Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. 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.
  • 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

car repro'd, say they can as payee is not on the V5? - HELP!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4103 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

personally hotwire id ignore seanG79, he appears to be trolling for reactions

 

stick to the advice of other members and you should be fine

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

personally hotwire id ignore seanG79, he appears to be trolling for reactions

 

stick to the advice of other members and you should be fine

 

Haha I'm trolling for nothing, I just know from working with banks on a daily basis that accommodation/fronting which has occurred in this instance is not allowed.

 

Call the bank as an anonymous customer enquiry and ask their new business team/customer service department what their stance on fronting/accommodation is.

 

I wish hotwire the best of luck, but doubt he has much chance of getting anywhere as was technically in breach of the T&C's

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for your replies,

 

When my friend signed the agreement he was aware of the fact that the vehicle is for me. So was the garage. The garage agreed to it.

 

Clause 5.3 is fine I totally understand it.

 

My friend did not abandon the vehicle, sell it to me or transfer it to me in any way or form.

 

The v5 was registered in my name by the garage from the day of purchase.

 

Purely the garage is at fault.

 

If my friend had transferred the v5c to my name after the purchase then it would be breach of contract.

 

And as for possession and control of the vehicle he actually had 1 key to the car as well as I did.

 

He also used the car when he wanted to at his leisure so he did have control and possession of the Goods as we only live 2 streets away from each other.

 

Many thanks hotwire

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is good luck, and I hope you come right.

 

You know as well as I do that this agreement was accommodation/fronting, as I'm sure the dealer also did but the bank were not aware. The fact that the V5 was registered in your name and not your friends who took out the finance is confirmation of this. I don't think your argument will stand up but for your sake I hope it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks seang79,

 

I'd just like to ask that who's responsibility is it to notify the finance company

and forward all the documents to them when purchasing a vehicle from a garage which is selling the financial product.

 

Is it the financer's the registered keeper's or is it the garage's responsibility?

 

If a customer was advised that it is absolutely fine to do exactly what me and my friend have done by the person selling the financial product

and for him to also fill in all the paperwork himself and then not advise the finance company about how he has made the sale who is at fault?

 

Clearly me and my friend had no contact or communication with the finance company.

 

Trading standards have said the garage has clearly mis-sold the finance deal to the both of us.

 

Many thanks Hotwire

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be the dealer if he is aware of the fronting (in this case he was) and it will be your friend as he has signed the T&C's which have been breached. I would say in the eyes of the bank it would appear to them that both parties have colluded to deceive them. Irrespective of who they hold accountable it will be within their rights to terminate the agreement.

 

The dealer will probably blame your friend and say he was unaware of the accommodation/fronting. Are you able to show that the dealer was the one who completed the V5 and that he was aware from outset that your friend was fronting the finance for you. If you can prove this, you may be able to pursue the dealer further via OFT/Trading standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SeanG79,

The only proof I have is the green slip which is the new keepers supplement which has the dealers handwriting on.

 

And I have spoken to dvla and they have advised me that they can provide me with a copy of the v5c application made to them which the dealer also filled in.

 

Just to point out again

 

the dealer filled in the blue part of the v5c with my details to be the registered keeper but yet at the same time the green slip

which is the new registered keepers supplement he filled my friends details on there.

 

I think he did this to try and cover up his footsteps and he also denied filling in any of the v5c once I confronted him with this problem.

 

But it has his handwriting on both parts of the v5c.

 

He also tried to blame it on me that I filled in the v5c and then he changed his story saying it was one of his admin guys that filled it in.

 

Which it clearly could not have been because he filled it in front of me as he took my signature on the v5c to be the new registered keeper.

 

Many thanks Hotwire

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It is the dealer who is deep in the cakky here.

 

Two honest friends approach a motor dealer with a problem and seek his professional advice. He gives it and they follow it. He is obliged to be honest with them (CPUTR 2008) but he isn't. There is no fraud by the two honest friend because there is no INTENT to defraud.

 

The dealer has defrauded Close by submitting a dishonest application - they WILL nail him for the amount they paid out to him - about that have no doubt.

That will give them their money back so they should then refund to the other party (your honest friend) all payments he has made because they (Close) cannot profit from the fact that the dealer committed fraud.

