Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • yet another Brexitish failure   England set to miss post-Brexit targets to clean up rivers by 2027 INEWS.CO.UK Nearly 80 per cent of England's rivers, lakes and coastal waters may fail to reach a 'good' standard by 2027, a post-Brexit watchdog warns  
    • No. The defence is different. Their defence paragraph 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 – for the first time makes reference to an alleged term between the Packlink/EVRi contract which apparently specifically excludes the effect of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. If this is true then it is very likely that they will have closed that loophole because the 1999 act specifically allows itself to be excluded by an express term within the principal contract I think that you will have to do ask the court to require them to provide evidence by way of presenting their contract and also the date that this new amendment was inserted. I understand that your claim refers to an item which was lost a year or so ago. These give us the date. We would certainly want to know that this amendment predates the date when you first contracted with Packlink to send the item. I would want to say to the court that in the absence of their willingness to confirm with evidence the date that this contractual amendment was made, that the court should assume that this was a recent amendment and was therefore not in force at the time you made your contract. We have third-party defences on this sub- forum which are fairly recent and there has been no mention of this exclusion of the 1999 act. I think we can take it that this is something that they have put together very recently. Secondly, even if they want to exclude your third party rights, it does not absolve them from the negligent handling of your item and in respect of an action for negligence you have first party rights. You don't have to rely on third party rights – although of course, you didn't allege negligence in your original claim. We didn't advise you to do so. Maybe shortsightedly we didn't foresee this contractual amendment. Of course assuming that this contractual amendment is true – although I expect it has only been added recently – what they are saying here is that nobody in the United Kingdom who makes any contract with any parcel delivery company using Packlink will have the right to bring a claim for lost or damaged or even stolen parcels. These people have lost their moral compass. It is shabby treatment of ordinary customers who pay their money and who repose their trust in these parcel delivery companies. No wonder that the Paralegal Children are now ashamed to sign off these documents with their own names. In terms of parcel tracking information – apparently it has been destroyed according to their own data protection policy. That's their business. It's got nothing to do with you and they can't use this to frustrate the six year limitation for bring a breach of contract action or the three-year limitation period for bringing an action in negligence or other tort. There reference once again to the exclusion of the 1999 Act but this time apparently in the contract between you and Packlink – is irrelevant because the exclusion has to be in the commercial contract between Packlink and EVRi – which they have referred to in their paragraph 2.7 et cetera of their defence. I'm assuming that you propose to go ahead with this case. Please let us know when you respond and we will go forward. In the meantime, I suggest that you write a letter to EVRi. Referred to their paragraph 2.7 et cetera and asked them for a copy of the contract and confirmation of the date on which the exclusion of third party rights term was included in it. Tell EVRi that if they do not answer or if they refuse that this will be brought to the attention of the judge. Tell them also that you notice that they say that they have destroyed data in line with their data protection policy. Inform them that they do not appear to have disclosed this data protection policy to their customers. Please will they forward you a copy of it and once again if they failed to respond or if they refuse that you will bring this to the attention of the judge as well. I suggest that you post a draft of the letter here so we can have a look    
    • Good morning dx100UK Could I send the update to you privately? Regards
    • On the other thread you posted on, you asked about immigration issues. We aren't qualified to give that advice, sadly, you would need to find an authorised adviser. 'It is a criminal offence for a person to provide immigration advice or services in the UK unless their organisation is regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) or is otherwise covered by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Members of certain professional bodies may give immigration advice without registering with OISC.' How to become a regulated immigration adviser - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK  
    • Hi. Can you show us the letter from the police please? Cover up your name and address. Our upload guide will help you. HB
  • 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 
        • 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

the car finance company repo'd my HP car from gated private dwellings - help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2813 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

I will now let you into a little secret. I had exacly this issue 10 years ago with a company called Yes car credit. They too did a repo off private property. They issued court action against me and i won, well they withdrew the claim.

 

I discovered a quirk in law that one unlawful action cannot be used to facilitate another legal action. That is the repo was unlawful so they then terminated the agreement unlawfully so the could then not sue me for any balance. They were in breach of contract.

 

I put in my defence Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio:

 

Latin: Of an illegal cause there can be no lawsuit

 

Like i said that was never tested in court as they withdrew the claim after i put that in my defence

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

They already told me that they are willing to return the car if i pay the outstanding amount or enter into a satisfying agreement with them to clear the balance while continuing to make my monthly payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the thing is, if the repossession was illegal then the agreement we have now does not exist .

And how can you trust a company who behaves like this?

Not making payment is a contract failure yes

but is not illegal as far as i know.

What they did is illegal!

 

Also i found an old post here on this forum similar to mine

where there was a big discussion as to whether you need to involve the police as the car was taken illegally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would doubt after this escapade they'll not want this anywhere near a court.

 

you could write them a letter pointing out the unlawful repo.

 

they might get a bit wriggly on their seats and give you a good deal.?

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 would doubt after this escapade they'll not want this anywhere near a court.

 

you could write them a letter pointing out the unlawful repo.

 

they might get a bit wriggly on their seats and give you a good deal.?

 

Especially if they were thinking of charging you for that repo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for spending so much time to help me, i can't thank you enough, everybody who has helped.

 

I was wondering if anyone has good template letter i can use to request the cctv footage. I'm thinking what if the finance company say prove to us that the car wasn't in the street. In theory they can claim anything they like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

twill be an sar to the housing association?

you'll know best who to send it too.

 

 

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

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

particularly

 

 

They are not permitted to repo from any premises and that includes that of a third party.

The consent needs to be given by the debtor not the owner of the premises.

It appears that there is a remedy to breach of 92 in the Act itself under Section 132.

 

 

so

the land they repo'd from was third party land.

you did not give permission

unlawful repo.

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!!

 

its happened so many times before

the trouble is

because they 'the industry'

do it time and time again

they feel invincible.

 

and no-one ever questions things.

 

the repo guys ARE NOT BAILIFFS

they have NO LEGAL POWERS WHATSOEVER.

 

so' they' should not of done what they 'did'

 

the finance company 'should never have employed them'

 

but because so many people simply ignore their rights

because they don't know repo guys ARE NOT BAILIFFS

they let finance companies 'get away' with it....

 

they 'the finance co.'think 'by default' they are right in what they are doing

because it happens every day without being questioned

 

they are WRONG>

 

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 will let you guys know how i get along with this,

 

might be a quick process

might be a painful one it depends,

 

with these finance companies you never know as sometimes they can be so arrogant in thinking they are always right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If no damage caused then damages for

tresspass at best, plus your quantifiable

losses whilst not in possession of the car

 

However regulatory action may be taken

against the repo company as a result of your

reporting to the FCA

 

Best really IMO to rreach an amicable settlement

with the finance co

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give the FCA a ring Monday and ask

 

Do you know who the repo co. Were

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

god that lot

 

they usually do grab and run

on sold cars with prvious logbook loans on them.

 

well whatever you do

don't allow repo fees to be added to your bill

nor any fees whilst the vehicle was in storage etc etc

 

it should not cost you anything to get it back and arrange a suitable repayment plan

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 need to confirm that and is not 100% yet

 

 

however it looks like the repo guy impersonated a court bailiff and that is how he managed to get out of the gates by threatening other residents that they would be in trouble if they don't let him out as he was a court bailiff and was acting on a court order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh wow

 

 

that would be great!!

 

 

got to admit

 

 

its not the first time I've heard that rumour about them

 

 

Anglia recovery used to pull the same stunt.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...