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 
      • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4985 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

Thanks Guys

 

Still having difficulty finding what is legally meant by unfair relationship... :-(

 

 

 

It's actually a mortgage company I wish to complain about...

 

 

You probably wont get a one size fixes all definition ....just as with 'reasonable force' the test will depend on the circumstances of the particular case.

 

What would be Unfair for one might not be for another...I guess that is why there is no rigid fixed rule on this...instead there are a number of 'factual situations' laid out in the regulations that ARE unfair and those that MAY be DEPENDING on the EFFECT of the breach.

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Subbing on this thread.....need more time to sift my way through it...makes interesting reading. Makes me wonder where a lot of us would have been now if its wasn't for this site.

 

UP to our ears in CCJs, no doubt:)

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

No that CCA can be "reconstituted" if an original can't be found?

 

I did try to search the forums but had no luck with my search terms. Thought they needed the original to get anywhere. Being able to reconstitute would mean they could rebuild it using any means?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reconstituted agreement can satisfy a s77-78 request but Ive seen no evidence that a creditor could suceed in recovering the debt in court without the original if challenged.

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It Would Have To Be A Reconstitution On The Basis That It Is An Excact Copy Of The Origional Otherwise You Can Also Reconstitute Your Own Aggreement I Would Presume

 

 

it HAS GOT to be an HONEST

AND

ACCURATE COPY...this is precisely the reason they are having difficulty in getting back to s78 requests before the judgement and now it will be all the more difficult as there is NOW Judicial utterances that the copy 'must not be a mere assertion' but that as reg 3(1) CC(Cancellation Notices And Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 says ''SHALL'' be a true copy.''

 

The older the agreement the more chance there is of it being a mere assertion.

 

For example:Mr Jones in 2006 requests a copy of that original agreement made in 1996.The actual original physical copy the creditor had has long gone.The creditor must therefore reconstitute the honest and accurate contents of the information from and in that physical document.This NOW IN THE PRESENT TIME has to be taken from other sources that existed at the time of the agreement.If Mr Jones's 1996 original cannot be 'resurrected' the chances that any information from Mr Smith's agreement in 1996 has gone as well and any information contemporaneous at the time of Mr Jones agreement in 1996 will most certainly not exist.They cannot look to Mr Smiths in 1996 because his are gone and so has Mr Singh's in order to re-constitute 'cos of course his has gone too so they may go back to 1994 or forward but then room for error creeps in and it no longer becomes an HONEST AND ACCURATE COPY but a mere assertion

 

It seems that there is a GENERIC defect.If you know the year for an original for which an honest and accurate copy cannot be -reconstituted then you can bet your boots that ALL THE ORIGINALS FOR ALL THE PEOPLE IN THAT YEAR MAY HAVE GONE.

 

If you look to Reg 5 and 6 in CPUTR 2008 you can use that to put pressure on the Creditors to either reduce to nil quickly or get u an honest and accurate copy.Either way u will not be left in the dark but u need to formulate your argument with the authority of the recent cases and regulations.Then dress the argument up with a scintilla of reasoning.

 

Otherwise they could be falling within an UNfair Commercial Practice...i.i misleading omissions (not telling you that they do not have an honest and accurate copy) or sending you Dishonest and INaccurate copy (misleading actions)..

 

Read reg 5 and 6 and formulate a credible argument..that is how I put pressure on Lowells to reduce from £4227 to £00.00 which I have put up on this thread or on the other I cannot remember which.My next objective is Cabot.

 

1 other thing of interest in the Carey case is that Judge Waksman said that because it only cost a quid to request the document this suggested that the document should be straightforward and relatively quick to reproduce...well why DONT they then??????

 

Rgds

 

m2ae;)

Edited by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody thinking of taking legal action against a lender must read this very important case where the issue is enforceability of a regulated consumer credit agreement and reporting information about an account to a credit reference agency.

