Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is the letter headed Letter of Claim/before Claim or similar? If not, it sounds like more of the threatogram chain. If you're not sure, post up an anonymised copy of the letter and we'll check. HB
    • So guess what, we have received a final demand letter for £100. It states if payment is not made by 11/06 they will have no option but to forward the case to their litigation dept with a view to commence County Court Proceedings. So just wondering if anyone has any advice. Do we ignore this? or do we need to take action? Thanks 
    • hi dx, thanks for helping just re-reading everything this morning and I must have missed this one from uncle in his thread "What you should not do, is not contact the Banks and simply default on payments. "  are you in disagreement with this based on your last sentence?
    • Thanks for the reply and clarification, that might just explain why in my case contact has pretty much ceased. Though with such companies it doesn't mean they won't ever threaten to return to court as a tool to force one's hand if they feel they are not self informed on their chances etc.  But concerning how last year they tried to use the CCJ to get a charging order and the court granted an intirum order on our mortgage using the CCJ that would have been a good 2-3 months beyond the 6 years, should the court not have checked the age of the CCJ in the first case or would they always grant an interim order simply off the back of a CCJ being produced without even checking the age of it?.  Had I not defended that action at the time they may well have got a default using a CCJ older than 6 years which could be a concern going forwards. At the time when I contacted the court to question the paperwork for a final order application the clerk suggested people don't get informed when companies apply for interim charging orders, they are automatic if a claimant has a CCJ and people only get contacted once a date for a final order application goes through. kind of begs the question if such companies can continue a seemingly backdoor method to attempt default action if un-defended if the initial application doesn't need to check the age of a CCJ?.
    • Hello!  Wondering if someone can help with this.  I suspect not but worth a go.  I appreciate the "contract is with the seller" line, which is what Evri has fed me but wanted to see if someone with experience in these things could suggest anything else I could do here.  I appreciate there are many topics about lost parcels - My parcels weren't lost, until the driver walked up to my door with them and then decided to make them lost/stolen... I'll summarise what has happened.  Wednesday of last week - Evri delivery driver stole / walked off with 3 of my parcels.  -  Arrived outside my properly, took photos (3 separate photos as its 3 separate deliveries) of the tops of the parcels (pointlessly zoomed in on just the labels, couldn't see anything else, other than a small piece of the pavement and a little weed, which doubly confirms it was outside my door as I can see the same plant), marked the order as delivered and walked off with them.  He's marked on the Evri GPS marked that he was outside.   -  3 different deliveries, from the same company (same boxes etc.), but 3 separate tracking numbers. -  Went through the Evri bot which opened a case on each tracking number.  I then phoned them and left a voicemail explaining what had happened. -  24 hours later had a canned response asking me if the packages had turned up and to check around etc..  I responded explaining again what happened and that they've definitely been taken. -  4 days later,  this morning, I get a response telling me to ask the merchant to refund me. I've responded to this message with a long email, repeating what I said, that I believe the driver has stolen these packages and that he took those suspicious top down shots of the packages, marked them as delivered without ringing or knocking etc.  I've said that I expect them to investigate further, but I gather they won't. In my several messages to them initially and later, I told them I don't care about a refund and wanted the parcels.  They contain some sentimental stuff, nothing of high monetary value, hence me going to this trouble.  I only paid £25 for the contents. I did contact the merchant when this first happened and they asked me to wait a few days.  They ended up refunding me despite me asking them not to and that I wanted them to escalate it with Evri because this appears to be a case of theft.  They didn't seem bothered - Refunded me and told me to go back to Evri and escalate it with them? So - Is there any way to compel Evri to conduct a proper investigation with this driver?  Search for my parcels? I have quite a lot of deliveries handled by Evri (not out of choice) - They used to have a fantastic chap and I rarely had any issues.  He has been replaced by a new guy and I believe the route is handled by this same guy who I believe has taken my packages.  Naturally, I fear this is going to happen again in the future if no investigation occurs. Appreciate any assistance - Thanks for reading. Al.  
  • 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

Arrow/restons claimform - old Vanquis Card debt - statute barred


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2385 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 not heard anything from Restons since the 16th of June,

where they sent me a letter acknowledging receipt of my "poorly written defence found on numerous consumer websites" and that they were waiting for further instruction from their Clients, Arrow Global.

