Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • 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/Shoos SPR claim - 1997 M+S card debt **CLAIM DISMISSED**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2330 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

There aren’t any terms and conditions, they haven’t supplied any.

Just this application form.

 

On their new court document listing the documents they are submitting to court they refer to this as follows:-

 

Brief description of document or other evidence - Copy of application form

 

Relationship to case - Credit agreement between Marks & Spencer Financial services and the respondent dated 1997

 

Sorry do you want all the statement pages as well,

they just list payment dates and transactions over the years,

and am a bit concerned Shoosmiths will be able to identify me from them

unless I remove dates and amounts in which case they will be blank.

Let me know and I’ll upload them if you’ll advise it is ok

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

load of bogroll

 

what date is the next hearing?

 

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

Thurs 14th December. But Shoosmiths have requested I respond prior to the hearing date.

 

Is it sufficient to tell Shoosmiths just I intend to defend, or do I need to go into detail .

 

Asking because sheriff in first directions said he expected us to do our best to resolve this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

refer to the orders of the sheriff

 

use an incidental application form

copy to shoo's

 

the claimant has failed to comply to the sheriffs' orders dated xxxxx

 

produce a signed copy of the consumer credit agreement:

the enclosed doc is an application form that lacks the prescribed terms ref:s61(1)(a) consumer credit Act 1974

 

no default notice.

 

etc etc

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

Sorry to be stupid here,

but am I filling in C1 which asks what I want the sheriff to do?

 

And am I asking him to further request Shoosmiths to produce the documents,

or dismiss the case as they haven’t provided them after all this time?

 

Don’t want to jump the gun here, and mess things up.

 

Hope to post up my response tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO i'd request both

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

sure check it later

well done

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

a few notes

their C1 - they are talking porky pies to create smoke and mirrors

1st box - copy of an application form

2nd box relationship - credit agreement - it is not its an APPLICATION FORM

 

failure to supply any relevant T&C's too make what they claim is the signed agreement even more useless

 

 

shame you used a fee paying debt management company too!

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

Thanks DX .

Do you think what I have put on my Incidental Form is sufficient to send off,

I wasn’t sure if it was acceptable in C1 to ask the Sheriff if they can’t supply within 14 days to dismiss the case.

 

Also wasn’t sure if I had given enough info in my reasons C2 in explaining why the application form wasn’t acceptable and asking the sheriff to dismiss.

 

But it would be great if the Sheriff accepted my request, although the way my luck is running just now I don’t expect he/she will.

 

I also have to post the form, with 2 trips to the Post office, as I have to show proof of posting to Shoosmiths in the copy I send to the court.

 

Can’t use email because the last email I sent to the court they lost , and I had sent it because the last directions they sent from the Sheriff had a major error in them.

I don’t have much confidence in the court clerks to be honest.

 

I didn’t use a fee paying debt management company , we started with CCCS now called Stepchange , then paid M&S direct.

 

No payments were ever made direct to Arrow, M&S must have transferred them to Arrow for a few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

says euro debt in one of those letters

 

anyway

 

add in the bits I've added

 

or emphasise it

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

Much appreciated DX, I’ve added your smoke and mirrors comment and put further emphasis on the fact they are trying to call an application form with no prescribed terms a Credit Agreement.

 

Will be posted to Shoosmith tomorrow, and Court on Friday. Will wait to see what they come back with next. Thnx again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yesterday I received a letter from the sheriff in response to the IOA to say he continues to consider the case and both parties to arrive in court in good time next week.

 

Today I received a letter from Shoosmiths by recorded delivery to say their client has taken a commercial view of matters and has instructed them to dismiss the case, on the basis that the action is dismissed with an award of no expenses due to or by either party. They have also enclosed a copy of a form 9E Abandonment notice which they will Lodge with the court.

 

Assume if I don’t get this confirmed by the court during next week, I still need to attend. But feeling hopeful just now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scan it

Email it to the clerk

Ring Monday to tell them

 

You won!!

 

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

Thnx DX it hasn’t quite sunk in yet !,!

 

Was gearing up for Shoosmith to argue the terms would have been on the back of the form and had found an interesting judgement on that subject, albeit a county court one.

 

Thanks again for all your support and advice throughout.

 

And a donation on its way shortly to CAG.

 

It was great knowing you were there,

willing to point me in the righ direction and keeping me right on responses to the court.

 

Without it I don’t know I would have had the nerve to attend a court and challenge this.

I know you are involved helping many other people in similar circumstances ,

and wish you and them every success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't matter if they were on the back

it was an application form.

it was not a credit agreement.

 

whats that now shoo's 7 nil to me if you are reading CAG...

 

tnx the donation..:yo::yo:

 

there no harm in asking the clerk about your costs as well

if there is any thing you can do.

they need to be punished for making all these speculative claims

but they never are.

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...