Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm trying to unravel this – but I get the impression that there was no contract between you and EVRi and that you didn't even choose them but instead you decided use some third party parcel broker in the USA which organised the delivery. Is this correct? EVRi came into the picture because they would then eventually selected for part of the journey although you had no knowledge that it might be them and I suppose it didn't really matter as long as the item got to you. Secondly, I really don't understand the journey which this item made. You bought the item from somebody in the USA. They then were meant to dispatch it to you to another address in the USA but for some reason or other it came to the UK and then into the hands of EVRi at which point it was lost or stolen. More confusion here because you now tell us that EVRi marked it as being out for delivery but it was never delivered. This suggests that it was going to be delivered to a UK address but earlier on you said that it was going to be delivered to USA address. I think you need to look at the story. Maybe show it to a friend of yours who is not particularly where the details and ask them if they can make head or tail of it and then come back to us with clarification so that we fully understand. Also, I think we'd like to know what the item is, how was it declared, what was the value which was declared. You said it was a valuable item because it was rare and collectable. I gather from this that it is non-fungible. We need to understand more about this. Was an insurance policy purchased to cover it during the delivery process. I understand that this rare and collectable item be valued at £200. Have evidence this value. This could become very important. Also you have given is no idea when this happened. We need to understand the full timescale. There are a number of possibilities here including the possibility of the contract action against EVRi on the basis of your third party rights or an action for negligence but we need to know far more and we need to get a story that makes sense.   Finally, I understand that you have sent the letter of claim. What did it say? How much time did you give them? What did you expect to happen as a result of the letter of claim? Whatever the answers to those questions might be, clearly you had no idea how to proceed after having sent such a letter. A letter of claim is meant to be a serious threat of some legal action if some condition which you have stipulated is not complied with. You set a deadline for compliance and at the end of that deadline you issue the court action. Clearly you are not in a position to do that so your letter of claim is a bluff and undermines your credibility and it will find its way into the EVRi wastepaper basket – if it's not there already.  
    • Good morning. I just wanted to check something please. The other side have moved slightly and negotiated a full and final offer price to end this matter. I am happy with this. However, I want to make sure this is the end of the matter and am emailing the following over to them prior to payment. Is this enough to ensure they can come back for nothing else? Thanks -------------------------------------------------- Dear Sir.   With regards your last email below.   I am pleased to agree to the full and final settlement figure given below.   Can you confirm this payment will be in full and final payment with no further claim to be brought against me in this matter?   Best regards
    • 100% sure I didn't receive it, that why my first post is with the £100 letter.
    • Engine, the technology business Starling Bank was built on, has been busy launching banks around the world, from Romania to Australia.View the full article
    • use this your WS and inc this as an exhibit off to bed now 3 nights been up till 4am aurora watching wont be on too early as it's lambing season out herding with the dog. your WS main thrust is the debt would now be SB'd , the DN was filed xxxyrs+months after it should have been thus unlawfully extending  SB date to infinity. highlight their admittance regarding errors at that time period in your 'redetermination'  paragraph. agreements unreadable. would have already been written off due to SLC age write off criteria has they not issued the claim to stop the SB clock when they had no paperwork to prove their case in the 1st place. never earned over threshold. dx       Erudio - stopped sending email deferments won at FOS DRN-4141462.pdf
  • 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 4951 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

I have a question I hope the knowledgable here can help with

 

In SI 1553 Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 I am interested in section 2, form and contant of consumer credit agreements

 

I gather that the layout that the precribed terms come between the named parties and the signatures was introduced in 2005, but I cant find out what the situation was before this amendment.

 

What did this section show in the original 1983 S1 1553?

 

Any one help me with this

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

That thought went through my head but I just assumed that this hadn't copied , however the signature is on 2 of 4 and I feel you would have a hard job arguing this in court as the document does tend to flow and link.

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say you have a good case as the two pages dont appear to be linked in any way and if you had to argue this case in court you could use the fact that they supplied the prescribed terms as an after thought and that if they were linked and part of the document these would have been provided as part of the original CCA request

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Heres a thought that some of you might like to ponder

 

All the LOA I have received have been sent by the DCA not the OC....even those on the OC headed paper have come from the DCA....I just wondered how this might stack up legally and whether the OC has a legal right to notify....

 

If this is the process then any SAR to the OC would show that this was never sent and may make a resonable defence say should the DCA produce a legal CCA....

 

Any thoughts?

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Mrs X knows something we do not, then the judgement is a legal judgement. This is because Mrs X had admitted liability for the debt

 

Is admitting liability a legal argument with no CCA !....I think maybe the judge is saying by not defending the liability is admitted...

 

The debt is not the challange but the creditors legal right to enforce it through the courts?

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Prviously posted by PT

 

The courts have also clearly stated that if a creditor does not follow these obligations exactly then they are not entitled to the benefit of the contract:-

 

1.In the case of Dimond v Lovell [2000] UKHL 27, Lord Hoffmann said , at page 1131:-

 

“Parliament intended that if a consumer credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay.”