 

McGuffick v RBS (2009)

 

The Court held -

 

(i) The effect of the unenforceability under s 65 of the CCA 1974 was that the rights of the creditor and corresponding liability of the debtor continued to exist but were unenforceable.

 

(ii) However, reporting to credit reference agencies and related activities did not constitute enforcement under the 1974 Act and so non-payment of a debt under an agreement could still be recorded.

 

(iii) Demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and instructing a third party to demand payment or otherwise to seek to procure payment from a debtor was not enforcement either.

 

(iv) Given that the continued reporting to the credit reference agencies did not amount to enforcement, there was no breach of the first data protection principle in Sch 1 to the Data Protection Act 1988 . There was simply no basis for the contention that the data was not being processed fairly and lawfully.

 

(v)The processing of the data by sharing it with other financial institutions through the credit refer-ence agencies was clearly in the legitimate interests of the bank, the credit reference agencies and other financial institutions, for all of whom the governing principle was that the sharing of data had the aim of promoting responsible lending.

 

(vi) Accordingly, there were no rights that could be the subject of injunctive relief.

 

Beware anyone who starts Court action without considering this case carefully.

 

A.

McGuffick_v_Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_plc_-_[20.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody thinking of taking legal action against a lender must read this very important case where the issue is enforceability of a regulated consumer credit agreement and reporting information about an account to a credit reference agency.

 

McGuffick v RBS (2009)

 

The Court held -

 

(i) The effect of the unenforceability under s 65 of the CCA 1974 was that the rights of the creditor and corresponding liability of the debtor continued to exist but were unenforceable.

 

(ii) However, reporting to credit reference agencies and related activities did not constitute enforcement under the 1974 Act and so non-payment of a debt under an agreement could still be recorded.

 

(iii) Demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and instructing a third party to demand payment or otherwise to seek to procure payment from a debtor was not enforcement either.

 

(iv) Given that the continued reporting to the credit reference agencies did not amount to enforcement, there was no breach of the first data protection principle in Sch 1 to the Data Protection Act 1988 . There was simply no basis for the contention that the data was not being processed fairly and lawfully.

 

(v)The processing of the data by sharing it with other financial institutions through the credit refer-ence agencies was clearly in the legitimate interests of the bank, the credit reference agencies and other financial institutions, for all of whom the governing principle was that the sharing of data had the aim of promoting responsible lending.

 

(vi) Accordingly, there were no rights that could be the subject of injunctive relief.

 

Beware anyone who starts Court action without considering this case carefully.

 

A.

 

 

 

This case concentrated on the scope of the word 'enforcement'.

 

Did it just mean to bring proceedings which is what MgGufficks Counsel tried not to limit to they wanted to include other activities such as reporting to CRA and that this was a form of enforcement too because it was subtly putting pressure on him to pay up and so effectively this WAS enforcement and putting pressure on his family so as to make him pay up through these means.

 

However the Judge Flaux stated that reporting to CRA can continue whilst the lender was defaulting as this did not AMOUNT to 'enforcement'

 

It was merely used to promote responsible lending and in order to attain that objective it was fundamental that information was reported and used in order that proper risk assessments took place before lenders lent to particular risk groups/individuals.

 

So Ali without being disrespectful using the word beware is a bit over the top.

 

If you have a genuine dispute the fact that they are gonna report u is a matter of fact we just have to accept it.BUT it does not by that reason alone lessen a persons chance in court merely because they are being reported to CRA and that fact should not and in reality does not affect what is in the actual content or as to form of the document.

 

They are different issues.

 

m2ae

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody thinking of taking legal action against a lender must read this very important case where the issue is enforceability of a regulated consumer credit agreement and reporting information about an account to a credit reference agency.

 

McGuffick v RBS (2009)

 

The Court held -

 

(i) The effect of the unenforceability under s 65 of the CCA 1974 was that the rights of the creditor and corresponding liability of the debtor continued to exist but were unenforceable.

