Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Parents and teens alike are trading in their smartphones for "dumber" models to help stay offline.View the full article
    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
  • 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

Letter from Motormile Finance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2797 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 have received a letter today from MMF, which states the following:

 

Dear (me)

 

Outstanding Balance £xxxx

 

As you now have more than one account with us you have been allocated a new customer number which you should use in all future correspondence with us for all your accounts. This will remain as your reference for all dealings with MMF giving us, and you, a single customer view of your MMF accounts. You will find the breakdown of your accounts enclosed. (it's four payday loans)

 

To remind you, we will not ask you to pay more than you can afford, we will remain flexible and only set a repayment plan that is in line with your financial circumstances.

 

4 steps to an easy repayment plan:

 

1. Work out how much you can afford

2. Think about the frequency of your paymentns and your preferred method of payment from the options on the back of the letter

3. Contact us on 0113 887 6876 to speak to one of our experienced agents to set your payment plan or

4. Complete the enclosed payment mandate form then return to [email protected] along with you completed income and expenditure form (it isn't enclosed) or alternatively return them in the enclsosed envelpoe (nor is this)

 

You may even be eligible for a discount to assist in clearing these accounts sooner and still be able to spread the repayments.

 

If you are experiencing financial difficulties don't let this stop you, as we have a specialist team equipped to understand and deal with your circumastances.

 

Please note we have highlighted (they haven't) that one of your accounts has exceeded the Statute of Limitations period which mean the period for court action has lapsed however this account still remains payable.

 

 

Please could you advise what I do now? None of the four payday loans is on any of my credit files, and they are all, to my knowledge, from at least five years ago. The last dealing I had with MMF was a spate of aggressive and threatening texts and calls to my mobile telling me they were turning up at my workplace TODAY if I didn't pay them - they didn't, of course, and I now have a new phone that means I can block numbers so this is the first I've heard in at least two years.

 

Ignore? Or send some kind of response?

 

Thank you in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved you to the MMF forum

lots to red here

but to save you the time

 

 

remember MT collect and the debacle you had wit them...

..these are basically [urh that word!!] the same MOas them.

 

 

if you read a few threads here

you'll soon see you totally ignore them.

nothing they can do to you

simply willy waving.

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...