Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
  • 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

1999 SLC SCOTTISH 1a small claims Decree, now rebadged by shoes/eruido - think i'm stuffed? No, I WON


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1595 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

wrote not write

 

looks good

 

hold until after you see what perth say.

 

ask then HOW you get the charge for payment atleast put on hold or cancelled or WHY until you have a chance to contact shoosmiths whom are erudios solicitors and explain your forth coming actions. don't commit to a recall etc but investigate it with them if they seem to be helping you.

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

I just spoke to Perth Clerks

A couple of things came to light.

They did indicate they could be quite helpful and look into specifics for me regarding whether the original Warrant was wrong/invalid etc.

I would need to email them directly which i will certainly consider.

 

Fair play to them they did not think an actual recall of the decree would potentially actually do anything more than extend the whole can of worms.

Clearly that is not my real end game.

I was quite candid in that August 19th 2019 is the key date and beyond that I do not care.

 

They could not/or would not advise me on how to stop the charge for payment.

I could ask them this outright in any email ?

 

Should I in effect just email them close to a copy of my proposed letter to shoosmiths asking to comment ?

 

I really would just like to get a letter off to the vultures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like a good idea

and any evidence they might need?

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

This is my proposed final draft to send to Shoosmiths.

I will send a copy of this with a cover email to the Perth Court.

 

You happy with the content ?

 

To Whom It May Concern

 

I am writing to you to request you place this account in serious dispute.

I must insist that you immediately withdraw demand for payment. I request that you confirm said action to myself, and pass on this information to your latest instructed agents Stirling Park Sheriff Officer & Debt Collection Services.

 

On review of the information provided within the SAR from the SLC, I have found serious issues with the Decree granted on the 20th of August 1999, that could make said document invalid. As this is the sole basis of your action to collect the balance, then again I must insist that you withdraw your demand.

 

As you will further note much of this relates to the use of incorrect address information in critical correspondence.

 

Following a conversation to the Sheriff Clerks office in Perth regarding a number of points, they have requested I write to them so they may investigate my concerns.

It is entirely possible this may result in a request to recall the decree. The following condition allows this to happen.

Act of Sederunt (Simple Procedure) 2016 SSI 2016/200

Schedule 1 Part 13 The Decision

Sub Section 13.5 (1) (e)

 

You may wish to investigate yourselves some of my concerns ?

The following communications were within the SAR pack.

You will be aware that the SLC Legal department wrote to me on the 27th October 1998 at the completely wrong address of 49 Fictional Avenue Perth, warning that court proceedings will be instituted without further notice.

 

The next correspondence I have within the SAR pack from the SLC Legal on the 1st October 1999 is again writing to a wrong address. Strangely this time a different one of 48 Fictional Avenue Perth, where they advise me an Extract Decree has been granted. There is no copy of said decree in the SAR. Neither is there any mention in the letter of the date the decree is granted.

 

The decree was granted I have subsequently established on the 20th August 1999 *In absence.

 

I verified this from the copy decree Shoosmiths supplied, and it further confirms it is for the wrong address.

 

I can confirm from further documents in the SAR that the SLC update my address to the correct address on the 10th May 2000. Clearly this change is a number of months after legal proceedings.

 

I have other questions that need to be addressed with regards to the legality of the serving, or lack of serving of the summons at the time.

I also have a potential issue with regards to the time before the communication of the actual Decree in absence was communicated to the aforementioned wrong address. A time of 41 days I believe.

 

I await your response to my concerns with the potential legality issue with your charge for payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

ok well done sorry I didn't return..

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 weeks later...

Hi DX

Update.

I have just received a letter a few days ago from Shoosmiths.

 

It is almost like they have simply ignored my letter (Post 48)

 

However it is back to the slightly "softer" approach which at least suggests they have read it.

 

They are back to asking me directly (without local sheriff officers) to come to an agreement to pay, that they can offer to their client Erudio.

Back again to enclosing a income/expenditure form.(I have never returned one)

For me this is undoubtedly a slight climb down from the recent aggressive behaviour.

 

Further to this apparently for the 1st time ever they have traced my mobile phone number as they just called me.

I did not confirm or deny who I was after they identified themselves, but hung up and have blocked the number.

 

A text has since arrived presumably from another number asking for me to get in touch re recent correspondence.

 

my thoughts are to reply again referring to my previous letter, asking why I have not had a "proper" reply.

 

I certainly do not want to make any sort of offer again while I am hoping to kill the process till the 20 year anniversary of the decree.

