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 02/01/2023 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 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, 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

Shop Direct (Linked Thread) - CapQuest A/c Bal: 884


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3811 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

In reference to Thread found here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?342500-Shop-Direct&p=3759254&viewfull=1#post3759254

 

This thread relates to the CapQuest Account with a Balance of £884.

 

Attached are copies of the Notice Of Default Sums & Notice of Sum in Arrears

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42184[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42183[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42198[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42199[/ATTACH]

 

Attached are copies of the Credit reports.

The Experian file shows the Entries under Shop Direct as of April'12 and CapQuest March'13

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok

now make two spreadsheets using :

 

This fourth spreadsheet is useful in calculating a regulatory based compound interest award for PPI on a Revolving Credit Account. Or for a PENALTY charges Reclaim. Not all statements are required for this sheet because it will work out the compound interest on the PPI payments you do know about. It will not work out the additional 8% interest, to do that you will need spreadsheet three above AND all of your statements.

 

FosCISheet v101.xls

 

 

one listing every PENALTY CHARGE

 

one listing every warranty or insurance/PPI payment.

 

use their APR.

 

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

outstanding bal is wiped out by reclaiming.

 

only issue is marker removal.

 

puzzles me........

 

account opened 22/3/2010

first PENALTY charge 24/4/2010

 

so you missed even the first payment?

 

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

Nope, paid via phone by card and they even admitted that it takes 48hrs to update, but refused to remove the charge as I should of paid it 5days before the due date?? So why have a due date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok so this one could be difficult then

as its a late payment marker then.

 

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

  • 4 months later...

I sent the following to CapQuest on 22nd of July:

FORMAL COMPLAINT

 

CapQuest Ref: XXX; Original Account number: XXX; Balance: £884

 

It is now the 22nd July 2013, and you have still failed to respond to my emails 5th Feb 2013, 25th June 2013.

 

I will state the facts again – I DO NOT OWE ANYTHING to CapQuest or Shop Direct.

 

I bring to your attention the important points I have made in my previous correspondence to yourselves, yet NO REPLY / ACKNOWELDEGMENT OR ANSWER has been provided by your company.

 

Due to the number of Charges applied to this account, ADMIN Charges, PPI (mis sold) the following details relate to all the accounts held with Shop Direct and sold onto CapQuest and Lowell’s despite being aware of the following information.:

 

1) Lowell Ref No: X; Original Account number: X; Balance: £1080.15

2) Lowell Ref No: X; Original Account number: X; Balance: £173.61

3) CapQuest Ref: X; Original Account number: X; Balance: £884

 

The Charges (PPI & Admin)

1) INS, INT & WAR (PPI) Chg: 1,544.77 Int: 3,245.88 Total: 4,790.65

X ADMIN CHARGES Chg: 228.00 Int: 350.11 Total: 578.11

 

2) INS & WAR (PPI) Chg: 121.40 Int: 269.02 Total: 390.42

ADMIN CHARGES Chg: 204.00 Int: 296.59 Total: 500.59

 

3) INS (PPI) Chg: 96.57 Int: 220.40 Total: 318.97

ADMIN CHARGES Chg: 300.00 Int: 428.90 Total: 728.90

 

Total PPI = £5,500.05

Total Charges = £1,807.60

Grand Total = £7,307.65

 

From this you can see that I am owed far more than what the values of the account’s are.

The balance due to me by yourselves the legal owners of A/c: (3) is a total of £1047.87

*All interest charges is correct and based upon the Rate of each account, which is identified via the attached spread sheets – Interest is also incurred on a daily basis until acknowledgment of PPI & Admin Charges (ALL Spread Sheets for ALL accounts have been included)

 

Please note that since this information was made clear to Lowell’s of the values due to myself, they have taken the decision to write off the accounts, and remove the data from the credit files.

 

If you would like proof of this I will gladly supply yourselves with a copy of the email.

 

There are three outcomes to this:

1) As legal owners of the account, you refund myself the value quoted above which equals £1,047.87

 

2) You continue to believe that I owe money to yourselves, and submit a court claim, within 14 working days of receipt of this letter (delivered by Royal Mails Recorded delivery service).

To which I will defend with all evidence and factual information I have at my disposal, from Shop Direct, Lowells and lack of information supplied by yourselves. Furthermore I will seek compensation due to the inaccurate recordings of my credit files.

