Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • oh don't you just love fleecers out to make a buck out of people they think are just mugs..
    • Useful link, BN.   The article mentions that the National Audit Office said that the DWP isn't learning anything from its mistakes.   HB
    • 1.     The Claimant claims £9,240.52 for monies due from the Defendant.   2.     This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company Limited.  Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: 01xxxxxxxx, 00xxxxxxx, 97xxxxxxx, 96xxxxxxx.   3.     The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated.   Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).   4.     The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant.   A new master reference number xxxxxxxxxxxxx was also applied upon assignment.   5.     The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims   DEFENCE ……………...   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.     Paragraph 1 2 is noted and denied accepted . I have had financial dealings with The Student Loans company in the past.  I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information.   2.     Paragraph 2 is noted and accepted.  I did take out 4 student loans with the Student Loans Company.   2.     Paragraph 3 is noted and denied.  The Defendant never agreed to make payments to the Claimant, terms of the original Student Loans Agreement have been adhered to and thus repayments of loans are not due.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that an agreement(s) to make payments was made and a breach of agreement(s) occurred.   Paragraph 3 is denied as The Defendant maintains that a default notices were never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that default notices were issued to, and received by the Defendant    3. Paragraphs1 & 4 are denied.The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in XXXX. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.   4.      On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant, to which both have failed to respond to,  It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant;  the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement/assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 CCA Request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a)   Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement(s) (b)  Show how the Defendant is in breach of agreement(s) (c)   Show why the Claimant has terminated agreement(s) show the nature of breach and service of Default Notices and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer  Credit Act (d)  Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and (e)   Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.     5. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant,  for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 requests and their solicitors, Drydens Limited, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.    6.     The Defendant has supplied the Claimant with a deferment letter and evidence every year that their income is below the threshold for repayments, by way of Royal Mail signed for and proof of postage has been kept. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.      7.     The Defendant has done everything required of them to qualify for deferment as per the original agreement(s) with The Student Loans company.  The Claimant has only once acknowledged a deferment letter on 16 September 2014 whereupon they granted their request to defer repayments for that year. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.    8.The Defendant therefore fails to see how they are in breach of any agreement(s) and deny the Claimant's claim of £9,240.52 or any other sum, or relief of any kind. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief        ……………………………...   delete the red add the blue.    
    • Is this better?   In the Bristol Civic Justice Centre   Claimant name and address xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx   Defendants name and address Nissan Motor (GB) Limited, The Rivers Office Park, Denham Way, Maple Cross, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9YS.   Brief details of claim Damages   Value £225   Particulars of claim 1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018 and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.     2. This claim is in relation to three breaches of the Data Protection Act (2018) by the Defendant. (a) Failure to comply with the statutory time limit. (b) The Defendants data disclosure was incomplete. (c) The Defendant sent the data to an address which was not the address of the      Claimant data Subject.    3. The Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory time limit and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (2018). (a) On 09 January 2020, the Claimant made a request for to the Defendant for a statutory data disclosure.  The statutory timeframe for compliance was 10 February 2020.    4. The Defendants data disclosure is incomplete.  (a) The Defendant has provided data disclosure on 25 February 2020.  However, the data disclosure that has been provided by the Defendant is incomplete.    5. The Defendant sent the disclosure to an address that was not the Claimant’s. (a) The Claimant provided the Defendant with the correct address to send the Subject Access Request to on 10 January 2020 and again on 19 February 2020.      6. The Claimant has made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) asking for a statutory assessment to be carried out.  The ICO has offered a preliminary view that the Defendant has breached their statutory duty in failing to comply with the statutory time limit.    7. By virtue of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered distress.
    • They must have had something to hide as they have been pulled up on these deaths before.   This seems a typical case   https://welfareweekly.com/family-of-jodey-whiting-seek-fresh-inquest-into-her-death-to-examine-role-played-by-dwp/
  • Our picks

DannyR90

Currys rejected Television claim. "RESOLVED"

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2764 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Being mis-soldlink3.gif cover is one thing. It is a whole other thing to try an deliberately get them to make a mistake. Again i've never had issue with the Coverplan/Whatever happens. If I want it, I take it. If I don't want it I politely say no thanks and that is that. I know what it does and I know what it doesn't cover. It does have benefits that the SOGAlink18.gif and house insurance has drawbacks on, these aren't denyable facts. But it's down to the consumer to decide if it's right for them in their case.

 

A mistake sounds awfully like an error, no I was thinking if you are going to take this cover, see how they describe it, and ask them things like "if I drop it, what happens?" etc. You will find some that blatantly lie. There are staff who seem pressured to sell these policies. As I said, they sell these as insurance without subscribing to the rules and regulations that come with the selling of insurance. My opinion is this is wrong and the floodgates reclaiming these policies may soon open.


If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to.

 

'Rebel11 - I have seen many a TV lifted in Curry's and only ever seen the two wheeled trolleys used - sorry. So it's certainly not the rule that they are carried by one person. If we were talking about a 24" TV then it's a different case entirely. But we aren't.'

 

'Oh and rebel, please don't assume to tell me what I believe to be true or not.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't turn this into a bickering match!

The op asked for help, lets try to do that.

Right or wrong the policy was sold as whatever happens.

The very minium you require is a full explanition as why your claim was rejected.

Don't let them get away with it, court can cost as little as £30+ pounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just letting all you guys know... sent that letter off the other day, n recieved a letter from currys today saying their replacing my televsion, need to go down today and get one, they have given me a much higher value than i paid for mine, so big bonus... So Gary Perryment must of sorted it n just didnt bother getting in touch again as its 30 days since contacting him again. They also said my knowhow has been canceled... so i hope i can re open it with my new television and be more careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad it's all sorted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the bickering?, it looks like Danny's got the help and has resolved the issue. Clearly every employee in Curry's

adheres to Health & Safety and uses a trolley to complete tasks.

 

please don't turn this into a bickering match!

The op asked for help, lets try to do that.

Right or wrong the policy was sold as whatever happens.

The very minium you require is a full explanition as why your claim was rejected.

Don't let them get away with it, court can cost as little as £30+ pounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No not answers or anything, just there giving me 849 cash value :), got a new Samsung 46 3D TV that i was hustled into getting when i had my heart set on a LG 42 for the same price.. he persuaded me active alot better :/ and to get a £279 surround sound system with a 100 knocked off HAHA. so went for it. Says it has built in freeview yet that dosent work need to get it sorted..

 

This time... it was brought over in a trolley, my face lit up.. they did all the work put it in my car the lot and i got some friends to help with the rest. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this samsung is apparently the best out their for quality wise part from the panasonic one that was 300 more.....

 

 

But i find the 2D to 3D conversation not very noticable, and everytime ive used it its given me bad headaches and sore eyes, might have something to do with changing the settings to it now and then, my last one was passive but i only ever bought two 3D movies with it and watched them, so i wouldn't know how id feel if this one was a passive tv.... AHHH, dilemma!!

 

Feel like a wrongun taking the TV back to be swapped but end of the day if its not what was expected and what he made it out to be then i should.

 

Im on the 3rd floor in my house the top and its used by a arial cable thing, last TV i broke i had freeview like 15 channels all very good quality, but most i can manage from all the televsion options on this one is channel 1-5 very bad fuzzy!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The roof aerial on my flats gives me 115 channels on the built in freeview tvs, no HD on that so I might get a booster aerial.

 

I got my TV from Currys and cancelled the insurance as I couldn't afford it after being made redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...