's frustrating but in law the debt still exists a stupid as it may seem

some one somwhere, some when signed an agreement the circle goes on:madgrin:

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

Just remember that a lot of 'unforceable' CCa's have been forced in Court.

 

You need to have a very strong defense nowadays.

 

Jogs

 

I was under the impression perhaps incorrectly that once a CCA had been provided that was not properly executed then not even a court could enforce it. I know reconstituted ones are being enforced these days which they can't give me now. Besides I genuinely don't acknowledge any debt to CapQuest, if it went to court I'd defend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression perhaps incorrectly that once a CCA had been provided that was not properly executed then not even a court could enforce it. I know reconstituted ones are being enforced these days which they can't give me now. Besides I genuinely don't acknowledge any debt to CapQuest, if it went to court I'd defend.

 

Just read into this a little, are you referring to the repeal of section 127 (3-5) of the CCA? Where an agreement was not enforceable if it did not contain all the prescribed terms can now be enforced? If so according to a few different sources this only affects agreements made after 6th April 2007, the one in question with my case is from 2002 so if this is correct the one they gave me remains unenforceable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read into this a little, are you referring to the repeal of section 127 (3-5) of the CCA? Where an agreement was not enforceable if it did not contain all the prescribed terms can now be enforced? If so according to a few different sources this only affects agreements made after 6th April 2007, the one in question with my case is from 2002 so if this is correct the one they gave me remains unenforceable.

 

No, not really.

 

Cabot have been taking people to Court for a few years now with Cap One agreements that are completely unenforceable.

 

If you get a poor Judge who has no idea of the law and you put up a poor defense, you lose.

 

There are more than a few cases on here.

 

Jogs

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not really.

 

Cabot have been taking people to Court for a few years now with Cap One agreements that are completely unenforceable.

 

If you get a poor Judge who has no idea of the law and you put up a poor defense, you lose.

 

There are more than a few cases on here.

 

Jogs

 

Thats awful, whats the point in having agreements like this and laws associated if those who are charged to judge over them don't abide by them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it ever does end up in court, and lets face it after 5 years of willy waving they still haven't done so, then it will be up to you to educate the DJ if he is a particularly poor one.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of these letters are computer generated, and as for this paragraph

They are way off the mark here and MUST be reported to the OFT&TS via http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Dl1/Directories/UsefulContactsByCategory/Governmentcitizensandrightscontacts/DG_195948

 

They CANNOT send out bailiffs just because they have won a court order, you first have to default on said court order or CCJ, then they have to go back to court, where a Judge will decide what is the best action to take in order to recover the money.

 

For that simple but intentional untruth i wouldn't even honour them with any response, they have shown that they are unfit to hold such a licence and the only people I would be getting in touch with is the OFT&TS and my local MP.

 

Its not an untruth though is it? Depending on how you read it - the key words being

 

"it is necessary to do so"

 

However, based on what you have said it could be a misleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hides or omits material information,breach of the consumer protection unfair trading regulations 2008,at least it mentions "if" we are successful.

 

these letters have one purpose to intimidate and overwhelm those not aware of the law and their redress to such material.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...