Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Anyway, I've asked my Booking.com flat-rent-out-bloke what needs to be done on the Booking.com portal to cancel a reservation. I got a late message "I'll let you know tomorrow".
    • I see that at the start of your thread you said they hadn't sent a Letter of Claim.  And in fact in all the uploaded material there is no LoC.  This is great news.  Even were you to lose - you won't - the judge would chop off a chunk of the money for their non-respect of PAPLOC. However, I'm a bit confused as you've named the file name as a SAR.  Are you sure about this?  Did you send any other letters apart from the one dx advised which was a CPR request (not a SAR) to DCBL (not Group Nexus).  I'm not being pernickety, this will be important for your Witness Statement further down the line.
    • I didn’t say it wouldn’t. That is not the issue here. To continue driving after the licence has expired (under s88), the driver must have submitted a “qualifying application”.  An application disclosing a relevant medical condition (of which sleep apnoea is one) is not a “qualifying application”, This means the driver cannot take advantage of s88 and must wait for the DVLA to make its decision before resuming driving.   The driver’s belief is irrelevant. The fact that a licence was eventually granted may mitigate the offence, but does it does not provide a defence.   But this driver didn’t meet the conditions. I explained why in my earlier post. He only meets the conditions if his application does not declare a relevant medical condition. His did.   As I explained, after his birthday he did not hold a licence that could be revoked.   In my view it doesn’t matter what it says. The offence is committed because his application declared a medical condition. Meanwhile his licence expired and s88 is not available to him. The GP letter would form part of the material the DVLA would use to complete their investigations. But until those enquiries are completed he could not drive.   The offence does not carry points or a disqualification (because a licence could have been held by your father). It only carries a fine and the guideline is half a week’s net income. If he pleads guilty that fine will be reduced by a third. He will also pay a surcharge of 40% of that fine. But the big difference is prosecution costs: a guilty plea will see costs of about £90 ordered whilst being convicted following a trial will see costs in the region of £600.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Welcome secured loans/charge - sold to Alpha/Prime -repo received - ***Claim Dismissed***


cruzhughes

Recommended Posts

It’s all the ifs and the buts that’s dragging this out..

 

how many years now. Surely there’s got to be some light at the end of tunnel and closure at last?

 

this dragging on without responses is killing me 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

that's the idea

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

they want to wear you down...that's possibly the only thing they can really ever do.

 

 

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

Chuck this in??

 

I for one would gladly see you  in court to yet again get this whole thing closely examined by yet another judge and finally force the removal of the charge against the property as the whole debt is subject to mass irresponsible lending,  numerous penalty charges for all manner of indiscretions and other insurances making any balance bogus.

 

I bring back your attention my letter off 25/03/2017 whereby this was fully outlined from the onset. However you chose to disregard my claims and dispute and proceed with a possession claim which was without merit. Which was dismissed and you were liable for my costs. Is this another risk you are willing to take?

 

To make things simpler and less costly for yourselves take the payment you already received of £8,163.29. in full and final remove the charge,  write the debt off and close this account down for good. My evidence regarding the resultant balance has been clearly submitted many times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

pers I wouldn't offer settlement.

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

They’ve already had that money from the FSCS in jan 2017 and kept it though?.. 

 

so so they are defo up compared to what they probably paid for portfolio 

Edited by cruzhughes
Link to post
Share on other sites

good that's all they'll ever get😛

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...

I have got a copy of the letter they say I haven’t received dated 28th March. 

 

Where they've got that idea from I don’t know. 

 

nothing in the letter they’ve sent sheds any light on my letter to them in July I keep repeating questions to them that they still fail to answer its doing my head in 😂

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well bods assumption that as you are disputing that the whole debt was the result of welcomes charge /IRL etc  bla bla that we've said 1000 times before to them is wrong since day one is wrong.

 

your complaint was made in time and just because welcome wiped their hands of it, they have inherited all rights and own the charge on the property too.

so saying that because the events happened prior to 6yrs or within 3 yrs of you reasonably knowing you could complain is irrelevant.

 

IMHO they should be investigating from day one not also wiping their hands of it.

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 years later...

open

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...