Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. 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 10. 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. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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

Nvidia false advertising gtx 970 graphics card only offering refund


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3414 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

Hi to all

i own a Msi gtx 970 graphics card and over last weekend it has been confirmed by NVIDIA’s Senior VP of GPU Engineering Mr J Alben in a online article (tried to link article would not let me) that nvidia have made an error (or lied:?::?::?:) in the spec sheet given to review websites last year and intern has led to consumers being misled with false specification.

 

It has taken nvidia two weeks to come clean about this since consumers first noticed something might be wrong with the card it has also taken them another 3 days to decide they will give a refund to anyone who wants one but the way they have gone about it is a joke the card i have is no longer fit for the intended purpose that i got it for.

 

What i would like to know is have nvidia broken any UK or EU consumer laws and should they be offering more than a refund like compensation or free upgrade to a card that closer matches the original advertized spec. the only option i am open to is the free upgrade as that is the only one that dose not put me out of pocket

 

Any advice or help is greatly appreciated

col adlington

Edited by c adlington
Link to post
Share on other sites

I, like you, also heard about this. NVidia have actually made a genuine error here with the card.

IF they are offering a refund or an upgrade (You could ask them about a upgrade), I feel they have done enough for the situation. The ball is now squarely in your court as they have offered pretty reasonable resolutioin.

 

From my knowledge... NO, they have not broken any consumer laws. Its not like they have completely ignored the situation...

 

I would add, check this out here;

 

http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/anton-shilov/nvidia-vows-to-boost-geforce-gtx-970-performance-with-driver-update/

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

joke site sorry i wasted your time shill

 

Hey you didnt waste any of our time :)

 

Always happy to help :), I agree with where you are going on this one, but I think that its worth waiting to see if the driver update does anything.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no nvidia knew you dont introduce new architecture 4 months down the line after everybody has brought the card i got this card with the intention of getting a second one when the consumer oculus rift comes out a mininum of 2k each eye 3.5 vram with .5 tacked on so they can call it 4 is not going to be any good to me.

 

This card was part of brand new build that has cost me over a £1000 the mobo sli compatable psu capable of powering two cards totally unacceptable if nvidia think they refund and thats all i am not paying for nvidias mistakes they make if accept the refund i am going to have to get the gtx 980 at an extra cost of about £170 rewarding nvidia who wins not me.

off to EU commission and UK trading standards i go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it doesn't conform to its description, then it has been mis-sold and you have rights under the Sale of Goods Act.

 

I think it may be section 13.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it doesn't conform to its description, then it has been mis-sold and you have rights under the Sale of Goods Act.

 

I think it may be section 13.

Thank you for the reply BankFodder going to have a look now

cheers

Edited by c adlington
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

The info bellow is just what is was looking for thank you again BankFodder as far as i can see UK laws have been broken i would post link but need 10 post so will paste this for any one in the same boat most interesting is the bit in red dont just refund you card seek legal advice

 

Section 13: sale of goods by description

 

 

  • SGA 1979 implies conditions relating to sale of goods by description sale of goods act 1979
    S13 Sale by description
    • S13(1): goods will correspond with the description
    • S13(1A): a condition
    • S13(2): if sale by sample & by description it is not sufficient for bulk of goods to correspond with sample not also correspond with description
    • S13(3): sale not prevented from being sale by description if selected by buyer

     

    [*]S13 condition may be implied whether seller is a business or private individual & there is strict liability for a breach

    [*]sale by description occurs when buyer reasonably relies on seller's description & can apply even if buyer has examined the goods

    [*]case law shows resonableness is key Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1990] 3 WLR 13

     

    Facts:

    • plaintiff (P) bought painting from defendant(D) for £6 000
    • painting described in auction catalogue as work of Munter (a German impressionist)
    • parties were art dealers: P was expert on German art & D was not & P sent experts to inspect painting before sale
    • later P discovered painting was a fake & worth only £100

    Issue:

     

     

    • was the painting sold by description?

    Held:

     

     

    • painting not sold by description & parties could not reasonably have contemplated buyer would rely on seller's description
    • no valid claim under S13 SGA 1979

     

     

Remedies

 

 

  • SGA 1979 specifies remedies for breach of terms implied by S13 & S14
  • general rule: buyer can terminate contract & reject goods if breach of terms implied by S13 & S14, even if minor
  • if buyer returns goods: entitled to recover the money paid & not obliged to perform any further obligations under the contract & may sue for damages if there is any further loss
  • alternatively, buyer may affirm the contract: keep goods & simply sue for damages for any loss suffered

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

one more post then i am done the reason it seems nvidia are not being very truthful is this they have blamed this on a error in communication between engineering and pr they say pr assumed the architecture was the same as the gtx 980 which has lead to the review websites and retailers being misinformed and then consumer but if you look a little deeper this dont make sense on two parts.

 

1 what tech company dose not read its own reviews to check they are correct what no engineer read one review and saw and saw 64 rops instead of 56 or a 2048kb l2 cache instead 1792kb l2 cache no mention in any review of the new memory architecture that should of had its own white sheet for the review to understand and inform consumers about 2 gpuz reports 64 rops off the cards bios the bios is not written by the pr at nvidia i would hope the bios was written by an engineer the cards bios also false something stinks

 

and last nvidia pr if you read this i spent the weekend and this week reading you official forums the forum that nvidia live chat was sending people to get official info from and it was a disgrace that your consumers had to put up with bullying tactics from being called stupid morons crooks for wanting compensation this was repeated over and over again the same few posters trying to make arguments and defend the mess you created this adds zero to the consumer experience and just winds the consumer up even more either police you forums more strictly and portray a better public image or shut them down altogether

 

if i was an nvidia stock holder and read that forum trying to find out why my stocks where going south i would have sued nvidia for that alone not protecting my interest nvidia hang your head in shame and mines a gtx 980 is the only way i am happy by the way nvidia my time is not yours to waste this needs to be an easy process

Edited by c adlington
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...