Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • 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

advice please... re claimed debt by Capquest old Next Account


lynd
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3370 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

 

my lodger was evicted from her mother's home approximately two years ago October time. She left with very little.

 

She's just received a letter from CapQuest saying that they've bought a debt from Next for nearly £2k for non-payment.

She did have an account with Next (and had a storecard) but did not have the card with her when she left her mother's home.

It can only be presumed that her mother has run up debts in daughter's name.

 

The letter is addressed correctly to this address.

She has never had any form of correspondence from Next saying that she owes them money or what has been ordered.

I am presuming that the goods, when delivered to wherever from Next were signed for and that Next have details of this signature,

the goods ordered and what they were.

 

We've emailed the CAB for advice and will contact (is this wise???)

Capquest in the morning stating what (that we're taking legal advice???).

Capquest say they want payment in full by the 13th of November or else they'll take legal action and/or send in baliffs.

 

Now, regarding the baliffs

- the property she lodges in is owned my me.

 

Bar her personal possessions (clothes etc) everything else is owned my me

- the furniture in her room, her bedding etc..

 

am I right in presuming that the baliffs can't take any of that?

I have read that baliffs can't enter the property unless by 'peaceful entry' (i.e. through an unlocked door or open window

- actually if they do that and my dog bites them then what???).

 

. How does this affect my credit rating (which is exceptionally good I may add)

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. She (lodger) is obviously a little shocked that her mother could do this to her.

 

Thanks

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi and welcome

 

DO NOT phone Crapquest or any DCA EVER, keep everything in writing only.

 

Do not worry about their threats,

to appoint bailiffs they would require a court judgement and your lodger is a long way from this stage.

 

I would suggest a 'prove it' letter to Capquest and make it clear that she does not acknowledge this debt and disputes it.

Once you dispute a debt they have to put it on hold and investigate.

 

CAB advice can be less than helpful at times

- they are overstretched and not really prepared to help in disputes,

so see what they say but don't rely on it.

 

Do not do anything else until you have the full facts of this

 

Prove it letter

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?428-General-debt-letter-if-you-know-nothing-of-the-debt

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs can't/wont' come unless it has been to court, there has been a judgement against her and she has refused/failed to pay by 28 days after the judgment.

 

That's one thing to report as that type of threat is not allowed.

 

I've edited your heading to include Capquest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, Crapquest are well known for this. Send your letter recorded and keep a copy.

 

It may be worth some enquiries to Next also but see what CQ come back with and don't worry

  • Confused 1

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have sent off the letter to CapQuest.

 

Interestingly enough, talking to lodger, is that she has never taken out a storecard with Next... also CapQuest have tried to call her on a couple of occasions yesterday via her mobile.... makes you wonder where they got the number from?

 

I said, don't reply to them - is this right? They left a voice-message saying get in contact asap and the woman who left the message was a little 'brusque' to say the least!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, don't speak to them at all, keep everything in writing.

 

It is against Office of Fair Trading Guidelines to phone someone when they have been requested not so send thenm this

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?493-Harassment-by-telephone-response-letter.

 

See what their reply to the 'prove it' letter is, I suspect they are 'phishing' and have not necessarily caught the right person.

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that when you do write to them,

make a point of saying that you wish to keep all communication from them in writing only

and that any furhter phone calls or text messages from them will be deemed to be harassment.

 

Point out that under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that if they make further phone calls or send additional text messgaes,

not only will you inform the police, but you will seek compensation for any distress caused by their harassment.

 

Have a read of the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 - it's brilliant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just an update

- have had a reply from Capquest to say that they are looking into the matter and will be in contact in due course.

 

They have phoned lodger (the last call being on Monday) but nothing since.

 

I've told her not to reply.

 

Will await the next step and may be back for more advice.

 

.. thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a wild guess and suggest the letters doesnt say they will send bailiffs straight away, only that they coudl if it coulds to court and there is no payment.

 

If your lodger has not run up the debt and wnast to play ball she will have to report identity theft to the Police. If her mother has comitted fraud then she will have to cop it.

 

If your lodger is denying the debt is theirs then they should write to capquest and tell them so, otherwise you will fidn thigns will just go orudn in circles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a wild guess and suggest the letters doesnt say they will send bailiffs straight away, only that they coudl if it coulds to court and there is no payment.

 

If your lodger has not run up the debt and wnast to play ball she will have to report identity theft to the Police. If her mother has comitted fraud then she will have to cop it.

