Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for the clear info. about how the estate and parking is organised.   Considering most letters drafted here are a load of abuse directed at the private parking companies, I thought the language was very restrained!  There's not an insult in there 🤣  More seriously, all the legal points in the letter are correct and I think it's good to go.  The agency "should" act and get the ticket withdrawn, but on the other hand they might well not have a clue about the law and refuse to cooperate, even if that would be worse for both you and them.  Still, it's only a stamp and nothing ventured ...   Do you know the history of the industry?  Once upon a time there was only one trade association, the BPA, with a half-decent appeals body POPLA, which often found in favour of the motorist.  This situation was unbearable for the more crooked of the PPCs like UKCPM who trotted off to a new rival association where the IPC association, its appeals body the IAS, and the firm of solicitors who most usually take on these cases ... are all run by the same people!  No conflict of interest there!  The IAS twist everything to always find in favour of the PPC.  The best analogy I can think of is the Mafia.  The Mafia no doubt have their own internal logic about oaths, what amount of protection money it is reasonable to demand, what you can to someone who cooperates with the police - none of which has any connection to the law of the country.  That's how the IAS operate.  Motorists who appeal just encourage the PPC by showing respect for their crooked "procedures", and are at risk of throwing their legal protection under the POFA away by outing themselves as the driver.   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page (starting from the most recent cases), concentrating on cases that went to court, you'll see that in their Witness Statements the fleecers do indeed often say the motorist "should" have appealed.  I can't remember one case where the judge was the slightest bit interested in that argument.   It'll be somewhere in the POFA, Schedule 4.          
    • make sure your PDF is lees than 4.8Mb's.   why wont it upload what is the error?   dx  
    • Thanks for all the help, folks, in terms of whether to reply or allege harassment - well being harassed itself it is advised anyway not to respond to them in the first instance. So as Fruit Salad and DX says ignore until letter of claim and not confirm ID which is what I will do.   As I said I note it here as part of the timeline, and just keep records of it for later if necessary. Not intending to do anything with it just yet.  
    • The Financial Ombudsman Service [FOS] has finally come back to me with its thoughts on a long-standing complaint about mis-sold PPI.   The policy was sold to me in April 1997, which, as I appreciate, is before policies became regulated by the FCA on January 14, 2005.   The policy was sold to me by Cofidis which at the time of the sale was not covered by any of the schemes which were applicable before the FCA regulated the sale of PPI policies so the FOS has asserted that my complaint cannot be pursued there.   However, I was already aware of this and my complaint to the FOS was not against Cofidis but the company that provided the cover for the PPI policy, Chubb European Group SE / ACE Insurance S.A. [‘Chubb’] which, at the time of the sale, was covered by one of the schemes that existed before 14.01.05.   The FOS acknowledges this but has said: “There does not appear to have been any direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb at the time of the sale. So the only way Chubb would be responsible is if we can establish that Cofidis was acting as an agent of Chubb when selling the PPI.”   It is the above with which I struggle to agree, but would appreciate the thoughts of those with more expertise than me in these matters.   Firstly, it seems to me there was a direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb. I have supplied the FOS with a copy of the original terms & conditions of the policy [attached here], which is titled ‘Cofidis Limited Protection Plan’ and refers throughout to Chubb. Moreover, it also states that should you wish to cancel the cover at any time you must do so not by writing directly to Chubb but to Cofidis.   This being the case, it seems clear to me that, contrary to the FOS’s assertion, there was ‘a direct connection between Cofidis and Chubb at the time of the sale’ and, what is more, it is entirely conceivable that there was an agency relationship between the two.   The FOS goes on to make the point that it contacted Chubb which advised that it ‘did not have an agency relationship with Cofidis’. Of course, they would say that wouldn’t they! More to the point, when I complained to Chubb, contrary to what they subsequently told the FOS, they said: “Unfortunately, due to the passage of time we no longer hold any information to confirm the relationship between Cofidis Insurance and Chubb when the policy was sold.’   In these circumstances, it is my belief that as a member of the Association of British Insurers, Chubb had an obligation to act in accordance with ABI guidelines and take measures to ensure that any third party, such as Cofidis, selling PPI policies on its behalf did so in accordance with the industry codes of good practice.   Any thoughts gratefully received.   Thanks in anticipation Fred Funk   Cofidis Limited Protection Plan-1-merged_compressed (1).pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Mediator point - Hermes lost my parcel and it is offering just a partial refund of the total amount requested. What's next?. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/434633-mediator-point-hermes-lost-my-parcel-and-it-is-offering-just-a-partial-refund-of-the-total-amount-requested-whats-next/&do=findComment&comment=5109422
      • 13 replies
    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Cash4phones - creditors meeting - 13th Jan Please retweet - https://cag.tw/tf7


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1943 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

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have the bank account details too. Should I email you again?

 

Yes please. Do you have a copy of a cheque which they issued? How did you get the details.

 

Please email them to me at our admin address. If you have a copy of a cheque then please scan it to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got them through the Facebook group.

