Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Been perusing the actual figures on the polls above wondering where the '16% claimed for deform comes from? I understand that there are 'weighted' end results based on secret calculations ...   Probably going to repeat this later, but remember that the ukip/brexit/reform/deform party has ALWAYS polled FAR better than their actual  performance at elections - by large margins. SO: The labor and Tory votes come largely from simply the people who say they will vote for them - sorted Lab 43% Tory 20%, with maybe another small 1-2% coming from the weightings of the 'not sures' Greens largely get what is declared from 'other' , although with another declared green bit from the 'pressed' question   So as the share of the voting displayed in 'other' granted to reform/deform is around 11%, where does the '16% too often being reported come from? Seems that reform has been granted as beneficiary of effectively ALL the don't knows and wont says, who when pressed didn't actually declare for someone else ... effectively adding 40%+ to their reported polling % - rather strange given their consistent under-performance compared to polling - or perhaps that is the cause of the higher rating eh?   Now I admit the possibility (probability?) of wingers being ashamed of declaring their support for the yuckey lemon end of the spectrum ... but surely  that should affect the 'Torys as well? Maybe the statisticians have simply weighted in that deform wingers are simply more likely to lie?   But - without 'weightings' and assumptions that faragits will get everything that isnt declared as a definite and unequivocal 'not that Piers Morgan' - reform is on around 11% it seems.   Add to that the and the history of polling a lot less than the hype - and the simple fact that faragit wingers seem to be spread across the country (presumably skulking in their moms spare room despite being 45+) and greens and lib dems seem to be community minded - I think two seats will be an epic result for farage. Hardly the opposition - far more raving wingnut party.   and importantly - Has farage got a home in clacton yet?
    • "as I have no tools available to merge documents, unless you can suggest any free ones that will perform offline merges without watermarking" (which you don't) ... but ok please upload the documents and we'll go from there
    • Please go back and read my message posted at 10:27 this morning @jk2054. I didn't say that I wasn't going to provide documents, only that I will upload them to an online repo that I am in control of, and that I would share links to these. You shall still be able to read and download them no different from if they were hosted here. And, the issue I have is not so much with hosting, but using an online pdf editor to create a multi-page pdf, again I have discussed this that same message.
    • Thanks ,DX, I'd forgpotton about that letter and can't remember sending a SB letter. I must have left it and they did not chase. Unclebulgia. Yes several periods of no contact. Think its time for the SB letter . 
    • well if your not going to upload documents because you are too scared of your data being stolen and someone rocking up to you we are going to struggle to help you peoples energy data breach has nothing to do with a hosting site...
  • 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

Cabot/Mortimer claimform - Sainsburys credit card debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1866 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

not due till Friday by 4pm

let andyorch check things over.

I've tidied the thread

as that got messy and we done need others to follow that route.

 

 

dx

  • Thanks 1

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

Defence checked and edited.

 

Regards

 

Andy

  • Thanks 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

  • 4 months later...

nope just means its stayed.

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 have received no further communication regarding this.

 

Does that mean they've given up? If so, please move to successes :-)

 

Thank you all

 

Only threads that are discontinued or struck out or tried and won are moved to the Success forum...we have 1000s of stayed claims here in the Financial Legal Forum

 

Andy

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

  • 1 year later...

Open

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a document pack through the post re this old claim.

 

They have provided some of the info requested in 2017 but notably not a default notice. Just "default notice data"

 

I attach the covering letter + the "default notice data"

 

There are around 30 other pages, mostly statement data, not copy statements, just data print outs with statement info. Not sure if this is worth mentioning.

sainsburys fishing letter page one-min.jpg

sainsburys fishing letter page 2-min.jpg

sainsburys default notice data-min.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

they have some nerve ....giving you 14 days to respond and yet they have waited nearly 2 years.That default summary from their own internal systems was recently dismissed on another thread as there could be no proven link to the OC or the service of a valid default notice pursuant to sect 87.1 CCA.

 

Andy

  • Like 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 will see If I can find it but check any Cabot thread on the 1/2/pages here marked Dismissed.

  • Like 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

48 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

I will see If I can find it but check any Cabot thread on the 1/2/pages here marked Dismissed.

 

Sorry, I haven't succeeded in finding the dismissed cabot claim in legal successes. I do like your advanced search tool btw but it's not doing it for me. Garbage in, garbage out most likely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the Legal Success Forum yet...it was in this forum...I only transfer them a few months later.

  • Like 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

use the google custom search top right not the one in the red banner nor advanced.

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

19 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

use the google custom search top right not the one in the red banner nor advanced.

 

I've been trawling through manually and searching on 87.1, Cabot, dismissed, default notice, default summary etc and various combinations.

 

No luck at all and I'm normally OK at this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis of what you have uploaded which they have provided after 2 years...some cobbled together screen shot from god knows whos accounting system...do you really feel a need to reply ? If they are confident that represents proof of service of default notice then let them proceed and lift the stay.

 

Andy

  • Thanks 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

  • 2 weeks later...

I received this letter dated 02/05/19

 

Same question as usual. Should I respond? Thanks!

5cd1b6ffb891215572477430190507_174214.jpg

 

It's the "apply for summary judgement" part that caught my attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore

begging letter

  • Like 2

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

Did they provide the agreement as per post # 64?

  • Like 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

17 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Did they provide the agreement as per post # 64?

They have provided a signed credit agreement. Not sure how that links to post # 64

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter you uploaded in post #64 states what they have disclosed.Where is the agreement have you uploaded 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 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

49 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

The letter you uploaded in post #64 states what they have disclosed.Where is the agreement have you uploaded it ?

 

Sorry Andyorch I'm browsing on mobile and post #64 is different. This is what I see. I'll upload the agreement as PDF shortly...

Screenshot_20190508-115223_Brave~2.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached agreement. They only included one page of the actual agreement. The rest seems to be a stock copy.

 

Edit: pdf upload failed. Only 2MB. Trying again

Edit 2: It's giving me error -200 so I'm uploading to google drive. Hope this is ok.

 

Agreement link:- https://drive.google.com/open?id=1djx3qpQ629xE8I8UG5LD0SZJRko-RCV9

Edited by obvious
upload problem
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well page 3 is there were they requested you sign and return......this is a pre April 2007 agreement and the prescribed terms appear to be present so would hasten to add that a court may accept that as a valid agreement.

 

That leaves you with only the lack of DN so should you wish to ignore and proceed you do so at the risk of getting a judge who is a stickler for section 87(1) and may possibly dismiss the claim on those grounds.

 

Should they follow their threat through and make application to lift and strike out /summary judgment be aware that you will cover the further costs which will be added to the claimed amount......so in effect it may be prudent to consider their last letter and try to thrash out some agreement that avoids proceeding and further costs.

 

Something for you to consider....as Cabot/Mortimer normally do follow through their threat.

 

Andy

  • Like 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...