 

3) As Lowell, you mark your files accordingly, and remove ALL enteries from my credit files, within 14 working days of receipt of this letter (delivered by Royal Mails Recorded delivery service). Of which I will acknowledge that CapQuest hold no liability and therefore proceed with further action against Shop Direct to recover the monies owed as stated.

 

Due to the timeframe since my first complaint (well over 8 weeks) sent via email to yourselves and no response received, I expect a prompt response from yourselves.

Regards

 

The following is there response (and also to an email pointing out how long they've had the queries)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]45468[/ATTACH]

 

Surely they should put there hands up and admit defeat, seeing as how long its take them to get a response from shop direct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

what are MP / SO?

I really dont know what else to say or do with theres, they've admitted time frames have passed but also agreed to extend them with SD.

It goes back to the convo I had with SD when the guy said If PPI was missold they would buy back the debt and apply the money to it..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I still need to keep challenging CapQuest due to them admitting they havent dealt with my query or wait until shop direct respond?

 

SD "PPI Claim" form went back to them this week - I placed in all boxes Please refer to FOS consumer questionnaire as recommended in my main (original) shop direct thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46159[/ATTACH]

 

Hi all,

 

I've had a response from Shop Direct regarding the claim on this account:

 

Is there anything further I can do or is it game over?

As they've stated no chance on this one do I have any chance with the other claim(s)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46158[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

did we know you'd claimed on the INS to a value more than the reclaim?

 

barring that

the letter is just a std fob off.

 

most companies send a fob off letter 1st off now to deter reclaimers.

 

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 we know you'd claimed on the INS to a value more than the reclaim?

 

barring that

the letter is just a std fob off.

 

most companies send a fob off letter 1st off now to deter reclaimers.

 

dx

 

yes mate, mentioned in the combined thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?342500-Shop-Direct/page7 post #121

 

if it's just the fob off - what's the best way to respond?

Link to post
Share on other sites

so on this ins/ppi you have had more in 'payments to the debt'

than your reclaim?

 

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

The payments under the PPI was £286.50

The Ins Charges are £96.75 + Compound Interest @ 49.9%: £217.67 = £314.24

 

So in theory I'm owed £27.74, but it's not about the money for this one.

 

IF they state yes I was mis-sold on this policy then, they would have no grounds to refuse the other PPI claim for the higher value. Plus the addmission goes towards getting Capquest to acknoweldge that they was mis-sold the debt and incorrectly recording my credit reports as Default.

Link to post
Share on other sites

darn this is why I was pleading to get these debts split to individual threads earlier in your mass thread

 

anyhow

 

ok

 

the PPI wont ever get you defaults removed.

that the job of the charges reclaim hopefully.

 

regardless to the fact that you used the ppi etc etc

 

the basis of their letter is mere speculation that processes etc were correct and fool proof

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?378821-LloydsTSB-Loan-PPi&p=4120422&highlight=ppi+success#post4120422

 

is useful in this instance.

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

darn this is why I was pleading to get these debts split to individual threads earlier in your mass thread

 

anyhow

 

ok

 

the PPI wont ever get you defaults removed.

that the job of the charges reclaim hopefully.

 

regardless to the fact that you used the ppi etc etc

 

the basis of their letter is mere speculation that processes etc were correct and fool proof

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?378821-LloydsTSB-Loan-PPi&p=4120422&highlight=ppi+success#post4120422

 

is useful in this instance.

 

So if I do something like the letter in post #10 of that link and fire it off to them even though yhey stated Final response should that matter?

 

Would it be beneficial if I state:

The matter of my complaint is being Mis-sold the ppi not claims on the policy. I was mis-sold by being uncertain as to if I would have been successful for a line of credit if I did not tick the PPI box situated right next to the agreement box"

 

You state: "Insurance is offered after credit has been granted" - My credit agreement shows otherwise. The location of the tick box next to the agreement box indicates that the insurance was not offered after credit has been granted. Please provide documented evidence that this is not the case as this information was not provided in my SAR request.