 

(ii) However, reporting to credit reference agencies and related activities did not constitute enforcement under the 1974 Act and so non-payment of a debt under an agreement could still be recorded.

 

(iii) Demanding payment, issuing a default notice, threatening legal action and instructing a third party to demand payment or otherwise to seek to procure payment from a debtor was not enforcement either.

 

(iv) Given that the continued reporting to the credit reference agencies did not amount to enforcement, there was no breach of the first data protection principle in Sch 1 to the Data Protection Act 1988 . There was simply no basis for the contention that the data was not being processed fairly and lawfully.

 

(v)The processing of the data by sharing it with other financial institutions through the credit refer-ence agencies was clearly in the legitimate interests of the bank, the credit reference agencies and other financial institutions, for all of whom the governing principle was that the sharing of data had the aim of promoting responsible lending.

 

(vi) Accordingly, there were no rights that could be the subject of injunctive relief.

 

Beware anyone who starts Court action without considering this case carefully.

 

A.

 

Hmm...4th post and warnings about the impact of McGuffick? :rolleyes:

 

Mcguffick concerned only s77-78 requests. In this instance the creditor initially failed to satisfy a s78 request but then, prior to court action, satisfied it. (This is acknowledged by both parties).

 

In any even it certainly doesn't relieve the banks burden to produce a signed agreement if they wish to obtain judgement against the debtor - a fact you suspiciously missed.

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

these companies usually keep an archive of their blank agreements

if they "re populate" a blank agreement of the time with your personal details i think the court is going to accept that this complies with s78

 

What does doing that serve? What if you still have your own copies and what the bank presnt looks markedly different? How would they explain that away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does doing that serve? What if you still have your own copies and what the bank presnt looks markedly different? How would they explain that away?

 

Im with DD. s78 allows for reconstituted agreements, which must contain all the information that was contained in the original. So it may look completely different, but could satisfy a s78 request.

 

Could such a frankenstein agreement be used to recover the debt in court? I hope not!

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im with DD. s78 allows for reconstituted agreements, which must contain all the information that was contained in the original. So it may look completely different, but could satisfy a s78 request.

 

Could such a frankenstein agreement be used to recover the debt in court? I hope not!

 

I think that is the nub of the whole matter. The "information" can be in a reconstituted "true" copy - but the REAL ORIGINAL needs to be used (incourt) to GET THE MONEY OFF YOU! - which is after all their real (only?) objective!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im with DD. s78 allows for reconstituted agreements, which must contain all the information that was contained in the original. So it may look completely different, but could satisfy a s78 request.

 

Could such a frankenstein agreement be used to recover the debt in court? I hope not!

 

There's a case at the moment where a recreated agreement has been submitted for enforcement.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does doing that serve? What if you still have your own copies and what the bank presnt looks markedly different? How would they explain that away?

 

they wouldnt if it was materially different and we are all hoping that what you suggest actually happens soon for the benefit of us all

 

shakespear62 is in the middle of (hopefully) proving an amex agreement to be a fraud as we speak

Link to post
Share on other sites

No that CCA can be "reconstituted" if an original can't be found?

 

I did try to search the forums but had no luck with my search terms. Thought they needed the original to get anywhere. Being able to reconstitute would mean they could rebuild it using any means?

 

I think that's tantamount to falsifying information and fraudulent. That means they could be conjuring up pre-2007 agreements on post-2007 forms to get around the provisions of CCA. I would not trust those swine one bit: they are perfectly capable of doing it.

 

Never trust a banker!

Link to post
Share on other sites

at the moment the courts decision making process is predicated upon the fact that these are national/international institutions and could not possibly be wrong or have not followed the correct procedures- let alone falsify anything

 

unless and until someone (hopefully shakespeare62) proves a case where this is not so and opens the floodgates- this is the situation we have to deal with

 

shakespeare62 is fighting such a battle, why not go over to his thread and donate to help him with the costs of the expert he needs to prove his document has been tampered with

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4985 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...