 

If your lodger is denying the debt is theirs then they should write to capquest and tell them so, otherwise you will fidn thigns will just go orudn in circles.

 

I believe they have indicated that this is not their debt and have sent 'prove it' letter

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi people.

 

Lodger has received another letter from CapQuest

 

It says

 

Dear X

 

Our Client: Next

A/c number XXX

Balance XXX

 

We thank you for your correspondence and respond as follows:

 

We can confirm that this account relates to a Next Directory account, opened on 8.8.08.

 

Yours

 

It doesn't give any details of any orders, what was delivered, letters that were sent etc.

 

She wasn't living here then though - didn't move here till 2009.

 

What do you think my (her/our) next move should be?

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You require a lot more information than this, you can respond and say that this is still in dispute and you are reporting this matter to OFT. You require proof of liability. Do report this to OFT http://www.oft.gov.uk/contactus

 

You can also enclose a CCA request - this will cost a £1 postal order but should force them to send any agreements and also statements of what is owed

 

 

CCA Request

 

CCA letter to send with a £1 postal order by recorded delivery, do not sign. They have 12 plus 2 working days to reply. If nothing valid is received you can send a letter to put the account in dispute and this should stop them contacting you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?414-CCA-request-letter

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks.

 

I report them to the OFT saying what exactly

(sorry to be such a doofus - have only ever dealt with TalkTalk and that was a nightmare in itself [but resolved]).

 

I send the CCA letter along with a paragraph saying that this is still in dispute and she needs proof of liability (still not admitting that it's her debt right)?..

 

that letter seems as useful as a chocolate teapot!!

 

And I've dealt with requests (albeit just to supply information) from students and Data Access Request.

 

Most appreciative of all your help here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Report to OFT saying they are not dealing with your dispute properly and providing any information about your liability, which has been requested.

 

Yes sent a CCA request as stated. As part of CCA request they should provide statements of account which will give some idea of where this has originated.

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

hello again.

 

Continuing the saga we've now had another letter from CapQuest saying that they've frozen the account

whilst they gather the information we requested (they've frozen it for 28 days).

 

Do I let this go as I seem to remember someone saying they've 12 working days plus 2 to supply said information (we're 10 days in now).

 

They've also asked for any paperwork for said debt to be sent to them - which obviously we don't have...

 

Any advice would be more than welcome.

 

Thanks...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No - still send the account in dispute letter after 12 working days, recorded delivery. It is up to them to prove this, not your friend. Let us see what they come back with. Add to the letter that you have no information to support this claim. Did they say exactly what they are asking for?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?436-Failure-to-provide-a-copy-of-the-agreement-within-the-prescribed-timescale

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

The information they've asked for?

 

Any paperwork whatsoever in connection with Next (Bills, Orders blah blah).

 

Now you'd think, considering they're pursuing the said debt, that they would have this information wouldn't you.

 

Lodger has absolutely nothing whatsoever.

 

So, the next step is to send them, after 12 working days, that particular letter? Will get it ready to sign for next week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are asking for you to send paperwork to them, that suggests they are trying to cobble together proof that you have ( and have used ) the account possibly in the abcense of a valid cca. Don't send them anything.

 

I say "You" but I mean your lodger:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

hello there again...

 

I last came on this site nearly 2 years to the day to deal with the above

 

The DCA we were dealing with then was CapQuest who never came back with any of the information required

- and you were all very helpful..

 

Today, lodger received another letter from Next to say that they've passed the debt on to Lowell Portfolio 1 ltd..

 

. any ideas of what to do?

 

Lowell haven't written to her yet but am sure they will

- do I just go through the same thing again???

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have received the notificiation from Lowells about the 'debt'.

 

Quick question. Next sold the debt to CapQuest.

 

It now says that Next has sold the debt to Lowells.

 

How can they sell it twice?

 

Lodger (who has now been promoted to spare daughter) is a little worried again.

 

Do I send the CCA letter off now - the prove it letter?

 

Tis a real pain in the butt to go through this again

- CapQuest last wrote to lodger in December 2011 and have heard absolutely nowt since..

 

. they never supplied the CCA documentation (as I think they didn't have any)

so why did Lowells buy a debt that doesn't seem to be able to be proved?

(or do they just bulk buy?).

 

many thanks indeed for all your help

- you were very very useful before with CapQuest and I hope I can rely on your help again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...