Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hmm, so.. basically have to rely on the default notice not containing all that it should and the claimant misleading the court for the reason for the application.. and judge lottery : /
    • Which would require a hearing....so the fee would be £255.00
    • When providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under section 78(1) of the Act:   a.     must a creditor provide a photocopy (or other form of complete copy) of the original agreement that was signed by the debtor or at least provide a copy which is derived directly from the original agreement or complete copy thereof? or b.     can a creditor provide a document which is a reconstitution of the original agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself?   It was held that a creditor can satisfy its duty under section 78 by providing a reconstituted version of the executed agreement which may be from sources other than the actual signed agreement itself.   The judge accepted that as a matter of law, section 78 does not itself require any particular explanation as to how the copy was made. However, as a matter of good practice and so as not to mislead the debtor, it is desirable that the creditor should explain that it is providing a reconstituted as opposed to a physical copy of the executed agreement. This will also explain why the copy might otherwise look a little odd. The creditor can also explain in the letter that this procedure is satisfactory under the Act. The judge also provided that the following information needs to be included in the reconstituted copy agreement (assuming of course that it was present in the original):   1.     Heading: Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 2.     Name and address of the debtor 3.     Name and address of the creditor 4.     Cancellation clause applicable to the executed agreement.   All of the above may be provided on a sheet which is separate from the full statement of terms and conditions which also forms part of the reconstituted agreement. The creditor may, however, decide to reconstitute the agreement in a different way so that, for example, the information above is populated electronically onto the same sheet as that which sets out the terms and conditions, or some of them. The judge stated that he did not intend to prescribe the precise form of the reconstituted agreement. The key point is what information it should contain, subject to the point that its format should not be such as to mislead the debtor as to what he agreed to.   The judge also considered whether a statement like the one appearing in the reconstructed application form in Carey referring to the agreement to the terms and conditions "attached" needs to be included in the reconstituted copy. Alternatively if the application form had said "I agree to the terms overleaf", should that statement be included. The judge held that this aspect of the form is not necessary for the purpose of the section 78 copy, although there is nothing to stop a bank from putting it in or indeed from furnishing a copy of the type of application form or signature page that the debtor would have signed, as some banks have done. The statement referring to terms and conditions is not itself prescribed information and the supply of the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time will tell the debtor what he needs to know in terms of the content of what he signed up to, including the presence (or otherwise) of the prescribed terms.   In practical terms what this is likely to mean is that if the creditor chooses to use as the section 78 copy the section 63 copy, which would have been provided to that particular debtor at the time following execution of the agreement, this will be sufficient provided that the information referred to above is supplied. This exercise is not a mere formality. The creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are correct and that those are the particular terms (including prescribed terms) that he/she agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy.   Must a creditor provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (Regulations) as to form, as at the date the agreement was made in order to comply with section 78?   A creditor need not, in complying with section 78, provide a document which would comply (if signed) with the requirements of the Regulations as to form, as at the date the agreement was made.   Must the copy provided under section 78 include the debtor's name and address as at the date when the agreement was made, and if so in what form? The section 78 copy must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of the execution of the agreement. But the creditor can provide the name and address from whatever source it has of those details. It does not have to take them from the executed agreement itself.     If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, is a copy of the executed agreement as varied, a sufficient copy for the purposes of section 78(1), or must the creditor provide a copy of the original agreement as well?   If an agreement has been varied by the creditor under a unilateral power of variation, the creditor must still provide a copy of the original agreement, as well as the varied terms.     As your agreement is post April 2007  Section 61(1)(a) and 127(3)   Consumer Credit Act 1974 would not apply.   Andy
    • well start a new thread for the court claim.   as for this one i'd await the letter of claim  
    • Useful information...   And....   https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part55
  • Our picks

Andrew-P

East Coast - Ignoring Complaints - ** RESOLVED **

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2256 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

I have written to east coast on a couple of occasions recently to complain about some shocking staff behaviour which, in view of the fact that many of their staff are excellent, I am not going to describe here.

 

However, I have not had anything other than holding responses to these letters / e-mails.

 

The question is what do I do next - no response from Passenger Focus either!

 

East Coast need to be freed from the control of the DfT as soon as possible in my view as, although better than when they were part of National Express, they are not a patch on GNER.

 

Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have written to east coast on a couple of occasions recently to complain about some shocking staff behaviour which, in view of the fact that many of their staff are excellent, I am not going to describe here.

 

However, I have not had anything other than holding responses to these letters / e-mails.

 

The question is what do I do next - no response from Passenger Focus either!

 

East Coast need to be freed from the control of the DfT as soon as possible in my view as, although better than when they were part of National Express, they are not a patch on GNER.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

A couple of points.

 

1) They are complying with Section 4.1 of their passenger charter by providing you "holding" updates at least every 10 days. They will continue to contact you at least every 10 days until your complaint has been fully concluded.

 

2) However, according to Section 4.2, During "busy" periods, which they are currently experiencing, (due to the recent flooding/infrastructure damage/Christmas arrangements etc), those response times may be increased.

