Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Do you have broadband at home? A permanent move to e.g. Sky Glass may not fit with your desire to keep your digibox,, but can you move the items you most want off the digibox? If so, Sky Glass might suit you. You might ask Sky to loan you a “puck” and provide access as an interim measure. another option might be using Sky Go, at least short term, to give you access to some of the Sky programming while awaiting the dish being sorted.
    • £85PCM to sky, what!! why are you paying so much, what did you watch on sky thats not on freeview?  
    • Between yourself and Dave you have produced a very good WS. However if you were to do a harder hitting WS it may be that VCS would be more likely to cancel prior to a hearing. The Contract . VCS [Jake Burgess?] are trying to conflate parking in a car park to driving along a road in order to defend the indefensible. It is well known that "NO Stopping " cannot form a contract as it is prohibitory. VCS know that well as they lose time and again in Court when claiming it is contractual. By mixing up parking with driving they hope to deflect from the fact trying to claim that No Stopping is contractual is tantamount to perjury. No wonder mr Burgess doesn't want to appear in Court. Conflation also disguises the fact that while parking in a car park for a period of time can be interpreted as the acceptance of the contract that is not the case while driving down a road. The Defendant was going to the airport so it is ludicrous to suggest that driving by a No Stopping  sign is tacitly accepting  the  contract -especially as no contract is even being offered. And even if a motorist did not wish to be bound by the so called contract what could they do? Forfeit their flight and still have to stop their car to turn around? Put like that the whole scenario posed by Mr Burgess that the Defendant accepted the contract by driving past the sign is absolutely absurd and indefensible. I certainly would not want to appear in Court defending that statement either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will do the contract itself later.
    • Yes - ignore. Because of another MET victim today I looked at all our MET cases back to June 2014 ... yes, 10 years. They have never dared take a motorist to court and argue their case before a judge.  They have started the odd court case, but as a means of trying to intimidate the motorist into coughing up, when the motorist defended and refused to give in it was MET who bottled it and discontinued.
    • Unpaid wages should be pretty straightforward if you did the work. Don't be intimidated. You need only show you were due money, and did not get money.   The risk is that they have no money to pay you (and legal fees) - frankly a solicitor maybe be costing them more than your claim is for and I might have expected them to make a commercial decision to settle before this point regardless of the merits of the case.
  • 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

Carter / Fredrickson chasing old-Littlewoods cat debt


nonymouse
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3157 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

 

Yes, this is all the same issue - I have the materials from the SAR but I lacked the mental space to deal with it any further as it was so incomprehensible, and now I've got a CCJ heading towards me. Utterly bewildered by all of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is all the same issue - I have the materials from the SAR but I lacked the mental space to deal with it any further as it was so incomprehensible, and now I've got a CCJ heading towards me. Utterly bewildered by all of this.

 

are there any details re the last payment and details re the default by the original creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

are there any details re the last payment and details re the default by the original creditor.

 

Not that I can see - I need to have another look through it tomorrow but I remember not being able to find anything about the last payment,which is what I wanted to challenge Lowell originally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have Lowells actually defaulted you, or have they simply updated the credit files and the Original creditor defaulted you at an earlier date ?

 

The fact is, that Lowells cannot default you as they are not the original creditor.

 

If you are absolutely certain that you have made no payments since 2006, then I would suggest the statute barred letter in the link below would be the best course of action for you to take.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387368-Letter-to-be-sent-when-debt-is-Statute-Barred-**Update-21st-April-2014**(1-Viewing)-nbsp

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have Lowells actually defaulted you, or have they simply updated the credit files and the Original creditor defaulted you at an earlier date ?

 

The fact is, that Lowells cannot default you as they are not the original creditor.

 

If you are absolutely certain that you have made no payments since 2006, then I would suggest the statute barred letter in the link below would be the best course of action for you to take.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?387368-Letter-to-be-sent-when-debt-is-Statute-Barred-**Update-21st-April-2014**(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

Hmmm.. Lowell has applied the default as far as I can see (as in, on my credit file they're named as the creditor.

I had a look through the SAR info from the original creditor yesterday, and it seems to suggest I made payments by Direct Debit in 2010, but these payments all appeared to be for Zero, and then the balance went UP by £12 each month (a missed payment fee I assume). I'm now looking to get old bank statements to prove I had no active direct debit and made no payment, so I'll tackle Lowell.

 

But for now I just need to keep Brian Carter off my back. He'll have received the CCA this morning so I'll await my post with treidation next week!

Link to post
Share on other sites

their logs shld show all things in/out, including default notice and when it was closed out.

yes, seems the 12£'s wld prob be re a missed payment 'fee' if no payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All, just to let you know I've received the following from Brian Carter this morning:

 

We confirm the letter you received was a Letter Before Action and no court proceedings have been issued as yet. In any event this matter would most likely be allocated to the Small Claims Track and Part 31 will not apply.

 

In any event the Notices of Default and Assignment left the control of the Claimant when they were dispatched to you.

 

It is the orginial creditor's policy to issue agreements at the start of the contract and statements thoroughout the duration of the agreement and in this regard we ask you to refer to your own records.

 

So.... what do I reply to that with? Sounds like I'll be receiving court papers sooner rather than later, doesn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

usual nonsense from Farters, they do know until allocation then CPR 31 applies, the rest is just farcical letter wording they always press button !B! and churn out see what arrives next in the pantomime season at Farters.

 

do nothing as all letter ping pong to the idiots is a waste of time as they cannot read/digest, do not forget those people who delve in this dirty so called solicitors for hire business are not fit for any other proper job other than align with more crooks! and if the CCA1974 is outstanding then that is it for now.

 

 

as this country has gone to the dogs due to the Money Sickness Syndrome what can one expect from top to bottom!

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello All, just to let you know I've received the following from Brian Carter this morning:

 

We confirm the letter you received was a Letter Before Action and no court proceedings have been issued as yet. In any event this matter would most likely be allocated to the Small Claims Track and Part 31 will not apply.

 

In any event the Notices of Default and Assignment left the control of the Claimant when they were dispatched to you.

 

It is the orginial creditor's policy to issue agreements at the start of the contract and statements thoroughout the duration of the agreement and in this regard we ask you to refer to your own records.

 

So.... what do I reply to that with? Sounds like I'll be receiving court papers sooner rather than later, doesn't it?

 

That is a standard letter in response to a CPR 31.14 letter, which you only send if a court claim form is received. It puts the claimant on notice that you expect to be provided with any documents mentioned in their claim.

 

From what i can see, you were just advised to send the CCA REQUEST, which is presumably what you did ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

So just wait and see what happens. The outstanding CCA request should put the off issuing the claim, but if they do, then you defend it. Report back when you hear any more.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...