Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My autistic son brought a van from a private seller. ( there was 5 other cars on his drive and another van, plus loads of machanic tools in his hallway,  so he probably is a unofficial dealer).  He gave the van a once over, he checked for any warning lights that might be on, there was none. He checked underneath for any rust etc, it all looked fine. The body was rough, but you'd expect that for the age of the van.  He got his brothers machanic to give it a pre mot check, as the van was old so he expected it to have a few problems. The van is a deathtrap, the seller had blacked out all the warning lights that were on the dash,  and I mean all.  He had also painted some kind of black stuff on the underside, to hide all the damage there.   My son drove it for over 2 hours to get it home. The machanic said he's surprised my son is still alive. Iv asked the seller for a refund and for him to have the van back, but he is refusing. Is there anything we can do.
    • First of all it sounds as if your retailer is very decent and very responsible. This itself is unusual in these kinds of circumstances and I think we need to bear this in mind. The guarantee is not particularly relevant and in fact the dealer had a statutory duty to exercise a certain responsibility for your computer – probably for several years as their obligation under the consumer rights act. The dealer may not have known this and it simply acting out of a sense of moral responsibility and that is even more noteworthy. You've already suggested earlier that you didn't really want to cause problems for your retailer. I think that you will need the help of your retailer as well in order to get information and evidence. I suggest that you proceed against DPD – but before you do that – I suggest that you have a discussion with the retailer. Tell them that this is what you are going to be doing and you would like to have a copy of anything they have which relates to the special instructions which apparently your dealer has already informed you about in relation to where item should be left. Secondly, maybe you should tell your dealer about this site and also about this thread. I can imagine like many dealers who are frequently sending items by means of couriers, they have had things go missing. Tell them that we will be very happy to help them recover money for lost or damaged or stolen items – and that is regardless of whether or not they have purchased insurance. Apart from being very pleased to help your dealer recover items which have been lost by irresponsible parcel delivery companies, I think we need to encourage the complicity between you and them so they will be pleased to support you in your claim against DPD. It will be helpful if you can get a copy of the instructions that you have referred to above, and also if you can get some written evidence of your own instruction that your laptop should be left in a safe place. Have you done the reading on this sub- forum? You will need to do lots of reading of many of the similar stories on this sub- forum. They won't necessarily be against DPD but the principles will broadly be the same. Also read the pinned topics at the top of the sub- forum in order to understand many of the principles involved. Getting your money back but be quick – but your chances of success are better than 90% that you can bank on it taking anything up to a year. Have you got anything in writing from DPD either refusing you or telling you that they won't discuss with you?  
    • Thank you for telling us the text of the letter you had from the police. As we don't seem to have come across this before, it would be really useful for us to see the original please. HB
    • Pasco has recalled 104,000 packs of sliced bread after rat remains were found in at least two packs.View the full article
    • UPDATE I went rooting through an old box of paperwork I have and I've found the original Default Notice. It is dated **/**/201*, however.. The copy of the Default Notice that they sent with the LBC has a completely different date on it 😮 Can they issue 2 default notices for the same debt? Where they have changed the date on the copy, they have also changed the amount owed through failed payments and how much is required to be paid by a certain date. In addition, they sent (with the 1st LBC) a copy of the termination of the agreement, which I cannot find the original. However, the termination date is 3 days after the date given on the (doctored) Default Notice, by which monies are to be paid by. So, they gave until the 'x' date to pay the arrears, then terminated the agreement 3 days later. I bet a dollar to a dime they've doctored the termination date also.
  • 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

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


cruzhughes

Recommended Posts

Nothing to stop you preparing a statement along with copies of all the previous court documents.....pointless writing to their Sols or Alpha

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

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

Not at all use your own words/reasoning's

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two Point's:

 

You need to mention that acenden have never once been mentioned in any court docs or proceedings.

 

Is it not that all you have to do now is bat them away till Aug 2018.. Then it gets struck out totally??

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

Well IMHO that is being done on purpose by them

To try and convince you/judge you can be fleeced by 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

Its quite confusing...that really is a bad order and makes no logical sense ...perhaps ask the court to clarify

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I hope this 3rd Judge is on my side too.

 

Andy you said something after the last court hearing about vexatious litigant does this still apply

 

Absolutely if you have documentary evidence to show the timeline of litigation and failed attempts and that the alleged arrears are of the the claimants own making and not you missing contractual payments.

 

Vexatious litigants

 

7.1 This Practice Direction applies where a ‘civil proceedings order’ or an ‘all proceedings order’ (as respectively defined under section 42(1A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981) is in force against a person (‘the litigant’).

 

7.2 An application by the litigant for permission to begin or continue, or to make any application in, any civil proceedings shall be made by application notice issued in the High Court and signed by the litigant.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03/pd_part03a#7.1

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t paid these a penny since they’ve taken the debt over as it was already in serious dispute with welcome before they sold it.

 

welcome had not been paid since 2015 as it was in dispute.

 

Then I went down the whole reclaim avenue and that money went sort of missing on it being awarded for 6 months and these lot were trying to say the balance was higher than it was

 

Its quite confusing...that really is a bad order and makes no logical sense ...perhaps ask the court to clarify

 

Bad order? What do you mean

 

The last judge stated it wasn’t a case of can’t pay, don’t want to pay, won’t pay.

