Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • BazzaS
      Manchester Council fine for residential parking

      By BazzaS · Posted

      “Not realising it was a no parking zone” doesn’t help you if the timing is correct, as (at least, on Google Maps / View) there is clear signage ('7am to midnight', parked at 15:22) What might be worth pursuing is the "ticket handed to driver" aspect : do you have any view on why they would be  stating that?
    • lolerz
      my Leasehold/Freehold property and its issues.

      By lolerz · Posted

      it's 85k of turnover (well, now £90k). However, you're digging yourself into another hole here. That ship has probably long since sailed. Is it worth pursuing this? You're not going to get anything back from it either way.
    • jk2054
      Techzone Mobile Buxton Ltd (dissolved 2022!) - Bought a dodgy phone from their Market stall - says doesn't do refunds with a sign up!!

      By jk2054 · Posted

      if they offer a refund then take it?
    • jk2054
      Evri lost again

      By jk2054 · Posted

      Hi,   A few pointers from yesterday to take note of evris cpr 27.9 failed again so we should really make issue of this also their WX fail to comply with CPR so again we should take issue with their statement of truth  you cant get tort if you get damages under subsection 7 of CRA because its double recovery  - not sure what we think of this? however its the first time i saw the judges make reference to your non automatic rights from s49 which s54 and 57 assist with. We should start stating this specifically for claims as I think its much better than just 49 and 57 as we need to make it clear where our non automatic rights come from as 54 automatic frankly dont help  I have sent the claim form and defences to the admin email because I can’t upload them for some reason as it wont let me but thought this may help as its the first time we’ve taken tort to trial. although i think the DDJ was honestly struggling to understand some parts of the law because he was asking me about them and how he should interpret them, especially for the automatic. Will apply for transcript if you want it?
    • HP Mum
      Private Land parking issue

      By HP Mum · Posted

      I decided on confrontation - which I hate.  Omg the arrogance of the driver.  They refused to say who had given them the alleged permission to park on the private land - unless I proved ownership.  I couldn't believe they could be so objectionable.   They advised they couldn't take public transport to work as they lived too far away.  They couldn't rent a local garage as none were available. I simply said that's their issue not mine. It was infuriating that this person had such misplaced entitlement.  However I decided to humour them and show them the title deeds.   They couldn't respond.  Although at this point they alleged some guy in a city up north - whose name they couldn't remember - gave permission!!    They then asked if they could buy the garages and land!! Yet can't afford to park on a meter !! They seemed to back down and agree to now park elsewhere.  I hope so. 

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.
Latest activity

CCA request - Jules V Natwest

jules_npt

By jules_npt
in Historic Bank Claims

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6477 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

c_allen

c_allen

Posted
Posted

I'd think that if you still owed them money they'd have to keep all docs! I'd say that as they can't prove that you owe them money, that you don't owe them anything!!In fact i'd think that they owe YOU the money that you've already paid them???? anyone know more about this???

OK I GIVE IN

 

Halifax £3600 charges, won with C/I £6400

 

NatWest S.A.R-05/06/06

Bug**r all recieved 03/11/06

Prelim guesimate sent for £3000 03/11/06

Cr*p one CONNED statements 08/06 ROFLMAO

Cr*p one charges=£976

con int 34.9% £1,003.75 £1,979.75.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Tinkerbelle

Tinkerbelle

Posted
Posted

Your threads have now been merged, so things are a bit clearer.

 

Unless they can provide you with a copy of the original documentation they can not enforce the debt.

 

However, I'd still like to find/see this legislation that they are referring to. Will get back to you. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jules_npt

jules_npt

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Tinkerbell. If it helps the section is under (Cancellation and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983. Regulation 3.

However Natwest have made no mention of the CCA application 77(1).

 

Hope this helps

 

Jules

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tinkerbelle

Tinkerbelle

Posted
Posted

Ok, after having searched all day, I am unable to track down a copy of The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983.

 

So if anyone is sitting on a copy please let me know. :D

 

I don't see how we can take this further unless we now what it says. Soz Jules. Better to have all our facts to hand.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tinkerbelle

Tinkerbelle

Posted
Posted
Thanks for looking Tinkerbelle, any ideas as to what my next step should be.

I really don't want to back down as I don't belive the debt is mine.

 

Just don't know what to do.

 

Jules

 

Write to them and tell them that until they can produce documentation then you won't be paying them another penny.

 

With any luck they will take you to court, and you wiill hopefully tell them you intend to defend their claim and see them in court.

 

They will have to explain to a judge how they came up with this figure that you allegedly owe when they have no paperwork.:eek: What do they think you are? stupid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
pford

pford

Posted
Posted

this is all i found relating to the 1983 act

 

1.24 Does the copy have to be identical?

 

 

 

Reg 3(1) of the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations requires that, subject to certain limited exceptions, any copy of an unexecuted agreement must be a ‘true copy’. This means that it must be identical to the agreement as presented or sent to the debtor for signature.

 

 

 

Reg 3(2) permits the exclusion from the copy agreement of:

 

 

• any information relating to the debtor, or included for the creditor’s use, which is not required by the Agreements Regulations;

 

 

• the name and address of the debtor; and

 

 

• any signature box.

Reg 4 makes special provision in relation to headings and statements of protection and remedies in cases to which s58(1) applies.

 

 

full version here

Link to post
Share on other sites
Number6

Number6

Posted
Posted

Yeah, for sure. That only refers to a copy presented to a POTENTIAL client so that the terms and conditions can be studied.

 

The executed agreement must be signed and the lender must retain the signed agreement.

 

Pete

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites
Number6

Number6

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't even mention the 1983 act, it's irrelevant.

 

Just point out that they are in breach of the CCA 1974 and that you deny any responsibility for the loan. Leave it at that and let them stew. If they think differently then they'll have to take active measures.

 

Pete

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tinkerbelle

Tinkerbelle

Posted
Posted

That's correct Jules. You do not want to put that in the letter.

 

Basically the message that you are trying to get across is "I don't believe this debt is mine. If you say it is, then you need to prove it to me by supplying proof"

 

Hope that helps & good luck!

 

Tinks x

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...