Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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
      • 160 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

Default Help - Red/Lowell and 3Three


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4096 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

Hello all,

 

I am new to this website to seek advice from you all regarding my default problem.

 

In March 2012 I had a letter from Red/Lowell telling me to pay £150 for an old debt I had with Three Mobile back in 2010.

 

I had then paid off the debt immediately online and that was it, I didn't receive anything else from them.

 

Today I have checked my Experian account to find that there is a Default on there from Lowell which is shown as 'Satisfied'.

 

I am now aware that I shouldnt have accepted the payment without asking the default to be removed in return but this would be too late.

 

Now I would like to know what the best procedure is to getting this Default removed, IF I am able to as I didn't receive ANY letters whatsoever saying there will be a default placed on my credit report in Lowells name from them.

 

I have noticed on some other threads people have sent a SAR request to Lowell along with a £10 postal order to retrieve all the information and if there is no default notice, get this removed by sending a default removal letter template due to them not even sending a letter of warning that it would be placed there or a letter stating it is in place.

 

For me, I want to ensure that I hit this at the best possible angle without any mistakes so could someone kindly let me know the best possible steps to getting this removed as I dont want to mess this up.

 

I may have hit the nail on the head with what I said I had already researched but I just want to be sure because some people send out CCA's first but I am just not sure at all

 

Any help will be much appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is more likely that Three Mobile placed the default and Lowell merely substituted their name when they purchased the debt.

 

What date is on the default marker?

 

Was there indeed and outstanding amount to Three for which they defaulted you?

 

There will be no point in sending a CCA request for a mobile contract as no credit agreement will exist.

 

If you are contemplating a SAR then it would go to the original creditor i.e. 3 rather then Lowell.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, yes there is a default date of august 2010 on the lowell record which does show on my credit report. I have read that lowell tend not to receive all the details from the OC so it may be possible for me to try and get the default removed by them. The amount I initially had to pay was around 120 and then three added an early termination charge to the account. (this is a contract I cancelled due to someone stealing the phone and running up the bill to £120 and then I had problems with them saying I didnt report the incident on time).

 

Surely there must be a way to remove this with it being such a small amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi

 

Sorry you have been missed.

 

As said, I think that it would have been the original creditor (OC) that defaulted you and when they sold the debt to Lowell they simply substituted their name as the new debt owner.

 

Now if it was a third party who stole your phone and ran up the bill then this might give you some leverage. Having said that, the timescales and apparent delays may not be that helpful to yuor cause (sorry to be blunt but best to be honest with you).

 

Can you tell us the details of the complaint/correspondence you had with the OC about this. For example tey said that you did not report the theft in time...can you give details of the timeline of events and what correspondence/communication actually took place?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply.

 

This happened christmas eve in 2009, I had been out to a bar where my phone was taken from my coat. The next day was obviously xmas so I left it till boxing day to tell Three and I went into a store and they gave me a new sim card and blocked the old one.

 

To that point I thought there was a code on my old sim but it didn't have one, it had a lock on the phone only.

 

I was moving on a short term basis to germany (1 yr) in the january with my girlfriend as she is german. So prior to moving I had opened up a german bank account and left enough money in my UK bank account to pay my final bills before I left.

 

Now this is the tricky bit, on the 29th December 2009 I called to let them know I wanted to cancel my contract as I was moving to germany and was happy to pay the cancellation fee which should have been £30 as my tariff was £15 per month and I had 2 more months to go till the contract finished so they basically gave me the long talk and tried to keep me as a customer but I ended up going ahead with the cancellation and then they told me I had to pay £150 to cancel.

 

I had then queried why the bill was so high and they told me it was for my recent call charges on 25th december to south africa which were around £118?????

 

I let them know that my phone was stolen on xmas eve and I had gone into the Three store and reported it on the 26th but they had then straight up told me that I still had to pay it as I didn't report it within 24 hours... are they for real?

 

I checked my contract terms and then I declined to pay for it as there was nothing in my contract saying I needed to report it within 24 hours so I filed a complaint with Three.

 

On the 2nd Jan I moved to Germany and I asked my parents back in the UK to look out for my post of which they did and they would let me know each time I received mail. I did not hear from Three for a few weeks and in Feb they sent a letter telling me to pay the £150. At this point, my complaint had not been looked at by Three so I was still not going to pay till it had been sorted out.

 

This went on for months on end and it wasn't actually sorted till I got back to the UK in the September. Three had passed the debt onto a debt collector and I did the silly thing of just paying them when I got back as I could not be bothered with it going to such lengths.

 

My complaint was never actually sorted by Three and more recently I tried to apply for credit and was declined due to me having a 'Default' on my account of which I didn't even know about!

 

I got my credit report from Experian and it showed that Lowell had updated a default on my account in September which was from the August of 2010 (Three).

 

I did not receive any letters to say I would have a default placed on my account as I checked all post when I came back to the UK so what I would like to know is... Do I have a case in getting it removed???

 

Sorry for the long story but I want to ensure you understand the full situation.

Edited by xkwisit2001
Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple and blunt answers

 

You are liable for calls until you inform the network of the theft.

 

You agree that they can share your data with the credit reference agencies, and as the account is not "credit" (ie the sale of money) they do not need to abide by the regulations set out in the consumer credit act. Three report the payment details and if the CRAs files show 8 missed payments others view that as a default on your file.

 

Now the debt has been sold to Lowell, their name is substituted on the default.

 

 

 

My opinion is you will have a heck of a fight to get this removed. I think it will take court action, and I don't think their is much legislation in your favor :/

 

You could contact the CRAs and tell them this was incorrectly placed on your file and maybe there is a chance that you could get this removed. Also you could tell Lowell that the default is incorrectly placed on your file as you didn't run up the bill and you paid your cancellation fees, and you paid them promptly when they got in contact. Try that approach, and let us know the replies you get

 

Other than that I think you will have to grin and bear this for the next 3 years :(

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...