 

3) It is fairly typical for a response to take 20-30 days for a minor complaint. For one that requires more detailed investigation, 30-40 days is reasonable IMO. You have to inform the manager, speak to the member of staff involved, perhaps involve union reps, manager writes report, customer services reviews and composes relevant letter, letter sent to you. Annual Leave, sickness, dispute as to facts etc can all take time to resolve.

 

4) I would rather they took their time to investigate rather than just provide me with a quick, generic letter.

 

If they are aware of your complaint, you do not need to take any further action. If action is required against one or more members of staff, you will not be informed of the specifics.

 

What are you hoping to get from them? Most likely outcome is a generic apology letter from them.

 

If you aren't prepared to tell the forum what happened, we can't really help you. Different problems require different strategies.

 

Passenger Focus cannot investigate until East Coast have concluded their own internal investigations. Even still, PF have no powers to actually do anything to East Coast.

Edited by firstclassx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for getting back to me:

 

A couple of points.

 

1) They are complying with Section 4.1 of their passenger charter by providing you "holding" updates at least every 10 days. They will continue to contact you at least every 10 days until your complaint has been fully concluded.

 

They have not been doing this - I have had one holding letter

 

2) However, according to Section 4.2, During "busy" periods, which they are currently experiencing, (due to the recent flooding/infrastructure damage/Christmas arrangements etc), those response times may be increased.

 

It has not been busy all the time since late August - I understand what you are saying and completely agree but the time they have had my complaints is not acceptable

 

3) It is fairly typical for a response to take 20-30 days for a minor complaint. For one that requires more detailed investigation, 30-40 days is reasonable IMO. You have to inform the manager, speak to the member of staff involved, perhaps involve union reps, manager writes report, customer services reviews and composes relevant letter, letter sent to you. Annual Leave, sickness, dispute as to facts etc can all take time to resolve.

 

They have had longer than this

 

4) I would rather they took their time to investigate rather than just provide me with a quick, generic letter.

 

Completely agree with you but they should at least give some form of update

 

If they are aware of your complaint, you do not need to take any further action. If action is required against one or more members of staff, you will not be informed of the specifics.

 

I understand this - I just need to know it has been or is being fully investigated

 

What are you hoping to get from them? Most likely outcome is a generic apology letter from them.

 

The points on the rewards scheme which they failed to credit restored, a refund for the mis-sold ticket and a full apology.

 

The simple fact is their staff should not accuse you of lying when you are right and can prove it. Their staff should not upset you and lie to you by saying things like, and I quote "computers never make mistakes"

 

If you aren't prepared to tell the forum what happened, we can't really help you. Different problems require different strategies..

 

What I need is advice on how to escalate this - it looks to me like I have been ignored. I simply need to know where to take this next not the specifics.

 

It is rare that I write into any company regarding customer service but I am just as quick to praise as well. However, east coast ignore these too - unlike cross country who send replies (in one case the put a staff member up for a service award).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I know about the reward scheme, I think you are wasting your time.

 

Nobody else will get involved, like Passenger Focus, because the issue isn't really about the railway, but rather, a promo scheme operated solely by East Coast as an incentive.

 

You could probably try and submit a MCOL claim against them, but within the scheme terms and conditions, it probably says that each point is worth something silly like 0.001p.

 

To be fair to the rail staff, they have nothing to do with the scheme, and can only go by what the computer says. They can't just give you the benefit of the doubt because of the obvious fraudulent implications of doing so.

 

In addition things like:

 

3.3 The Scheme is offered at the discretion of East Coast and East Coast may refuse or withdraw membership to any Member at any time.

 

9.2 East Coast reserves the right to discontinue the Scheme or any individual Rewards at any time.

 

13.3 East Coast cannot be held responsible for lost, stolen or damaged Rewards once issued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ditto on the above and for the OPs point: you would NOT know if the complaint has been fully investigated as they won't give you specifics on what they will do.

 

It's not really ignoring your complaint unless you have had no communication whatsoever yet know your complaint was received and is now being deliberately ignored.

 

Unless you can prove that, then you'll have to accept it's being/been fully investigated and you will probably end up with a note saying briefly 'sorry about that and it's been fully investigated, thanks for the complaint'.

 

Any response by you asking for further information would probably get a 'cut n paste'

response and THEN you would be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must apologise but I thought I had responded with this as to how the matter was closed.

 

Well this is what happened.

 

I did end up contacting Passenger Focus again explaining both the original incidents and the poor response from East Coast. Following my letter I was phoned by them and explained the situation and was told they would contact East Coast. The next thing was an apology, which didn't seem cut and paste, from East Coast and £240 in vouchers (my issue was about the staff not the money although that was nice anyway).

 

Since this I have used East Coast many times and have had no cause for any complaint and am the first to say they have some excellent staff and have written to them praising some individuals and their actions (If you are quick to complain you must be equally quick to commend).

 

I am sure these were isolated incidents but the person from Passenger Focus did say they were getting a lot more complaints about East Coast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again and thank you for reporting back.

 

I'm pleased at your outcome and you sound positive now. I'll amend your thread title. :)

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for changing the title.

 

I have always been generally positive about East Coast and most of their staff and have always treated these as isolated incidents (I travel with them many times a year and good service is more common than any problems).

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...