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


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • tobyjugg2
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By tobyjugg2 · Posted

      So, Sunak has managed to get someone to 'volunteer to go to Rwanda hasn't he? .. for just £3000 payment to the person plus 5 years free board and lodging isnt it? - cost to UK taxpayer over £300M+ (300 million quid+) isnt it? - Bargain says Rwanda, especially with all the profit we made privately selling those luxury chalets Bravermann advertised for us   I wonder how many brits would jump at that offer? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Lets see, up to 5 years free board and lodging and £3k in my pocket .. I'd go - and like that person - just come back if/when I get bored. First job - off to Botswana for a week to see the elephants.   Of course the paid volunteers going to Botswana are meaningless - Rwanda have REPEATEDLY said they wont take any forcibly trafficked people in breach of international law eh? Have they actually got any civil servants to agree to go yet - probably end up as more massive payments to VIPal contractors to go and sit there doing nowt shortly eh?    
    • Restart
      Letter before Action - Negotiation not going well

      By Restart · Posted

      Hi Wondered if I could get a little advise please. I entered into a commercial lease (3 years) and within a few months I had to leave as the business I was trading with collapsed. I returned the keys to the landlord and explained the situation and no money, also likely to go on benefits but the landlord stuck to their guns. They have now instructed solicitors to send letter before action claiming just over £4000. The lease was mine and so the debt. I know this. I have emailed the solicitors twice to explain I am out of work and that with help from family I could offer a full and final settlement figure of £1500 or £10pw. This was countered by them with an offer to reduce the debt by £400, or pay off the amount over 12 months. I went back with an improved full and final offer of £2500 or £20pw. This has been rejected with the comment 'papers ready to go to court'. I have no hope of paying the £4000 and so it will have to go to court. Pity as I have no debts otherwise but not working is a killer. I wondered if they take me to court, could I ask for mediation? I also think that taking me to court will result in a pretty much nothing per week payment from my benefits. Are companies just pushing ahead with action even if a better offer is on the table? Thanks for your help.
    • Hikertrash
      MET CCTV PNC - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

      By Hikertrash · Posted

      Hi all, Many thanks for the advice! Unfortunately, the reply to the email was as expected…   Starbucks UK Customer Care <[email protected]> Hi xxxxxx, We are sorry to read you received a parking charge after using our Stansted Airport - A120 DT store. Unfortunately, the car park here is managed by MET parking. Both Starbucks and EuroGarages who own and operate this site are not able to help and have no authority to overturn any parking charges received. If you have followed the below terms then you would need to send all correspondence to [email protected], who will be able to assist you further. Several signs around the car park clarify the below terms and conditions: • Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies. • The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site. • If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours • To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge. • If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site. • If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site Please ensure all further correspondence is directed to MET parking at the above email address, and accept our apologies that we cannot help you further on this matter.  Kind Regards,  Lora K  Customer Care Team Leader Starbucks Coffee Company, Building 4 Chiswick Park, London, W4 5YE
    • Mdg123
      Private parking charge from Euro Car Parks now with Debt Recovery Plus

      By Mdg123 · Posted

      Thanks HB edited and re-uploaded. Thanks for the heads up 👍
    • bruv1
      Trying to find contact details for prime credit 5 S.a.r.l

      By bruv1 · Posted

      Am in the middle of selling my house but it's been held up as still showing a change on the property from welcome finance, have not had any contact from them for years or prime credit and need this sorting asap

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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

  • Recommended Topics

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.

Cap1 & CCA return

tamadus

By tamadus
in Capital One

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4940 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

ODC

ODC

Posted
Posted

An HL Legal threatogram costs as little as 75p including postage, according to their website (which makes enlightening reading).

