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  The agency "should" act and get the ticket withdrawn, but on the other hand they might well not have a clue about the law and refuse to cooperate, even if that would be worse for both you and them.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

Hi guys How can I contact the liquidator and get a debt form I want to register as a creditor

 

Send an email to [email protected] asking for a form. As they've evidently completely full of male cow droppings, I wouldn't even bother any more.

 

Their assets are apparently £1200 worth of phones... 750 phones? Who managed to come up with that valuation? If two of those are my two then they are worth at least £180 on various other sites still so I don't get how they can say 750 of them are worth 1200 quid. Which phones do they have? A bunch of Nokia 5110 all worth less than £2 each? I doubt it. They're iPhones, my Note, other smart phones etc. Even my 4 year old phone is still worth at the very least £30 unless I bother selling on eBay where it'll get more than double that. Wish I had pawned them off on eBay now...

 

Director can't speak English but can comment in English on facebook...

 

Global market prices dropped, my arse. If they can't sell the thing on, send it back to the customer. It's not like they bought it from customers - they had free stock coming in, then "couldn't" sell them. Give them back then? I don't know, just seems somewhat obvious to me.

 

There's this question of how they have a huge loan to repay to another company, run by friends/ex directors or whatever it was.

 

Money laundering, fraud; liars. I've given up hoping for anything financial relating to my own phones and even given up expecting the UK law to do anything about it at all. If anything, it shows us just how easy it is to be a con artist and how little the Police, Insolvency, Action Fraud or anyone can and will do about it.

 

The only change for me is knowing now, as I already thought I did know, that you MUST Google EVERY site you have any financial dealings with, even and especially when things do seem like they're legit. To make things better my new phone was dropped by my kid yesterday so the screen's died. Don't have my old phones to just throw the SIM card in either, so I'm completely phoneless for the sec. Wonderful.

 

kk, rant over :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Their assets are apparently £1200 worth of phones... 750 phones? Who managed to come up with that valuation? If two of those are my two then they are worth at least £180 on various other sites still so I don't get how they can say 750 of them are worth 1200 quid. Which phones do they have? A bunch of Nokia 5110 all worth less than £2 each? I doubt it. They're iPhones, my Note, other smart phones etc. Even my 4 year old phone is still worth at the very least £30 unless I bother selling on eBay where it'll get more than double that. Wish I had pawned them off on eBay now...

 

Director can't speak English but can comment in English on facebook...

 

Global market prices dropped, my arse. If they can't sell the thing on, send it back to the customer. It's not like they bought it from customers - they had free stock coming in, then "couldn't" sell them. Give them back then? I don't know, just seems somewhat obvious to me.

 

There's this question of how they have a huge loan to repay to another company, run by friends/ex directors or whatever it was.

 

Money laundering, fraud; liars. I've given up hoping for anything financial relating to my own phones and even given up expecting the UK law to do anything about it at all. If anything, it shows us just how easy it is to be a con artist and how little the Police, Insolvency, Action Fraud or anyone can and will do about it.

 

The only change for me is knowing now, as I already thought I did know, that you MUST Google EVERY site you have any financial dealings with, even and especially when things do seem like they're legit. To make things better my new phone was dropped by my kid yesterday so the screen's died. Don't have my old phones to just throw the SIM card in either, so I'm completely phoneless for the sec. Wonderful.

 

kk, rant over :p

 

the fact that they have our phones and have not returned them surely means its theft and a criminal offence?? not sure about small print but there wasn't anything that suggested i entered into any contract with them that they haven't breached in regards to sending my phone and them paying out???

 

must be a way to nail them, even if i don't see my 180 quid or phone again i'd be happy to see them in prison!! the uk public are too often victims of these frauds as we're too trusting and accommodating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we had better point out that there is no evidence of money-laundering or of criminality. However the circumstances, the behaviour of the directors, the lack of transparency certainly are the kinds of factors which might make many people consider these as possibilities. We are certainly are aware that certain investigations are in progress - so that clearly there are others who are very concerned by what has gone on.

 

Of course if we could locate Henchoz and Deepesh Tank as well as Vasant Kara - and if they were prepared to tell everyone the whole story then one might understand that there is some other explanation.

Also if Nearchos had decided to give a proper explanation - which he could easily have chosen to do - that also would have been reassuring.

 

If there are suspicions then these people have brought them upon themselves by their behaviour. No one should be surprised

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly, its not confirmed but very suspicious behaviour, considering this goes right back to when watchdog highlighted them on their show and no doubt before then, it seems more than just bad business management and bad luck that have created this situation, it "appears" a conscious attempt to mislead and con people until evidence is found to prove either way its still "suspicion only"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bankfodder

 

Exactly, if these guys come forward and explain what's happened then customers can form a clear opinion on facts rather then speculate as to what has happened. In the absence of them coming forward customers are entitled to have strong suspicions about why they have no phone, no money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just received a email with the teport of the creditors meeting attached, i am so not happy about this whole situation as the dates and addresses and company names are not consistent, firstly they claimed that they moved registered offices to the Paddington address on 25/10/13 so why then did they sign for my phones at the Ringway address in December? And as for their financial information who in their right mind pays a junior administrator £40 per hour, this whole situation has got my blood boiling as its not the fact that they owe me £202 its the principal behind it, i have also taken out a CCJ which was obviously a waste of £25 :mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK well here's how I see the current situation: There was no attempt by the insolvancy practitioner or liquidator to contact creditors before the meeting was called. To my mind that makes the initial creditors meeting flawed. We were unable to come up with the requisite 3 creditors at such short notice willing to sit con a creditors committee to oversee the liquidators investigations.