 

Have no cheque or anything from them other than the correspondence that they received my phone and a screen shot of my account with them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the details. If you find that anyone has a copy of a cheque, I'd like to get hold of one.

 

So far as filling the forms are concerned - I'm afraid that I have no expereince but I would say that one should fill in all forms. You could call Cap Books - they are probably quite approachable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, new here... I sent 3 phones back in October (£315)

I'll be sending the forms back with letter of judgement which I used in December, copy of Royal Mail receipt & email received from C4P with payment pending.

 

Would "Apriumben" let me add your name to my form??

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how these meetings are conducted - but if you are a creditor, then I expect that you would be entitled to ask for full bank account details, bank statements, names of previous bank accounts and statements - as well as accounts.

I think that it would be reasonable to require all of this information to be given by sworn affidavit.

Might be an idea to give Cap Books notice that you require this.

 

Any material you get, please do let me have a copy and I will make sure that it is sent on to the appropriate recipient.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have reported to my local police. I have received the forms, can someone post a copy of their completed proof of debt form to assist me in completing mine?

 

Please see post #45 of this thread where you will find proxy completion guidance.All the best,CM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that you will get sight of a completed form

Post the question you are unsure of

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure how these meetings are conducted - but if you are a creditor, then I expect that you would be entitled to ask for full bank account details, bank statements, names of previous bank accounts and statements - as well as accounts.

I think that it would be reasonable to require all of this information to be given by sworn affidavit.

Might be an idea to give Cap Books notice that you require this.

 

Any material you get, please do let me have a copy and I will make sure that it is sent on to the appropriate recipient.

 

What will happen is that the directors will have provided various information in respect of the company to the proposed liquidators which will be presented to the meeting.

 

Each attendee will receive a copy, and if you aren't able to attend the meeting the appointed liquidators will send you a copy as standard through the post.

 

This information is made up of a history of the company, extracts from the previous 3 years' accounts,

a deficiency account, a document called a statement of affairs which shows all the assets and all the liabilities of the company,

and details of all the creditors and the amounts that they are owed as per the directors' records.

 

The creditors present should be given time to review the documentation and will be able to raise questions.

 

If the creditors decide they wish to form a liquidaiton commitee they will be given this opportunity at the meeting (please see post #30 of this thread.)

 

The company's bank details, statements etc will not be available to creditors to view at any stage of the proceedings.

 

Once appointed, the liquidators will take possession of the books and records of the company to allow them to prepare their report

on the conduct of the company directors and file it with DBIS (again i would refer you to post #30 of this thread.)

 

Please be advised that the contents of this reports remains between the liquidators and DBIS!

 

I hope that this is of help.

 

All the best,CM

 

 

BTW, I would refer people to post #45 of this thread for proxy completion guidance.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
What will happen is that the directors will have provided various information in respect of the company to the proposed liquidators which will be presented to the meeting. Each attendee will receive a copy, and if you aren't able to attend the meeting the appointed liquidators will send you a copy as standard through the post.

This information is made up of a history of the company, extracts from the previous 3 years' accounts, a deficiency account, a document called a statement of affairs which shows all the assets and all the liabilities of the company, and details of all the creditors and the amounts that they are owed as per the directors' records. The creditors present should be given time to review the documentation and will be able to raise questions.

 

If the creditors decide they wish to form a liquidaiton commitee they will be given this opportunity at the meeting (please see post #30 of this thread.)

 

The company's bank details, statements etc will not be available to creditors to view at any stage of the proceedings.

 

Once appointed, the liquidators will take possession of the books and records of the company to allow them to prepare their report on the conduct of the company directors and file it with DBIS (again i would refer you to post #30 of this thread.) Please be advised that the contents of this reports remains between the liquidators and DBIS!I hope that this is of help.

 

All the best,CM

 

 

BTW, I would refer people to post #45 of this thread for proxy completion guidance.

 

Thanks for this. Very useful - and disappointing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

err so who do I want to proxy vote for me then? I certainly can't come from Cornwall on a ~£200 return train to come and hopefully get towards some of the £225 I expected for my phones. Is "Apriumben" the voice for all of us that can't be there? Is there a real name to put into the form?

 

Cheers, T

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all,

 

err so who do I want to proxy vote for me then? I certainly can't come from Cornwall on a ~£200 return train to come and hopefully get towards some of the £225 I expected for my phones. Is "Apriumben" the voice for all of us that can't be there? Is there a real name to put into the form?

 

Cheers, T

As advised above. Please email the admin address - put "creditor" in the subj. line.

Also email Cap Books for a form. Do it quickly

 

By the way - the Trainline shows the cheapest return at £105.

http://www.thetrainline.com/buytickets/combinedmatrix.aspx?Command=TimeTable#Journey/PNZ/182/13/01/14/6/15/Dep/13/01/14/18/30/Dep/1/0//0;0;0

- I still agree with you that it's not worth it, though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BankFodder

 

Went to London a couple of months ago and remembered the £200 - 2 adults went so lol, yep, £100ish each. I only remembered how much came out the bank for it. Not to mention this time I'd have to take my kids along and be fined by the school for them not being there etc, add in a night staying up there - not happening. Thanks for checking though.

