Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to ring northants bulk and ask for a copy of the judgement and the claimform by email pdf. it is quite usual for them to not have a copy of the claimform. so you need to record the call and ask them to read out the particulars of claim and the address it was sent too.     old wives tales , if you have a debt owing that shows on your credit file or you know exists from say the last 7yrs you should NEVER move without WRITTING to the debt owner with your new address. never run from debt which falls within the above .     all mortgage style SLC loans that were not deferred with erudio following the gov't sale in 2013 and that did not have a court claim raised within 6yrs are SB'd.   drydens simply did this because they wrote to your old address, got no response, and knew they'd get a default roboclaim CCJ where no human checks anything.   shot yourself in the foot.      
    • yep.   if all these are still owned/with the original creditors and you are not paying any powerless DCA's  then little point in any CCA requests at this stage unless any (non OD A/C's) are say pre 2000 opening.   our pro rata letters are the way to go you'll find those in the debt collection section of our library.   get any income payments on going or otherwise moved into a parachute A/c.   it is most probable that whatever you do most A/c's will be defaulted once this is done if not already. bearing in mine your wish to re mortgage or move in a future, it is most probable that the quicker you do default , the earlier a DN will be registered thus the earlier these will not show following their 6th birthday. this might involve you thinking about stopping all payments now ensuring this does happen, then resuming payment under a pro rata scheme self administered , once this happens.   just be aware that no DMP providers will ever question enforceability, should that be relevant.     
    • LL would have Absolutely no chance of getting the smart meter changed back.....
    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

faulty replacement Sasaki chair , Hitachi Credit & getting it sorted - help


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2123 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Is this the part of the agreement you mean?

 

here is the agreement

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
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

While technically the item is under six months as it is a replacement item,

and the original is over six months,

apparently I do have to pay the report because the time does not reset..

. According to the CAB helpline anyway!

 

- the item is within 6mts [ the replacement] - you don't have to pay for a report

[but on a side note, even if you do, you would be reimbursed whichever result you get if the claim is upheld.]

 

You're really confusing me. I thought you'd sent that PDF to show that I could get a refund?

- I said 'IMHO you are well within your rights to cancel the whole thing'

you have had issues with 'whatever' you have had or now have under the finance agreement

either under the CP ICAC regulations and section 75.

Don't I have a choice here?

 

Or are the finance company going to refuse to do anything on the grounds that I'm refusing a repair?

 

you don't 'have' to accept anything at this stage

get the report

get it off to Hitachi

see what they say

 

then move from there

 

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

I also still don't know which report.

 

 

The furniture ombudsman offers two different ones but can't say which one is needed.

 

Hitachi will not commit themselves to saying which report they want.

 

I have no idea what to do as there's a big difference in price between the two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I also still don't know which report. The furniture ombudsman offers two different ones but can't say which one is needed.

Hitachi will not commit themselves to saying which report they want.

 

I have no idea what to do as there's a big difference in price between the two.

 

 

you send the report that the eng does tomorrow

 

 

if they want a FO report tell tem to pay for it

 

 

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

What report?

 

 

The appointment tomorrow is the retailer coming to repair,

 

 

nothing to do with any report..

 

 

I'm not even sure I should let the retailer in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just reading back through the thread

 

you say you paid the deposit by a credit card

 

have you involved the credit card company under section 75?

 

if not you should be.

 

as well as hitachi credit

 

as well as the retailer

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

If memory serves I paid the deposit split between a credit and a debit card.

 

I believe its Capital One, if it makes a difference.

 

I was under the impression that I could only apply through one or the other (card or finance), is that not right?

 

I still don't know what to do with the retailer when they turn up..

Link to post
Share on other sites

your rights box is the one

though the OFT don't exist anymore

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
If memory serves I paid the deposit split between a credit and a debit card.

 

I believe its Capital One, if it makes a difference.

 

I was under the impression that I could only apply through one or the other (card or finance), is that not right?

 

I still don't know what to do with the retailer when they turn up..

 

 

you can get cap1 onboard

 

 

there are no rules that say you cant use two

just only get one write off of course.

 

 

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

From the Hitachi representative...

 

Hitachi is a finance company, we do not manufacture, supply or repair goods and must rely on the retailer to assist in resolving any issues that may arise. If you are unhappy with me talking to Sasaki and being unable to agree a refund without a technicians review of the product then I would suggest you discuss this directly with the retailer

 

I have now got to the stage where I'm overwhelmed by conflicting information, or half information in some cases.

 

Can anybody tell me what is what in simple language?

 

I don't understand what the section 75 actually means to me

 

Hitachi says this

 

The Section 75 claim – The finance is a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement and not Hire Purchase. Hitachi has no legal entitlement to the goods and you retain full ownership. As such, under the Financial Conduct Authority on dispute resolution, Hitachi requests the retailer offer a resolution to any issues. If this is not forthcoming Hitachi, after allowing adequate opportunity, will look to make an offer. It is standard practice to advise a retailer of your planned recourse.

 

I don't understand what relevance the cancellation clauses have or the document you pointed at from section 29. Haven't I had the thing too long? If I can cancel using this then how?

 

Frankly, at the moment, I darent open a claim with Capital 1 as well. The reason being if they give a different version of things then I'll just go off and cry somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitachi is a finance company, we do not manufacture, supply or repair goods and must rely on the retailer to assist in resolving any issues that may arise. If you are unhappy with me talking to Sasaki and being unable to agree a refund without a technicians review of the product then I would suggest you discuss this directly with the retailer

 

I would give them perm to deal direct with Sasaki

 

see what happens.

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

What happened was that Sasaki decided on the repair.