 

Obviously you get what you pay for then:D

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

Viscount Stair

Viscount Stair

Posted
Posted

Their About Use page comes pretty close to admitting that they are carrying on unlicensed consumer credit activity. The solicitors' group license only covers activities in the course of practice as a solicitor, not a business that "blends" the service of a solicitor with those of a debt collection agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
patrickq1

patrickq1

Posted
Posted
Their About Use page comes pretty close to admitting that they are carrying on unlicensed consumer credit activity. The solicitors' group license only covers activities in the course of practice as a solicitor, not a business that "blends" the service of a solicitor with those of a debt collection agency.

 

they aught to get lesson from HFO then huh lol

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites
SteveH2508

SteveH2508

Posted
Posted

An HL Legal threatogram costs as little as 75p including postage, according to their website (which makes enlightening reading).

 

Stamp c35p - envelope and paper c5p - crayon - c2p - banana for the monkey c5p - still a profit there then!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi, don't know if anyone can help on this. I have an ex FN account which is subject to court proceedings and just been going through all of the paperwork. Asset Link claim they acquired the account on 23rd March 2005 when the balance was £4483.00. On 3rd July 2006 they applied interest of £895.37 bringing the balance (which as of 30th May'06 was £4425) to £5320.00. I have tried to check if this is ok, using the contractual rate of interest which was APR 12.9 (1.016 monthly rate) but don't get a figure of £895, more like £739.00. Just wondering if someone could tell me if Link's figures are correct or not. Many thanks, magda

 

Just to add, prior to this no interest was being charged, as I was making payments (token) and following the sudden interest charge, Link then applied interest again on 1st August at £26.84 on a balance of £5316.00, which they have then continued to do, having a nice effect on the o/s balance.

Edited by MAGDA
Link to post
Share on other sites
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted
On the basis of the figures you give, I make the interest £724.68. So I don't think they have got it right. Are they entitled to add interest at all?

 

Hi, thanks Steven, in the original agreement it states that "interest on the amount payable will be payable at the rate stated at letter D on the front of this agreement (rate of interest 1.016% pm) and shall be payable before any court judgement and after any court judgement." So I guess this means that Link can also continue to charge interest? The difference in the amounts is quite a bit considering that they then continued to charge interest based on their calculation.

 

This is one of those ex First National Agreements. The OFT took FN to court on this issue, but OFT lost.

 

If the interest is wrong, they have been charging interest for a number of years on the incorrect amount, so the figure they are now suing for will be incorrect also.

 

Many thanks, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted

Thanks Viscount, my DN was supposedly served around 2004/05, but they haven't managed to come up with it yet, still saying they are waiting for the OC to find it:rolleyes:, and this claim has dragged on for more than a year now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted
Hi. Magda.

I think its up to the court to decide if interest can be charged or not. Was that bit in the original contract?

 

Hi, yes, unfortunately it said in the agreement that they can charge interest before judgement and after, so I suppose that is enough. I know that OFT did take FN to court re: post judgement interest, but they (OFT) lost. I imagine as Link now own the debt they can also continue to charge interest in the same way. Many thanks, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites
make them aktiv runners

make them aktiv runners

Posted
Posted

Magda I think you are missing a very important point made by Steven.

 

Indeed Link purchased the right to receive the debt as at sale date, however, did they also purchase the right to receive interest in line with the original contract? The answer is in the DOA and another contract document referred to in said DOA.

 

PS. I would put the question up in debt forum too as I am sure it has come up before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted
Magda I think you are missing a very important point made by Steven.

 

Indeed Link purchased the right to receive the debt as at sale date, however, did they also purchase the right to receive interest in line with the original contract? The answer is in the DOA and another contract document referred to in said DOA.

 

PS. I would put the question up in debt forum too as I am sure it has come up before.

 

Hi Aktiv, I see what you mean about the interest and whether they have a legal right to charge it. I have requested the DoA in a cpr 31.14 request and also cpr 18 when proceedings first began. They replied recently to say that I had no right to see the actual assignment. However, I was kindly given a letter explaining why this is not so, and I have written again stating that as a matter of law etc I am entitled to see this document. Just waiting to hear back again now. I do have a thread on this, as it is one of two Link claims currently back up and running again. Many thanks for the above, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites
rob20042513

rob20042513

Posted
Posted

Hi

 

I purchased a car back in june 2008, however i have done a subject access request and all my documentation has now come back from welcome.