 

2.Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice Chancellor in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 633 said at para 26 that in the case of an unenforceable agreement:-

 

“The creditor must…be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift, of the loan monies to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the monies in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

 

3.When this case was appealed to the House of Lords on a matter regarding the Human Rights Act (Wilson & Ors v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003] UKHL 40), Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said:-

 

49 The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan… when legislation renders the entire agreement inoperative, to use a neutral word, for failure to comply with prescribed formalities the legislation itself is the primary source of guidance on what are the legal consequences. Here the intention of Parliament is clear.

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

CitizenB

 

Judge Brown in the Rankine case refered to s.170 regarding commiting an offence I have cut and paste below

 

170 No further sanctions for breach of Act

 

(1) A breach of any requirement made (otherwise than by any court) by or under this Act shall incur no civil or criminal sanction as being such a breach, except to the extent (if any) expressly provided by or under this Act.

 

(2) In exercising his functions under this Act the Director may take account of any matter appearing to him to constitute a breach of a requirement made by or under this Act, whether or not any sanction for that breach is provided by or under this Act and, if it is so provided, whether or not proceedings have been brought in respect of the breach.

 

(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent the grant of an injunction, or the making of an order of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or as respects Scotland the grant of an interdict or of an order under section 91 of the Court of Session Act 1868 (order for specific performance of

statutory duty).

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a comment on your post..regarding the commiting of offence for .s78(6)

 

I dont think it has anything to do with the rankine case at all. It is my understanding that whilst an OFFENCE has still been committed by not responding to the CCA request within the statutory timescales, it is no longer a CRIMINAL offence. The companies are still not able to enforce the agreement if they havent provided the documents. I am sure somone will put me right if I am wrong, but I understand the letter template on the forum has been amended to reflect the above.

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...

Paul

 

Saw the post before edit thanks that was very useful..

 

Could we not say...

 

s 189 (4) Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides that: A document embodies a provision if the provision is set out either in the document itself or in a document referred to in it.

 

It may be a good idea to note Goode's take on s 189 (4) just in case a creditor brings the matter up in court and catches one off guard.

 

 

GOODE CONSUMER CREDIT LAW AND PRACTICE issue 18

 

Sir Roy Goode explains below why the creditor’s argument in relation to s 189 (4) has no merit.

 

However this is copyright so can't be posted up but worth researching in case you need to use it..

Edited by B3rty

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every case brought by a DCA (or nearly every case) concerns a terminated agreement and 78(6) would be ineffectual if Brown was correct. Surely that cannot be the effect willed by Parliament when they passed the act

 

That thought has crossed my mind many times

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter

 

I am dyslexic myself and can spot the signs a mile off, I write in word-spell check then cut and paste which helps me get it right however...keep up the good work its much appreciated.

 

For those ignorant to the subject heres a list that includes Einstien, Edision & Churchill.

 

Famous People with the Gift of Dyslexia

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Quick question on adding interest to a disputed account...

 

I have naturally assumed this be be the case and quoted this in letters to DCA's however the Act refers to enforce as does the OFT guidelines and I just wondered what enforce actually means and whether there are any other points of reference as strictly speaking adding interest is not the same as enforcing an agreement in law.

 

Can someone point me in the right direction..

 

Thanks

 

Berty

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

heliosfa...unfortunatley common sense doesn't come into law and its the term enforce that I would like to qualify I wondered if anyone with access to Goode could come up with anything?

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is relevant I am helping a friend with BOS who haven't provided a CCA after 21 days and in the meantime have issued a statement showing late payment and interest on the account.

 

I never had to CCA an original creditor as all mine were defaulted and beyond sensible communication stage so just trying to be accurate and not cause my friend who is recently unemployed any more grief as a default would be bad news for her..

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are for her to carry on payments but cover this with the dispute letter adding that she will pay in good faith but if the agreement isn't produced or found to be unenforceable she would pursue her rights under the unfair relationships s.140, and see what response this brings

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I'm not sure but I read somewhere that use of the credit token will overrule this as this is deemed to be binding to the agreement so basically they could issue this and if you use it thats the definintion of "if any"

 

The term “if any” is present because, as the definition of “executed agreement” in CCA section 189(1) makes clear, a regulated agreement need not necessarily be in writing.

 

Berty

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I am making is the use of the credit token overrides s.59 as you sign this..and if neccasary could be part of the if any argument..

 

So to use s.59 as a legal argument is weak where as s.127(3) with case law is strong...if they didn't have an executed agreement you would use s.127 (3) not s.59!

 

However I would love to be wrong on this...

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Just spoke to a debt specialist at community legal advice on this subject and it was like talking to a robot whos vocabulary consists entirely of the words 'no' and 'Rankine'. She said that the precendent set by Rankine was binding and that there's little chance of success in court - even if a lender has defaulted on a CCA request. Little bit worried

 

We know that's not right and can point to enough case law to prove otherwise so don't worry ...however the official channels don't advocate this route for some reason...

 

I recall a few months ago talk that CAB were looking to take a case forward anyone hear any more about this?

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

127(3) is about enforcement where as the Rankines were bringing the litigation so enforcement wasn't an issue

 

Paul where is that report you mention is it available to mere mortals or for those in the club as it were?

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4951 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...