Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • nice and ofcourse totally unlawful.   £349.50 is the usual sum RLP try and fleece out of people under some silly civil threats none of goes to the store it all goes in RLP's pocket for their next staff holiday paid for by mugs that fall for their twaddle ignore!!
  • Our picks

brett48

Southwest Trains - Lost Lost Property

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2449 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

Does anybody know the email addresses of any of the big cheeses at Southwest Trains?

 

I sent an email to customer services a few weeks ago regarding my mobile phone going walkabouts from lost property but have not even had the courtesy of a reply and I would now like to take my complaint higher.

 

The story so far is that my phone dropped out of my pocket while I was running between connections at Clapham Junction station last month. The first I knew about the loss was when my wife told me that a member of the Southwest trains platform staff phoned home from my mobile to report that a member of the public had found my phone and handed it to the staff member. Initially, he asked my wife for our address to post the phone back to us. When my wife refused to provide our address on identity security reasons, he informed her that the phone could be picked from lost property at Waterloo.

 

The trouble is that the phone never arrived at Waterloo! Despite a visit to the lost property office, several calls to the office, and conversations with disinterested platform staff at Clapham Junction, my phone has disappeared without trace.

 

Interestingly, one member of the lost property staff told me that several people had recently also reported lost phones going missing between Clapham Junction and Waterloo and another informed me that the correct procedure when a lost phone is handed in to a staff member is for the phone to be switched off and then sent directly to Waterloo lost property.

 

So it seems that I may not be alone in my predicament and some Southwest trains platform staff may not be strictly playing ball when it comes to lost property.

 

Any help in taking this further would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Brett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brett,

 

I can't comment on South West trains procedure for finding/ returning lost property but it doesn't sound right. That said, I've heard of Railway staff being dismissed for interfering/ not following Company Procedure in regards to lost property. However, the Managing Director for South West is Tim Shoveller so you could try tim.shoveller@swtrains.co.uk

 

Or you could send a letter (I'd advise recorded) for his attention at

South West Trains

Friars Bridge Court

41-45 Blackfriars Road

London

SE1 8NZ


Still on the lookout for buried treasure!

 

Any advice I give here is based on my own experiences throughout my life, career and training and should not be taken as accurate. If in doubt, speak to someone more qualified - a Solicitor, Citizens Advice to name but two possible avenues!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anybody know the email addresses of any of the big cheeses at Southwest Trains?

 

I sent an email to customer services a few weeks ago regarding my mobile phone going walkabouts from lost property but have not even had the courtesy of a reply and I would now like to take my complaint higher.

 

The story so far is that my phone dropped out of my pocket while I was running between connections at Clapham Junction station last month. The first I knew about the loss was when my wife told me that a member of the Southwest trains platform staff phoned home from my mobile to report that a member of the public had found my phone and handed it to the staff member. Initially, he asked my wife for our address to post the phone back to us. When my wife refused to provide our address on identity security reasons, he informed her that the phone could be picked from lost property at Waterloo.

 

The trouble is that the phone never arrived at Waterloo! Despite a visit to the lost property office, several calls to the office, and conversations with disinterested platform staff at Clapham Junction, my phone has disappeared without trace.

 

Interestingly, one member of the lost property staff told me that several people had recently also reported lost phones going missing between Clapham Junction and Waterloo and another informed me that the correct procedure when a lost phone is handed in to a staff member is for the phone to be switched off and then sent directly to Waterloo lost property.

 

So it seems that I may not be alone in my predicament and some Southwest trains platform staff may not be strictly playing ball when it comes to lost property.

 

Any help in taking this further would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Brett

 

 

I'm sorry that I have to be extremely pessimistic on this one.

 

What proof is there that the person who called your wife was actually a member of SouthWest trains staff?

 

For example, did s/he give a name that has been confirmed as an SWT employee?

 

I recently lost a mobile and had a similar occurrence, albeit not involving rail staff. The caller to my home advised that he was a 'Council street cleaner and found the mobile near a bench'.

 

He too wanted our address to return it, but when our details were refused for security reasons the 'phone was switched off.

Edited by Old-CodJA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Train Company will only be liable for any loss or damage to luggage, articles, animals or cycles in its trains or on its premises if the loss or damage was caused by the fault of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company staff or agents. A Train Company’s liability in respect of any item will not exceed the limit laid down in the EU Rail Passengers’ Rights & Obligations Regulation (EC No. 1371/2007).

 

Even if SWT did lose the item, I suspect they can rely upon the above clause to state that they are not liable, because you were the one that lost the item initially, i.e. the initial loss was not the fault of a TOC or their staff.

 

Personal injury, loss or damage to property:

 

If you wish to make a claim against a Train Company for personal injury or any loss or damage to property, you may write to the Train Company or alternatively contact:

 

CAHA Registrar Ltd

1 Eversholt Street

London

NW1 2DN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for your help

 

I agree that we can't be 100% sure that the person who called my wife was a Southwest trains employee. My wife said that he sounded genuine but it could possibly be a fellow passenger chancing their luck. However, no further calls were made from the phone which I would expect if it was a member of staff who made the call home.

 

I am resigned to not seeing my phone again but I would just like to do my bit to try and prevent a similar situation happening to someone else if indeed the correct procedures for handling lost property are not being followed.

 

I will try forwarding my complaint to top man Tim ,although I am not optimistic of a favourable response.

 

Brett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As expected, not a dickie bird from top man Tim or even a minion's acknowledgement since I emailed him last week - I guess it's par for the course with passenger complaints :sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Tim.shoveller

 

As expected, my complaint was passed to one of his minions who eventually replied with apologies but offering no assistance.

Their take is that no lost phones were reported handed in on the day in question and therefore the mysterious caller to my wife must have been Joe Public trying their luck. My wife, who is normally a good judge of voices, thinks that the caller sounded like a member of staff but of course we cannot prove anything. I am considering this as case closed. Thanks everybody for their input.

 

Brett

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...