Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In essence I am trying to win a loosing battle i take up the 33 % discount on offer me thinks
    • Whose duty?   you can use civil law to pursue the GDPR issue with the police (though, as I’ve stated: it may not do you any benefit).   The court isn’t bound by any duty under GDPR that the police may (or may not) have. I can only repeat, the duty of the magistrates regarding verdict is “is the offence proven beyond all reasonable doubt?”. They can’t, and won’t, be influenced by the GDPR issues at that stage, and you are misguided if you continue to believe that it will make a difference to their verdict.
    • the duty of the police
    • Hi Andy   The following is my WS2 in reply to their WS2, please do let me know if i need to mention/amend/add anything to it, the attachments are in my previous post #78.   Can i add my costs as this is the second hearing for it?   Also i don't know if this will help but i also have an old Capital One Credit Card which i don't use anymore, so how can i possibly have 2 Capital One Credit Cards as this claim is clearly for the Luma Credit Card....   SECOND SUPPLIMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, will state as follows; I make this second Witness Statement as a supplementary to my first Witness Statement dated 22ndNovember 2019 Page 1-2 and Amended Defence dated 17thDecember 2019 page 3-4 in Exhibit xx1 in response to the claimant’s second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020.    THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT  1. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.     2. The stay was lifted by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 and the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and/or strike out was dismissed.   3. My amended defence was filed and served 17thDecember 2019.    4. I received the Claimant’s Second Witness statement 21stJanuary 2020.   5. It is accepted as per my Amended Defence para 2 insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA Credit Card and not a Capital One Credit Card.    6. The Claimant’s point 23 in their second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020 refers to me providing supporting evidence that my application was for a LUMA Credit Card, and that their position that it is for a Capital One Credit Card. This is for the Claimant to prove it’s a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card, when this matter was heard by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 he also questioned the Claimant’s advocate the same.   7. The Claimant’s point 24 refers to the Reconstituted Capital One Credit Card Agreement in their Exhibit JK1 pages 2-3, that a firm is able to reconstitute a copy of the agreement and that there is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature, then why has an electronic signature and date been applied…regarding the same question by Deputy District Judge Mitchell on the validity of the signature on this Reconstituted agreement to which the claimant’s advocate stated that it may have been an online application, which is not true as it was a signed postal Luma Card Application and not a Capital One Credit Card online application.    8. The Claimant’s point 25 states that they would say that the 16 digit account number in the top left hand corner on the Reconstituted Agreement is now not the account number but a ‘document number’ and that the Account number is on Page 9 of their Exhibit JK1, which is a blank page with my name and a 16 digit Account number on it. The Claimant is backtracking and clearly16 digits are Credit Card/Bank Card numbers.    9.  The Claimant’s reconstituted Agreement has failed to be a true reconstituted version and failed to provide any supporting document to confirm that this claim is for a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card.     10. The evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA 1974 request.  Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.   11. For the reasons set out above I invite this court to strike out the claim and request my costs as litigant in person to be awarded.      Many thanks, Roland 
    • By severe penalty you mean ? criminal record is criminal record right ? isnt it still their duty comply with GDPR albeit Civil
  • Our picks

bigkahuna666

Sixt car hire charging for damage that I didn't do

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 962 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

Dear CAG members,

 

I hope someone here could help us with something urgent. We only have been given 7 days for this.

 

We hired a SIXT car from London for 1 week. When my partner and I collected the vehicle the vehicle was very dirty. I said I didn't mind it, as I didn't want to wait for 30 minutes for the agent to clean it. However, my partner said that we should have them clean it, so we could see the damages that are already present. "Fair point..." the agent said, "...but remember you have paid a premium for zero excess, so it doesn't matter what damages are present already, as any new damage would not be charged to you anyway". We thought great, but let's get it cleaned anyway as it's for mother in law's 60th birthday road trip...

 

After the car was cleaned we were handed the keys back at the booth, told were the agent left it and sent on our way without any further taking note of anything. I was given a receipt that had all the existing damages on there. When we got home to pick up our luggage I noticed a large 10cm scratch on the rear bumper that wasn't on the receipt I've been given. It definitely wasn't us as it looked like a cast concrete bollard got it, or something with similar texture, and we didn't come past any.

 

Anyway, we didn't have time to go back to the hire place to make this known as we had mother waiting at the train station and thought it wouldn't matter anyway as we paid for zero excess.

 

Now, when we returned the vehicle Saturday just gone, the agent (different one this time) asked where we parked, then went to check the vehicle, noted the additional scratch, came back to us and asked me to sign the scratch on his PDA to acknowledge it.

 

I said, we paid for Zero excess, what am I signing here? Will I be charged? He said, no, no, you won't be charged, as you paid a premium, you just need to acknowledge it. So I signed and my partner and I left.

 

Today I had an email from SIXT saying that they are making a claim for the damage and that the online form needs to be filled in and submitted within 7 days. Because I have been registered as the main driver (mother in law was the additional driver) I now have to deal with this insurance claim and I am now worried that once the claim is submitted by SIXT, the insurers will make this known on the whole insurers network, so that next time I am looking to renew my own van insurance I will be hit with a much higher premium. I feel like SIXT have been waiting for someone like us, who they can lure into thinking that any damage unrecorded won't matter, so that they can make a claim for damages later on at my cost.

 

Can somebody please advise what I should do? I was thinking of just writing in the statement that I am not assuming liability for the damage as it was already there.

 

Attached is a screen shot of the form.

Screen Shot 2017-06-06 at 22.09.35.png

Screen Shot 2017-06-06 at 22.12.49.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

simply tell them the damage was there when you took the vehicle

 

 

they will have to prove by photos that it was not


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unfortunately I signed something on the agents PDA on our return to acknowledge the damage. Can I still refuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have drafted an email response to SIXT telling them the course of events and that I am not assuming liability. Furthermore, that I know the damage was there before and that they would have to prove to me in photos that it wasn't.

 

I just wanted to double check that I should send it, even though I put my signature under the agents comment on his PDA on the return of the vehicle. I hope they didn't trick me into assuming liability with that signature. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would doubt it.

 

 

the truth will out..


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...