 

You state: "You were requested to confirm if you were eligible for the cover" - Policy documents were issued after the sale of the PPI, please provide "FULL" evidence that questions were asked and answered to state I was eligible for cover, as this information was never provided in my SAR request. Where you have stated “that a link is provided” please also supply this evidence that the “link” was provided and evidence by way of internet traffic report that this was accessed by myself (provide time/date & IP address).

 

You refer to the Insurance as being optional, nowhere on the credit agreement does it say that the Insurance is/was optional.

 

You state “You do not provide advice and ask that you have read and understood the cover“ by your own admission there is no facility to question any part of the sale of the insurance, but yet you recommend the purchase of insurance cover for protection. Even to this date 31/08/2013 your website: http://www.littlewoods.com/financialservices/en/shoppinginsurancetp01.page states:

· We’re here for you…It doesn't matter how careful you are, life has a way of sneaking up and surprising you! So why not see how we could help you protect most of your purchases and make your account payments?”

· “ Take out our Shopping Insurance and if your purchases are stolen, lost or accidentally damaged - we could repair or replace most of them”

The use of the word “WE” & WE’RE” indications “Shop Direct” are offering advice and recommendation to take to the insurance.

 

You state “There is no Obligation to discuss other insurance policies customers may have had”, by this admission you have pointed out that despite other insurance covers in place you will still sell the insurance though already covered by another policy, claiming on these policies would then be deemed as fraudulant. Also if there is no obligation to discuss other insurance policies why do your selves request information relating to other insurance policies on your very own questionnaire in sections B3

· Did you have life insurance, please provide details.

· Did you have critical illness insurance, please provide details.

· Did you have home contents insurance that includes accidental damage, please provide details

· Did you have any other insurance policies, please provide details

 

You state “there are many avenues in which a customer can cancel a policy such as Email, written and verbal this gives the customer multiple choices on how to cancel the cover” This statement is completely against the Terms and conditions as laid out in the policy documentation. The Terms and conditions state that all cancelations by BOTH parties are to be done in writing. Please provide myself with evidence that this was the case.

 

You state that I have benefited from the sale of the insurance, where Shop Direct cancelled the insurance without any notification, leaving my account to run into default when a claim for unemployment could have been made, and thus selling the account to a third party and leaving defaults recorded on my credit reports, can you please explain or provide evidence that by doing this is being beneficial to myself?.

 

Regardless of any claims made on the policy, the matter at hand is the evidence I have provided to prove that the policy was miss-sold, with that being said and the figures provided by yourself, I expect the following:

The policy is acknowledge at being miss-sold.

A repayment premium which is made up by the following:

(A) Premiums Charged, (B) Interest accrued and applied as per account APR (49.9%), © Claims made against the policy.

 

(A+B) less © = (96.57 + 218.52) – 286.50

315.09 – 286.50 = £28.59

 

The figure of £28.59 does not include any charges that were applied to the account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional Line to add:

 

Your agreement also states "the terms relating to credit for the product can be found above and in "Further Terms and Conditions" in this agreement. The agreement document I have in my possesion does not refer to any terms either above or within the "Further Terms and Conditions" Please explain.

 

Copy of the agreement attached.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46168[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

certainly never give up on whatever creditors say in their first letter

9/0 it will always be a rejection.

 

its a chess game to make you give up.

 

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

Do you think that the points I have made are relevant esp. the parts where she has contradicted T&C's, the way they offer the ins on the website, and the bit about other insurances & lack of checking suitability?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes I spotted those myself when I first read the letter.

 

i'd not pad the reply out too much

 

keep it short and simple

 

a lot of you replies

although correct

 

contain far too much info for the points you are making to remain the focus.

 

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

  • 2 months later...

Update.

I got a reply back from my letter, they said

"We note your comments from your letter with regards to the decision made on this case

however, we can only reiterate that our decision remains the same and no refund of insurance will be given.

Whilst we appreciate this may not have been the outcome you had hoped for we can confirm that this case has now been closed".

 

Bit of a kick in the nuts.

 

However, my brother has been dealing with my mom's KandCo ppi re-fund (I live in same house as mom)

and he's successfully got them to refund 1.5k, so

 

 

I rang ShopDirect and mentioned this to them,

I also stated that as my mom's finances are her own I did not know that House Insurance (contents)

has been paid for within a mortage deal with the Halifax in my parents name,

and also that Life Insurance Policy covered the whole house hold.....

They are now looking back into my claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...