 

The dealer will (probably) do everything he can to minimise the crap because he is in fear of losing his Consumer Credit Licence.

 

If a deposit (or trade-in) was part of the deal the car dealer should also (with the 'help' of the courts, if necessary) pay it back to the honest customer.

He committed the fraud, he took the profit, he is in deep cakky.

 

All in my opinion, of course, but I did own a car dealership for seven years.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct in everything you say EXCEPT, the dealer will in all likelihood deny all knowledge of the fraudulent act and claim that he was an innocent by-stander. It then ends up a he said/she said scenario and the customer is ultimately the guilty party for signing an agreement with information they knew to be false...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct in everything you say EXCEPT, the dealer will in all likelihood deny all knowledge of the fraudulent act and claim that he was an innocent by-stander. It then ends up a he said/she said scenario and the customer is ultimately the guilty party for signing an agreement with information they knew to be false...

 

Hard for the dealer to claim no knowledge as he filled in the v5c with one name and the v5c2 with a different name. Close are not fools, and it won't be the first time they have encountered this scenario.

 

Also, let's remember that the payments have been made on under this agreement so any fraud here would have to be committed by the dealer, fraud needs intent and (potential) gain.

 

IF the two friends did this without the dealer's knowledge (which I seriously doubt) the worst charge they could face would be gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (and the associated conspiracy, perhaps). But how the devil could any of that ever be proven?

 

The dealer is in a hole and he will know that. If he has an ounce of sense he will stop digging. Close have probably already debited his account with the sale price, hence they are not actively pursuing the buyer.

 

Again, all in my opinion, of course.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

thanks for your replies guys.

 

As it stands my friend is being bombarded with letters from close motor finances solicitors.

 

i myself arranged a solicitor for me and my friend and all that happened with him was he took on the case and took payment from me

and a few weeks later handed the case back to me saying it will be a conflict of interest if he was to act on my behalf and my friends at the same time.

 

cutting it short he made his money and left me in the problem.

 

while he had the case he took written authorisation from me and my friend to act on our behalf

and he said he contacted the finance company on numerous occasions

and also the garage involved but they would not reply to him.

 

What can I do guys please

 

any way i can stop these solicitors taking legal action which they are threatening to do.

 

they have not once even acknowldged the fact in any letters or stated that they have repossessed the vehicle due to this logbook issue

but yet they have gone and sold the car and are now demanding for the shortfall.

 

please any help is much appreciated.

 

thanks hotwire

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am told that as this agreement has now been proved as fraud

you should be demanding ALL your payments back.

 

i bet the letters are simple threat-o-grams.

 

scan it up:

 

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all figures and dates. {DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

DO NOT USE ANY PDF EDITOR TO BLANK STUFF, THAT CAN BE REMOVED

DO IT IN PAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites [http://docupub.com/pdfconvert/]

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

i'e Default notice dd-mm-yyyy

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

.

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks dx100. i will get these scanned and uploaded as soon as possible. i am away from home so it might be by the weekend. and also a lot of the paperwork is still with the solicitor which i need to collect back off him. also they have threatened for an attachment of earnings and legal action and a doorstep visit. where do i stand in regards to these threats?

 

many thanks hotwire

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly THREATS

 

me thinks they know all too well.

 

hit back time for you me thinks

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok just a quick update. I collected paperwork from solicitors today but there is no copies of the correspondence he sent to the finance company or garage basically all he has given back to me is what paperwork I gave have him. Am I able to ask for the letters he sent or shall I say he claims to have sent to the finance company and garage?

He has clearly charged me for written correspondence as well as numerous calls to myself and both the garage and finance company.

 

Many thanks Hotwire

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your replies guys.

I am uploading the letters i have got in the post since this has all started.

 

please note that their is no mention from close motor finance that they have repossessed the vehicle

or as to what happened or why the took the car back.

 

Although they have sent me confirmation that they have sold it on.

 

please advise me as to what i can do further and get this matter sorted.

 

 

many thanks in advance and sorry for the delay in uploading the documents.

 

Hotwire

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you the agreement too?

 

those are threat-o-grams

 

read them properly

 

if, instructed, could, might, etc etc

 

nothing to worry about at all

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

did you silly me i'll grab that too for the merge then

 

letter 2 and letter 04-01-2013 are identical.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive reopened the post so's you can check

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...