 

What do you think ?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

yea doing good.

keep it up.

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

Hi DX this is what I have written today. Hope you approve. xxxxd out a few details.

 

Your Ref: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Without prejudice

Account Number: 6xxxxxxxxx Balance £3xx9.19 and then Supposedly up to £3xx0.60 and now supposedly down to £3xx0.35

 

To Whom It May Concern

 

I note you have ignored my letter of 10th December 2018 which I have enclosed once again.

I have proof of signature that you did receive said letter.

You or your client Erudio Student Loans Limited need to take this letter seriously.

 

Your latest communication dated 8th January which I have referenced above includes a copy not as detailed of the original decree from 1999, but a partial copy of a second extract decree from 2014. My previous letter details the problems with both of these documents.

 

 

Once again I await your response to my concerns with the potential legality issue with your clients charge for payment.

 

I also note your various changes in apparent balance. Perhaps you could document this fully in an itemized statement ?

 

Finally my mobile phone number constitutes protected data under GDPR law. Perhaps you could kindly give me written details on how you legally came across said number and how you are legally using said number ?

 

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll pop in later busy day ahead

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

scan up the letter from them to pdf read upload

this need careful chess moves

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

Cause I wanted to see if it was an automatic sent template letter..and it is.

 

Pers I wouldn't reply

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

  • 1 month later...

Just to keep the thread alive. With my letter now at 2 shoosmiths addresses.

First sent 10th December and then 25th January.

I have had no further communication from them so another  2 months passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep keep ignoring unless or until you get served anything by a sheriffs officer

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

there being a dispute is not a magic bullet

pers id just ignore them.

 

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...

Hi DX good news in a way. 2 months on and still not answers from them or any demands.

Just remind me as in my head my key date is 20th August 2019

That is the 20 year anniversary of the original decree granted at the Scottish sheriff Court.

When I was trying originally to avoid the debt by Status Barred rules I was reminded the Decree is subject to a 20 year prescriptive period.

 

If I get to the "magic" date is there a relevant link I can copy the text from that would confirm the debt is no longer enforcable ?

Something more substantial than this 1 line statement

https://www.scotlanddebt.co.uk/articles/personal-debt/time-limit-recovering-debt-can-written-off

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

plenty of info on the inter web.

 

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

Sorry not attempting to be lazy.  I keep finding simplistic statements but am unsure as to where I find the actual legislation.

 

Ie embedded somewhere in this beauty

 

http://www.parliament.scot/S5_Delegated_Powers/SB18-22.pdf

 

Or particularly section 7 of this.  

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

not your problem

simply quote

Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act, 1973

but only id we say so.

let them work it out!!

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...

Hello DX100UK and all observers.

I am delighted to announce I have had no further communication from Shoosmiths

Todays date is 20th August 2019 

That is the 20 year anniversary of the original decree granted at the Scottish sheriff Court on 20th August 1999

The 20 year prescriptive period should kick into force.

Celebrate

 

Would any further letters now constitute harrassment ? 

or does the debt technically still stand but just not enforcable ?

They cant seek a new decree ?

 

 

Edited by saintalan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt you'll hear anything again

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Well Well Well.   

 

With regard to not hearing anything from Shoosmith, I today had an interesting suprise.

 

Clearly my letters (Mentioned post 91) in December & January were to in effect "turn the heat up" and stall them from trying to proceed any further before my magical 20th anniversary of 20th August which has now passed.

 

today I receive a large letter.   

Not a demand as you might expect. 

No finally someone has actually taken the trouble to investigate all of my complaints (Or stalling tactics). 

Its is a 4 pages long masterpiece.

 

I might scan it later if you are interested however here is the CONCLUSION.   

Not sure whether to laugh or laugh louder.  

 

"Whilst I am sorry that you have felt the need to raise these issues with ourselves, I am unable to uphold your complaint. I trust you understand my reasons for this.

 

However I am aware that there has been a delay in responding to your complaint and I apologise for this. Please therefore find attached a cheque in the sum of £50 in recognition of this delay."

 

So the delay to my complaint, which is exactly all I wanted has netted me £50 !!!!

 

Should I cash it.

 

PS

They have concluded that the Decree granted in August 1999 is valid and therefore will not be withdrawing demand for payment. 

Should I now counter with the 20 year prescriptive period or ignore ?

 

Are they now deemed to be harrasing me for an unenforcable debt ?

 

Maybe now the complaints department is working albeit slowly, that I should actually make a complaint that they deem the debt still enforceable.

 

Cheers

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...