 

My agreement states 'Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'

 

However i purchased a car from them and surely my agreement should say 'Hire Purchase agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974'

 

Anyone have any suggestions whether this is now enforceable????

 

Also in the terms and conditions and agreement nothing is mentioned about repossession or termination rights????

Link to post
Share on other sites
heliosfa

heliosfa

Posted
Posted
Hi

 

I purchased a car back in june 2008, however i have done a subject access request and all my documentation has now come back from welcome.

 

My agreement states 'Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'

 

However i purchased a car from them and surely my agreement should say 'Hire Purchase agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974'

 

Anyone have any suggestions whether this is now enforceable???

 

Depends if it was a HP agreement or a loan agreement, and we would need to see the agreement to determine it. You can have "personal loans" that are restricted use to buy the car.

 

Can you post a copy please?

 

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
presumeddead

presumeddead

Posted
Posted

can antone help ( and please excuse me if this is the wrong thread) I have a managed loan with HSBC basically the repayment schedule was mis-stated, HSBC have confirmed this in writing. Having written the letters to explain that the account is therefore unenforceable, they have written back saying:

 

"We do not agree that this is a serious error hat would render the account unenforceable.....you have clearly had the benefits of the monies withdrawn under the agreement.....we will exercise the right to proceed against you for recovery/ contact credit reference agencies...."

 

My question is what do i do next - sit and wait or be more proactive and reply, and if so saying what?

 

would be truly greatful for any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
car2403

car2403

Posted
Posted
can antone help ( and please excuse me if this is the wrong thread) I have a managed loan with HSBC basically the repayment schedule was mis-stated, HSBC have confirmed this in writing. Having written the letters to explain that the account is therefore unenforceable, they have written back saying:

 

"We do not agree that this is a serious error hat would render the account unenforceable.....you have clearly had the benefits of the monies withdrawn under the agreement.....we will exercise the right to proceed against you for recovery/ contact credit reference agencies...."

 

My question is what do i do next - sit and wait or be more proactive and reply, and if so saying what?

 

would be truly greatful for any help.

 

Have you CCA'd them, then?

 

I'd suggest you start a new thread in the legal issues or general debt forums and post a copy of their response, including the agreement they have sent, if any, with personal details removed of course, so we can see if it is indeed enforceable or not.

 

Just because they say it's enforceable, doesn't necessarily mean that it is :roll:

 

There's some help starting a new thread in my signature, below - beginners guide to CAG - if you're at all unsure

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
lawyerscum2003

lawyerscum2003

Posted
Posted

If a loan is in excess of £25000.00 but purports to be regulated by the CCA, is it enforceable. I have a claim against the HSBC. I borrowed £41000.00. The loan agreement says its a regulated agreement. When I advised them that the limit under the CCA was £25k, they worte to tell me that it is not in fact regulated and that I dont have the protection of the prescribed terms that they have clearly breached.

 

Anyone know of any case law on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
samanthasquig

samanthasquig

Posted
Posted
If a loan is in excess of £25000.00 but purports to be regulated by the CCA, is it enforceable. I have a claim against the HSBC. I borrowed £41000.00. The loan agreement says its a regulated agreement. When I advised them that the limit under the CCA was £25k, they worte to tell me that it is not in fact regulated and that I dont have the protection of the prescribed terms that they have clearly breached.

 

Anyone know of any case law on this?

 

If the loan was prior to Aprill 2008 it would not be covered by the cca 1974.

 

It would be regulated by the FSA.

They are correct in saying that the prescribed terms are of no use to you and that unenforceablity under the cca 1974 is not an option as this would be an exempt agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4940 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.
 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...