 

Thanks for the mention to email admin, I missed it in the other panic I've been having today. Got the form last night, been filling in now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Apriumben, I don't know anything about you so apologies if this post seems presumptuous.

 

Presumably you are a licensed insolvency practitioner and can provide a consent to act to show the meeting?

 

If you are not an IP, presumably you are a creditor. If you are an IP and a creditor you have a conflict of interest ;@)

 

Colin has already addressed the other points I was going to raise. The best option is to form a liquidation committee at the Section 98 meeting. You need a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 proving creditors - there will be a section of the meeting to allow the creation of such a committee.

 

The liquidators will have 6 months from the date of their appointment to prepare and submit a report

on the directors' conduct to the Department of Business for Innovation and Skills. DBIS will review this report and make the decision whether to take the investigation any further. Please note that this report is not made public.

 

I hope this post has been of some help.

 

All the best,

CM

All advice on this is helpful, I am not a practitioner of any of the black arts and do not pretend anything other than a desire to see this through and a reasonable grasp of English and basic consumer law. I have a lot to learn before the meeting on Monday!

Link to post
Share on other sites
All advice on this is helpful, I am not a practitioner of any of the black arts and do not pretend anything other than a desire to see this through and a reasonable grasp of English and basic consumer law. I have a lot to learn before the meeting on Monday!

 

Glad to have been of help! The purpose of the S98 meeting is mainly to agree the appointment of liquidators and to form a liquidation committee, which I think in this instance would be a good idea. Once liquidators have been appointed the company will be governed by The Insolvency Act, and no legal action can be brought against the company.

 

Bear in mind that as a creditor you can turn up at the meeting as long as you are clutching a completed proxy form and details of your claim. If you do this you cannot be turned away from the meeting.

 

Personally I think it's a bit sneaky to hold a Section 98 meeting on a Monday as it makes the proxy filing deadline midday on Friday, (being the last working day before the meeting) but doing so is not breaking any law, and being armed with the above info should help if you are in a position to attend the meeting but can't get your proxy to the proposed liquidators before midday tomorrow. Proxies can also be accepted by fax but oddly enough some insolvency practitioners won't accept scanned proxies sent by email, so that is also worth checking.

 

All the best,

CM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you may want to inform the police that the man they may be looking for may be at 122 Hither Green Lane, Hither Green, London, SE13 6QA, on 13 January 2014, at 11.15

 

Will the bill really turn up sweet, Id like to see that. He might end up a door or two away from his compatriot Asil :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I updated my Action Fraud case about the meeting but nice as the guy was, it appears he didn't seem to know what was going on or why it mattered that we knew where this dodgy geezer is meant to be showing up. Information entered, case updated.. no idea if anything will come of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Will the bill really turn up and nick him?! ****ing sweet, Id like to see that. He might end up a door or two away from his compatriot Asil :D

 

I don't know the name of the name of the guy you are looking for and I'm not sure if it's prudent to post it on this thread.

 

However, you can see from Companies House that Yemonia Limited has had more directorship changes in the last 18 months than most people have had hot dinners!!

 

You will also note from Companies House that it has had 2 company name changes.

 

But do not fear, the appointed liquidator not only investigates the current directors (who have only been in office since 31 October 2013)

but any person who has been a director in the three years prior to the liquidation,

 

so in a nutshell, any director who was in office from 13 January 2011 to 12 January 2014.

 

I bring this up as it is likely the director who turns up for the meeting Monday may not know anything about the company's trading practices

and even if he does, may plead ingnorance as he's only officially been in office as director since 31 October 2013.

 

Also, only one director is required to represent the company at the liquidation meeting so it may not even be the guy you are after :@(All the best,CM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be making a full report on here sometime Monday,

 

but as I had a full day without the hassle of getting over to Hither Green I'm not sure what time Monday that will be.

 

If anyone else who turns up care to post on here before me then have no worries over stealing my thunder!

 

I will also try and get there as early as possible to get a chance to speak to whoever else turns up.

 

Should be an interesting if frustrating day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

From HMRC: A liquidation committee is a small group of representative creditors appointed by all the creditors to assist the liquidator in conducting the liquidation.

 

At all Section 98 meetings the liquidator is obliged to ask whether the creditors wish to form a committee. The chairman will ask whether any creditors wish to put themselves forward as members of the committee and then all creditors present will vote on whether they are prepared to allow that creditor to sit on the committee. Voting is by a simple majority, based on the value of each attending creditor’s debt.

 

If not appointed at the Section 98 meeting, a committee can be formed at a later meeting.

 

The minimum number of creditors needed to form a committee is 3. The maximum number of creditors who can sit on a committee is 5. If there are less than 3 creditors attending the Section 98 meeting in person then a committee cannot be formed at that meeting.

 

So basically there must be at least 3 creditors present and willing to act on a committee before it can be formed. Although proxy votes will be counted as far as passing resolutions are concerned, they don't affect this requirement (or so I read it). So unless at least 2 other creditors turn up that are willing to act on a committee, we will be sunk in that regard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...