 

I have written to and asked the liquidator a number of questions so far and not yet had a response, therefore I am not confident this will be properly investigated by them. I would love to leave them to it but to what end? It seems to me the only option we have is to press for the chance to form a committee - if we are allowed to who else would be prepared to assist?

 

Forgot to mention that Radio 5 live may be doing a piece on Sunday morning, although I have no confirmation of this.

 

Edit:Sorry just heard they will not have time to feature this weekend, however depending on how this progresses might happen next weekend instead.

Edited by Apriumben
Updated info
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it you notice any shortcomings in the procedure employed so far by CB then they should be informed that if these flaws are not remedied, that you will write to Trading Standards and also to their professional association

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I've had a email from the liquidator too!!

 

How much money is he charging them!! £7500

Seriously!!

 

Anyhow there's a bit the end you can fill in so we can let the liquidator know what he had been up too, if some one could write down everything for me I'll be happy and I'll happy to be part of a comittiee

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys, I've had a email from the liquidator too!!

 

How much money is he charging them!! £7500

Seriously!!

 

Anyhow there's a bit the end you can fill in so we can let the liquidator know what he had been up too, if some one could write down everything for me I'll be happy and I'll happy to be part of a comittiee

 

Can you possibly post the content of your email on here? I would like to know what they are saying to other creditors as I have had no advice on the meeting myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you possibly post the content of your email on here? I would like to know what they are saying to other creditors as I have had no advice on the meeting myself.

 

Please be advised that that the company trading as cash4phones entered in to liquidation on the 13 January 2014 and I was appointed liquidator of the company by the shareholders and creditors. Please find enclosed the report on the meeting of creditors held on 13 January 2014.

 

It is my duty as Liquidator to investigate the actions/conduct of the directors and to make a report to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then decide whether they have sufficient evidence to be able to issue proceedings under the Company Directors Disqualification Act.

 

I have invited all creditors of the company to provide me with any information they have on the conduct of the directors and I would ask you to provide to me any evidence you have on the directors conduct, alternatively you may provide all of your evidence directly to the Secretary of State.

 

My report is confidential to ensure that any litigation is not adversely affected should the Secretary of State decide to issue proceedings.

 

I would ask that you provide my name and address to any individuals who wish to make a claim in the liquidation or who wish to provide evidence in respect of the conduct of the director.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Mansoor Mubarik

 

From [email protected]

 

Had this PDF attached: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1404231/Yemonia%20Limited%20Letter%20to%20Creditors%20Post%20Sec%2098%20Meeting.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just emailed you the full report

Actually, you emailed it to me - but I have forwarded it on.

Thanks very much.

 

Who is the lucky boy who is buying p the remaining stock of phones without any scrutiny or questions asked? Sale price circa £1200 - estimated realisable value - £5000. Nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a good point was raised on another forum (there's plenty of fires burning on this subject around the internet!)

 

If we aren't likely to get phones back, we can assume its theft? and as a result we should (if we have the details) contact providers and have the IMEA blocked so that the phone can no longer be connected to a mobile network.

 

what do you guys think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got the box for my S3 somewhere so should have the number too, i feel that if i can't use it why should anyone else.

 

that'll rather reduce their 1700 quid estimate of the value of their assets to roundabout zero....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both of mine have been blocked by O2. I dug out the IMEI of one but the other I had no clue. The person at O2 managed to dig it out for me based on the phone model and a time frame that I gave.

 

So even if you don't know your IMEI, the phone company does. Try ringing them anyway to see if you can brick what is technically still your own phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe some important news here, just had these mail back from capital books.

 

 

"Please be advised that that the company trading as cash4phones entered in to liquidation on the 13 January 2014 and I was appointed liquidator of the company by the shareholders and creditors.

 

Find enclosed the report on the meeting of creditors held on 13 January 2014.

 

It is my duty as Liquidator to investigate the actions/conduct of the directors and to make a report to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then decide whether they have sufficient evidence to be able to issue proceedings under the Company Directors Disqualification Act.

 

I have invited all creditors of the company to provide me with any information they have on the conduct of the directors and I would ask you to provide to me any evidence you have on the directors conduct, alternatively you may provide all of your evidence directly to the Secretary of State.

 

My report is confidential to ensure that any litigation is not adversely affected should the Secretary of State decide to issue proceedings.

 

I would ask that you provide my name and address to any individuals who wish to make a claim in the liquidation or who wish to provide evidence in respect of the conduct of the director.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mansoor Mubarik."

 

looks like if enough of us reply with details they may take things further?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the phone's still sitting in a warehouse waiting to be sold, then trying to deactivate it using IMEI seems like a good shout and it will reduce their asset value...but personally I'd feel bad if it had already been sold to a poor kid in India, and then I got it switched off. I might be alone on that one!

In other news, I've been contacted by another IP who says it's too late to get an alternative IP to CB assigned but he will ensure that CB do their job or he'll have them struck off...and he knows that MM has had prior business dealings with this shower, so odds of him doing his job properly are slim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spoke to Mandoor (Liquidator) and asked if there is no dividend to pay any class of creditors then what is going to happen to all the mobile phone that they have stolen?

 

Mandoor stated that as the liquidator he has to file a report within 6 months to the security of state and it will be up to the security of state to establish whether it is a civil or criminal act. They have had 800 complaints and he feels we have a strong public case. He encourages people to get in touch with him to fill the creditors forms or complaint letters of their mobile phones being stolen as the chairperson has not declared the mobile phones. He also mentioned that he will be investigating it and that this company could receive up to 300 a day!

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...