Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
    • we know it wasn't done to avoid enforcement we understand completely. but that doesn't take from away the fact that it happened   you can't appeal the pcn's on the basis that 'it was not his vehicle to levy upon'. the law clearly states otherwise.          
    • here is a question for you, is yu house divided up into a retail/business area  and domestic area for business rates purposes? If not why on earth are you paying business water rates? ceertainly not for tax purposes as you can claim any legit expense without having to reclassify your home as a business premises. i would be stopping this nonsense and goping back to whatever water supplier is the domestic one for your area. there is stuff all they can do to get the £40 from you whan you do that.
  • Our picks

enty01

Free Insurance ended - but unbale to get Insurance

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1159 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

I have an 18 year old friend who bought a brand new Ford Fiesta in May 2016 on HP.

 

 

She drove it for just 1 month – in hindsight she feels was shoe-horned into the deal & was given 30 days free insurance by the dealer to get her on her way quickly.

 

 

The car has been parked up since June (all monthly payments have been made) but no one would insure her at the end the 30 days free insurance period.

 

 

Yes .. she should have looked into insurance BEFORE signing up (Naïve 18 yr old girl)

 

 

Does she have any form of re-dress with the manufacturer (dealer doesn't want to know) or with the finance company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies - she can get insurance, but for £5,000 (even after shopping around)

 

 

I thought there may be some form of duty of care by the dealer to ensure she was buying something she could afford - but I have told her that any duty of care would probably only extend to ensuring she could afford the monthly payments & the suitability of the car - but I wasn't sure If I was telling her the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what kind of car is it . since she is 18 you need the lowest insurance group possible it sounds as though she brought a car without looking into insurance first . has she looked into having telemetrics fitted (Black box) restrictions on when she could drive .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's been a VERY naïve 18yr old - bought the car with her now ex-boyfriend in tow who had his own agenda & she came away from the dealer having bough a 'sporty' Fiesta (Brand New 16 Reg in May) I will suggest the telemetrics option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She could check the prices adding his mum or dad on the policy.

If they have good driving records it can help the price a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She could check the prices adding his mum or dad on the policy.

If they have good driving records it can help the price a bit.

 

Yes adding mature drivers can reduce the premium.

 

Two companies worth trying for a young female.

 

Elephant

Coop


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hope your not suggesting 'fronting' she has to remain the named driver . has she thought about a much bigger excess as well , also there are companies that if you pay over 10 month you will get your no claims built up i did that when i started mind you that was 20 years ago i think it admiral then not sure wether they still do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No fronting. She has to be policyholder as the owner, but can add older drivers as named drivers to help reduce the premium. Because she would not have sole access to the car and mature drivers would also be using it, this helps reduce premiums.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No fronting.

She can add a mature driver to the policy, have a box fitted, dash cam, park in a secure place at night rather than the road, reduce her mileage (some overestimate this by a lot) and take an advanced driving course.

All of this could contribute to a cheaper premium.

Don't expect to pay £300 though.

I think it will still be in the £2500/£3500 bracket.

Failing that she could sell the car and buy a cheap runaround to build up experience and ncd.

She would lose quite a lot if she sells the car, but what else can you do?

The dealer is not responsible for insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...