Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • not sure what you think is going on but they are nothing to do with any official court forms... it's merely a process and fleecing debt buyer must go thru should they be thinking of requesting northants bulk issue a speculative court claim on their behalf.   just send it as is dont change it.   as for d: just put .....the debt purchaser has yet to provide any or all of the required documentation.   dx    
    • if you type in auxillis is our search top right in the red banner you'll see this con over auxillis and supposed courtesy cars , but it's not its an HP agreement is well known here.   9/10 it's ends up with you fronting a court claim out of your own pocket for auxillis against the other parties insurance company that you don't stand a chance of ever winning for a claim against them for the excessive HP hire car costs you got scammed with.   may i be frank that whomever told you looking at the circumstances of you incident that you'd ever win a claim and it not be 50/50 was wrong.   you were in a narrow road in a housing estate with cars parked down one side on a blind sweeping bend exceeding the speed you should have been doing for the stated weather conditions. running into someone's side that pulls out infront of you in such an area and it being where you live too so you know it well would never be the other parties sole fault even without the poor weather. if this were to go to court IMHO you would lose.   sadly shows you were not p'haps driving with due care and attention. hence your ins companies stance.
    • I did see not to give those details out, but as these could wind up official court forms, I dont want to be on the wrong side of it.   the areas in boxes D and I, is it ok to say ""refer to appendix A, refer to appendix B"? There s a REALLy long list of "what the hell" I want out of them as this is making zero sense. Not only that, I've got a long list of "this is the hell" I need to send back in the dispute too.
    • the debt has been sold not passed on and yes there is no legislation that prevent a disputed debt being sold.   as for your other questions go read post 4 of that thread again carefully it's all there.   dx  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1388 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 am really new to this but I need some help with a rejected PPI claim from Capital One.

 

I initially had no idea I had PPI but thought id make a claim and see.

 

 

Capital One responded to say I had PPI and were investigating to see whether it was mis-sold.

 

 

I then received a letter today to state that my PPI was rejected because I apparently agreed to it via a telephone call to activate my card.

 

 

It then goes on to state that they are unable to locate a recording of the telephone call however at the time I met the eligibility criteria of the PPI.

 

Can someone please advise me on what I should do next?

How can they prove that it was not mis-sold if they do not have the telephone conversation to prove it?

 

 

They have stated their decision is final

but I feel that the case has been unfairly judged as there is no evidence to support their case.

 

 

Should I send it to Ombudsman?

however, I have read that always agree with the banks.

 

Any advice I can get on this would be really appreciated.

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sisi.

 

I've moved your thread from the Welcome forum to the PPI one and left you a link to follow from there. Please continue posting your questions on this thread. :)

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

usual rubbish from cap1

 

 

the little white sticker that was on the card was not actually necessary to activate the card

it was carefully worded to read that way but it was in-fact there to activate the PPI

and callers were never told it was not to activate the card.

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

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

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...