 

Wow! They really are bullies?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

"poorly written defence found on numerous consumer websites"

 

As are their particulars of claim which are not even CPR compliant

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 months later...

after not hearing anything for 4 months, I received the attached in the post today.

 

Arrow are still contending that the limitations act starts when the default is issued.

Looked at various previous cases and feel I should respond with

REEVES v. BUTCHER. - [1891] 2 Q.B. 509 as well as Swansea City Council v Glass. - [1992] 2 All ER 680

 

As recap:

 

Took out Vanquis card in April 2009.

Last payment made according to SAR from Vanquis: 10th December 2010 (Arrow claim 14/2/2011 - but that was a bounced debit order.)

Restons issued proceedings 30/5/2017

Statute barred defence filed 7/6/2017

Restons sent letter 14/6/2017 saying they're reverting back to client

MCOL confirmed case has been stayed 17/9/2017 as Arrow/Restons never responded to my defence.

Arrow sent attached letter 24/10/2017

 

Any cleverly worded letter I can tell them to bugger off?

If a case is stayed, does the statute barred clock start ticking again?

arrowoct17edit.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any cleverly worded letter I can tell them to bugger off? No need to its a stayed claim....provisional

If a case is stayed, does the statute barred clock start ticking again? No..must be discontinued or struck out

 

But whilst its stayed its not going anywhere ...so as good as statute barred

 

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

Thanks, always get confused between stayed and discontinued.

I'm just going to write back saying it's statute barred, stayed and I have no intention of entering into a payment plan with them.

 

Why ?

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

pointless restons know the score.

 

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

But according to their letter its not Statute Barred ?

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

post 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

post 1...

 

Post 1 what ?

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

seems to be where their information comes from, attached reston letter

they claim the cause of action is the expiry of the default notices 14 days warning.......

 

This was shortly followed up by another letter,

saying I owed them £780 for the Vanquis card, last payment date: 18th January 2011.

 

hence the filing of your alternate sb defence

 

claim was issued 30th may 2017....

 

that's how think it went..

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

Yup, correct. They are claiming SB runs from default date of 29/07/2011, when in fact according to Vanquis SAR results, last payment was made in December 2010. So in effect they have tried to extend the SB date by 7 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you submitted the alternative SB defence that counters the stretching of limitations of time...I think the ICO would allow a delay of at least 6 months to register...possibly 7 so its a close call.

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'm looking more at what the OFT said at the time the contract was running, as well as what the legislation is saying.

A Default Notice, also known as a Regulation 27 notice:

 

Giving of notices of default sums

27. Regulations 28 to 32 shall apply to a notice of default sums given under section 86E of the

1974 Act (notice of default sums) (“the regulation 27 notice”).

28. A regulation 27 notice shall be given to the debtor or hirer by the creditor or owner within 35

days of a default sum becoming payable by the debtor or hirer.

 

In Vanquis copy of the terms and conditions they sent me as part of the SAR I sent them:

 

KEY INFORMATION

 

4.1 If you breach this agreement we may charge you for the following administrative costs:

4.1.1 If we have not received your Minimum Repayment by the repayment due Date, a charge of £12 ("Late Payment Charge")

 

Also:

6.2: Any amount which takes you over your Credit Limit and/or any arrears shown on your monthly statement must be repaid to us in full immediately.

 

So therefore Vanquis are admitting that not paying your minimum repayment/not paying anything over credit limit back immediately, is a breach of contract. Therefore they should have sent me a default notice within 35 days of breach of contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct and all valid argument.....just have to convince the court now...should it proceed.

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

you don't need to lift any stay.

its preparation for IF the fleecers do.

 

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

...This is actually the first time I've read default notices should be issued 35 days after payment was due/breach of contract.
a 'notice of default sums' under s86e, but not a s87 default notice.
Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't matter if they did or not. they don't have to

simply have a comms record that one was sent.

 

BUT..its what the fleecers produces under CCA/CPR or as an exhibit in their WS that's more important

what you hold or don't you keep to yourself!!

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

must be a comms or account log in the sar

there normally is.

vanquish are quite hot on those

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...