There were issues that needed investigating.

 

The company who’ve should be investigating aren’t despite me explaining the background for the last year

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right I’ve made a start on this new statement

 

I’m not sure if I’m going about things right can anyone help me please

 

STATEMENT

 

I am the defendant in this case and respectfully request the court to consider the following when hearing the above case.

 

The original loan agreement was made with Progressive/Welcome Finance, but in September 2016 Welcome sold the account to Alpha who are the Claimant in this case. It is not a mortgage as the new owner is claiming.

 

Before the sale of the account I had made a complaint to Welcome finance as I believe the original agreement with Welcome was part of an irresponsible lending history as they continued to offer additional finance even though it was clear my financial situation did not support it. Nine loans were issued over a period of 8 years, some only 3 or 4 months apart

 

Then further to this the FSCS regarding miss-sold PPI and they awarded

£7,888.39 to be refunded back to the account.

 

The outstanding balance the Claimant pleads is not correct. I am also unable to reconcile the arrears figure the Claimant pleads as it is higher than the total missed monthly payments. Plus they are figures incorporate interest which the previous owners reduced to 0% in 2015

 

I have asked the Claimant numerous times to send me the information they have on the account but their responses have been slow and unsatisfactory.

 

They have sent me an agreement dated 2008 with a totally different account no to the one on the legal charge dated 2006. Loan Amount is different too.

 

I have requested numerous times that they remove the legal charge from my property and write the bogus debt off. My evidence has been submitted many times whereby I first outlined my complaint to them on 25/03/2017 with the debt and resultant charge being made up of numerous penalty charges for all manner of indiscretions other insurances of mass irresponsible lending without doing the required affordability checks. Some loans only months apart.

 

They have refused to investigate these claims from day one. Including my last letter Account in serious dispute dated 17/10/2017 enclosed which I made a full and final offer to resolve this. As the company have accepted a payment without checking the validity of the debt in question.

 

This is the 3rd time the claimant has issued possession proceedings against me at this court. I have attended on both occasions yet the claimant has not attended the hearings and wrote to court just before each hearing to adjourn.

Dates are as follows 24/05/2017 where it was ordered that claim be adjourned generally with liberty to restore as the issues needed to be reviewed which Alpha had not done yet they issued another hearing 2 months later.

 

Second Hearing was restored to 21/08/2017 an lightfoots wrote to court on 11/8/2017 requesting another adjournment. On this hearing Deputy District Judge J B O Parsons also said there were issues that needed resolving and ordered that the hearing be adjourned generally with liberty to restore provided if no such application is issued by 20th August 2018 the claim is struck out without further order.

 

Third hearing was restored to 16/01/2018 They are in breach of the above as they have made same application pre 20 Aug 2018 and that the arrears are still false but what this company is doing is adding fees and other charges on to push the fake arrears up higher. They have done this consistently since account was in dispute in March 2017. Failed to respond to my letters yet added on arrears fees

 

 

Abuse of the process

 

I ask the honourable court to consider that this claim is outside of the Jurisdiction of the UK County Court System. The Claimant creditor Prime Credit 5 S.à.r.l. or Alpha Credit Solutions 4 S.a.r.l. is a Luxembourg registered company.

 

No record of creditor Prime Credit 5 S.à.r.l. or Alpha Credit Solutions 4 S.a.r.l. (or any variation of that name) is held by uk companies house. Therefore the claimant & alleged debt are outside of the uk and therefore not subject to the county courts jurisdiction.

 

However loan is administered by Acenden on behalf of creditor Acenden is authorised and regulated by FCA in the UK yet Acenden have not once been mentioned in any court documents or prior proceedings.

 

 

In these circumstances the claimant brought this action unlawfully and is an abuse of the County Court System. Purely on the grounds of Jurisdiction, it is requested that the court strike out this case as a clear abuse of the process.

 

This claim is being made from abroad in an attempt to avoid penalty for attempting to enforce agreements that the claimant knows to be Unenforceable.

 

I also confirm that these accounts were in dispute prior to the commencement of action by the Claimant. The commencement of legal proceedings in theses circumstances was counter to the ‘Overriding Objectives’ of the new Civil Procedure Rules. Moreover, paragraph 4 of the Protocols Practice Direction states that in cases not covered by an approved pre-action protocol, the court will expect the parties “to act reasonably……..in trying to avoid the necessity to start proceedings”

 

 

Conclusion

 

In view of the matters pleaded above, I respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the claimant's statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16.

 

 

I assure the court that I am committed to resolving this case and respectfully and have done so throughout I ask that repossession is not granted in order for me to keep a secure home for my children.

 

I believe the above to be true and factual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep

ps written not wrote

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

yes ofcourse it is.

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

the loan agreement was not for over £25k and it say regulated on the agreement does it not?

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

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 was Aug 2008? So how do I fair

 

Do I take the statement into court next week or wait till the day of hearing.

 

What I’m thinking is if I take it in earlier are they likely to upload it and then lightfoots see it. And maybe adjourn again after seeing it

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO as these were all a chain you've a good argument it is covered by CCA

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...