 

Under initial pretence of wanting to make an inspection, which was agreed to by myself with no issues at all. Every communication since then, from Sasaki and Hitachi, have made it clear that they are coming to repair the chair.

 

They haven't dealt with, negotiated with or mediated.

They just pass on what the retailer wants and ignore what I want.

 

As this is a replacement which has gone wrong,

I was under the impression that I didn't have to accept a repair or replacement

because they've had a chance to make things right.

Is this wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope theres nowt which backs that up that I know.

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

In that case, are they being reasonable in offering repair?

 

Or do I have the right to a refund, if so, why exactly and where does it say so?

Link to post
Share on other sites

as has already been outlined....

 

 

'they' the retailer, must, but may choose, under SOGA,

should the product fail, to replace, repair or refund.

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

You misunderstand..

 

Do I have the right..

 

Not what does the retailer have to do or offer..

 

Do I have the right to refuse a repair and request a refund?

Am I jeapordising my rights by not accepting a refund?

 

You made a big thing of the cancellation clauses previously but I still don't understand why/what relevance/what difference these clauses make to anything. No matter how many times I look at them I still don't understand what I'm supposed to be looking at or for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok forget the PDF [The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013]...

 

I've been genning up most of the day

 

and

 

I firmly believe under section 75 you have a right to demand a full refund.

under which that Hitachi is made

 

there is no time limit on a section 75 claim with regard to your situation

 

I can see no 'clause' that states if its a replacement item that fails

that's it negates section 75 either

 

neither can I see any clause that says they may refer to the supplier of the goods

and latterly state that they will not refund and allow the retailer to repair such goods.

 

you have asked for a refund, I see no 'get out' for them.

 

i'll keep reading around for.

 

 

http://www.choose.net/money/guide/features/section-75-credit-card-protection-claim.html

 

 

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

Ah, that makes more sense now!

 

So I should comply with the Hitachi request for an independent report? Or do they have to arrange one if they want one?

 

I know you have said its less than six months, so under SOGA its assumed faulty

However CAB have advised that the six months is from initial purchase and not reset by replacing the product

 

Yes, you might think it makes little difference, it would get refunded and so on. The fact is that finding £150 for the report isn't something I can just do quickly.

 

I don't think I've seen anything on this anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would aver that the item, even though its a replacement, itself failed in under 6mts

so, under soga, the retailer pays for an inspection.

 

how that pans out to the financier under section 75 is anyones guess

they and the retailer need to talk to each other.

 

its worthy to note section 75, it says nothing about 'a repair'

a section 75 claim is a refund claim under the CCA.

 

the item doesn't need to be inspected, as such,

bar only by someone 'with the right credentials' to confirm its frucked

and the claim is valid

 

my take

 

 

so the visit recently never happened then?

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

No, they never turned up...

 

From Hitachi

 

"Hitachi is a finance company, we do not manufacture, supply or repair goods and must rely on the retailer to assist in resolving any issues that may arise. If you are unhappy with me talking to Sasaki and being unable to agree a refund without a technicians review of the product then I would suggest you discuss this directly with the retailer."

 

As the claim is against Hitachi, would it not be that they have to arrange the inspection rather than the retailer?

In fact, as it is under 6 months, doesn't SOGA assume there is a fault with no report needed?

 

Is there no precedent, not necessarily through a court, but through prior claims? I can't believe that this situation has never happened before

Link to post
Share on other sites

as already said

let them liaise with the retailer

that they say they want to do

give them the permission too

 

 

however, I see nothing in a section 75 claim that states they can get away with allowing a repair.

 

 

the only option under a section 75 claim, as far as I can see, is a refund/cancellation of the agreement

 

 

that hitachi reply is simply wriggling.

and p'haps you need to point this out to them

 

 

as for the soga point, no SOGA does not assume that

 

 

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

It doesn't?

 

I was under the impression with SOGA that goods under 6 months old that developed faults were assumed to be inherently faulty (unless misused) and over 6 months the fault had to be independently proven?

 

Therefore if Hitachi want a report isn't it for them to arrange, and pay, for one? They can't say I'm refusing to allow the retailer to make an inspection as the retailer is clearly stating they wish to visit to repair.

 

Hitachi have been liasing, that's why they are trying to get me to accept a repair (by underhand means I think). My concern is that because I'm refusing a repair it will prejudice them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no soga automatically assumes faults were there at birth or introduced later by a repair.

 

 

the 6mts bit decides who pays for the report

before the retailer

after the purchaser

 

 

I don't think there is any clause under section 75 that allow a financier to resolve a section 75 claim by a repair.

 

 

a section 75 claim is a refund only accouring to the consumer credit act.

although you can accept a repair if you wanted too.

 

 

the fact that the financier has no relationship to the goods makes no odd

hitachi are just trying to confuse things as they always do.

 

 

you want a refund

you are entitled to a refund.

 

 

if they want to monkey around doing a repair

then let them

but you still want a refund as prescribed under the act.

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

Dx100uk - Does that mean then that I can tell Hitachi that if they would like a report they can arrange and pay for it as I'm dealing with them over this and, as they have joint liability, SOGA puts the onus on them as the timescale is under 6 months?

 

Can I put a response time on them for a decision?

 

I think I've posted before what Hitachi say about a section 75 claim.

 

The Section 75 claim – The finance is a Fixed Sum Loan Agreement and not Hire Purchase. Hitachi has no legal entitlement to the goods and you retain full ownership. As such, under the Financial Conduct Authority on dispute resolution, Hitachi requests the retailer offer a resolution to any issues. If this is not forthcoming Hitachi, after allowing adequate opportunity, will look to make an offer. It is standard practice to advise a retailer of your planned recourse.

 

 

Conniff - See above, its a loan, and see post 26 or thereabouts, the agreement PDF is posted there.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...