Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 2. I think there should be further down and also you should make the point that the payment to was made unilaterally and without the imposition of any conditions. Paragraph 3 – this is unnecessary because you are not claiming as an entitled third-party. This worries me because it makes me feel that you haven't fully read around because this is a paragraph which you would include where you were suing EVRi as a beneficial third party because you had actually made your contract with Packlink or some other broker. I think you need to revisit and do some more reading. I'm afraid I have a sense that you have simply copied this from somebody else's witness statement without understanding that it wasn't necessary. Please can you post the amended draft. Other than the suggestions above, it looks okay – but let's see it again for a further appraisal. In terms of the evidence, parties bundle, I think it might be an idea to start off with the correspondence with EVRi and then go onto the other evidence. You will have to amend the index page accordingly. You could shorten this bit. Take 19 is pretty well blank and you may as well miss it out also, there seems to be some repetition of emails and the email chain. I think will be worth going through and getting rid of duplicates if you can. 49 pages is a bit long and it would be a good idea to try and reduce the number. I have a feeling that 50 pages as the County Court limit anyway. The judge will be happier with you if the bundle is smaller. Maybe you could reduce the size of some of the images or messages et cetera. You have got several messages which straddle onto a second page so that things like sign off information and standard confidentiality information become orphans. A bit of manipulation and they could be joined to their parents I think. Page 31 as an example. So is page 19. You may only be up to shorten the whole thing by 56 pages – but I think it would be a good idea. 56 pages is, after all, 10%. If you can do more then so much the better
    • Investment by Dutch brewing giant will create 1,000 new jobs and reopen dozens of closed pubsView the full article
    • Qantas agrees to pay millions to settle lawsuit accusing it of selling tickets to cancelled flights.View the full article
    • Why the Nordic nation, despite its reputation for social equality, has so many billionaires.View the full article
  • 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

Pastdue credit solutions for Hutchinson 3 mobile


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2712 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 giving me until 8 December 2016 to pay £66.79.

Past due are working for Hutchinson 3 mobile.

 

 

In September 2015 I contacted 3 mobile because I could not access website to check my mobile phone account,

I hot e-mail saying my account was closed,

I left it at that,

 

 

by February 2017 no attempt to collect monthly payments was made via direct debit.

 

 

I clised the direct debit and thought nothing more.

 

 

Then today I get a Letter from Past due credit solutions telling me they are working on behalf of 3 mobile,

I owe £66.79 and must pay this by 8th December 2016 or they will instruct 3 mobile to start court action to recover outstanding debt plus costs.

 

 

Past due is based in Glasgow.

Any help in trying to deal with this problem would be appreciated. Thank You

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing will happen, if you did not respond.

 

It is up to 3 mobile whether they wanted to take any actions, but i doubt it is worth it for this amount. It will just get passed around debt collectors for ages and up to you whether you mind the hassle.

 

But you do need to check your credit record, as that might hurt you more.

 

You might want to complain to 3 mobile directly and get them to prove this debt. If you are then happpy you do owe this debt, then you can settle it.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

past a clue can safely be totally ignored

they are a DCA

and DCA's ARE NOT BAILIFFS

they no legal powers whatsoever

 

 

IF you owe anything at all

take that up with 3 themselves.

 

 

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

Thank you for reply.

 

 

There is mention of this so called debt on my credit file, but it has not had any impact on getting credit because I pay all my monthly payments on time,

 

 

I contacted Equifax about putting mention on my file that debt is contested, that lasted a month before being removed.

 

 

I will ignore all letters that I get unless they come via registered post.

I still can't believe it's taken a year.

Thank you for advice it is appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to Andrewman.

Have you checked with your bank regarding the final Direct Debit.

 

 

Several years ago, I cancelled a Three account.

 

 

Some weeks later I received a letter from a DCA saying that I owed Three x amount.

I went to the local Three shop, who explained that it was an admin error and forget about it.

 

 

Some weeks later, another letter from the DCA,saying that I still owed money.

I now went to my bank to see what had happened to the Direct Debit.

The bank told me that Three had cancelled the Direct Debit before they had taken the final payment, then tried to reinstate it for the final payment.

The bank had refused Three permission to reinstate the Direct Debit.

 

Regards,John.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...