Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 584 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

Well not actually ripped off, I have not paid them.

 

I hold my hand up to being a bit slack here.

A tenant complained of a broken lock on a patio door.

I googled and called a locksmith in Reading without doing my usual due diligence as I am busy refurbishing two flats.

 

Locksmith arrives, does the job, and phones me.

He wants £281, ask him for a v.a.t. invoice and he gets nasty, threatens to "break my door" or sit in.

I threaten police action and he calms down, will ask office to phone me.

 

That afternoon he phones me, office has reduced the cost to £181 including v.a.t.

Ask for an invoice. Invoice arrives next day for £254.00

 

Query this with head office, (a one man micro company), and next day they send a revised bill for £181.

 

I am now negotiating a further discount on the basis that, if I make a complaint to the Police about Reading locksmith's threats it could hurt their business.

I have told him I shall be contacting Trading Standards. FWIIW,

I found a similar complaint of this company over-charging on MSE.

 

I have been away from this board for some time and have forgotten the rules,

can I name and shame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you asked someone to do a jb without asking how much will it be, and you get nasty about the bill.

 

Look at it from the locksmiths point.

Customer phones with a job

You do the job

You tell customer how much

Customer refuses to pay.

You would get angry too.

Your taking food out of his children's mouths.

 

How about you come work for me for a month and ill pay you for two weeks.

 

Pay the £181 and move on.

 

You can name and shame if you want to but remember.....

 

You had a choice, you employed the company's services.

 

Also you might feel what you wrote as a bargaining tool or leverage....

.. A lawyer may see it as blackmail if he took you to court for non payment.

 

Think carefully before you act please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It matters not if he has form.

You empoyed his services

You didn't do enough research on them.

That's your fault not his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know all that, but his remedy is to take me to court, not threaten to "break my door" or stage a sit in. Some trades are known for overcharging, that is why TDA, SOGA, DSR, CPUTR el al were all enacted.

 

 

I regret that I find your contribution unhelpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are both wrong (you & the locksmith).

You should have got an estimate / agreed a maximum price before he started work.

 

He shouldn't have threatened to break anything or sit in.

Going to court was not his only viable and lawful option.

He should have removed the new lock, which was still his property as you hadn't paid for it ......... and then decided if he wanted to go to court for his labour / call-out charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazza, no doubt the original poster will Say your unhelpful as well.

People do not like it when its pointed out they are as much to blame.

Pay the bill or he may take you to court. From what I've read he is not charging you a lot compared to others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have got an estimate / agreed a maximum price before he started work.

 

 

I agree, but I own several properties and am always prepared to pay a reasonable price. If people treat me fairly I reciprocate.

 

I would suggest, from the horrendous reviews on TrustPilot, that he does not treat people fairly. Have you ever watched "Rogue Traders"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would of suggested looking him up on trust pilot before employing his services.

Shame you didn't have the foresight to practice what you have preached

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazza, no doubt the original poster will Say
your
unhelpful as well.

 

The chances of committing such a gross grammatical error are indeed slim Mr Bush.

 

Pay the bill or he may take you to court

 

That is precisely what I am hoping for. I am no stranger to the SCC, with five wins from five appearances, I do not fancy his chances.
It is time rogue traders such as he were taught a lesson.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chances of committing such a gross grammatical error are indeed slim Mr Bush.

 

I'm oft minded of the adage that "if they have to resort to criticising grammar or syntax, they've run out of substantive argument"......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can assure you that there is much more where that came from Bazza, (substantive argument that is). I do not usually resort to grammar/spelling flames, but the Sergeant set himself for it. I rather think that he is trying to box above his weight.

 

He seems totally unaware of the nature of this company. Facebook, Trust Pilot and Money Saving Expert all contain damning reviews, and allegations of overcharging, surely they cannot all be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it like this. You asked some one to do a Job, they do the job, you don't like the price. A court might take the view that you, by accepting the work to be done, you have agreed the final invoice irrespective if you knew what the amount would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

What we really need clarification on is when the Locksmith called you back and informed you of the cost £281 was it mentioned as either a Quote or an Estimate as there are differences between them.


How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for a job to be done and it was done, The plumber phoned me two hours later and demanded payment of £231 plus v.a.t.. I asked him to send me an invoice and the threats started.

 

I then started investigating the company and found a series of appalling reviews on Trust Pilot , Yell, Facebook, and Money Saving Expert, no doubt there are more elsewhere.

 

Normal behaviour in such circumstances is to attempt to resolve the situation by negotiation, failing that go to ADR, and finally, if all else fails, go to court and let a judge decide. This case is somewhat different, threats were used and there appears to be serial over-charging and breaches of the Trade Descriptions Act by the company.

 

The MD of the company has failed to negotiate, (I have offered him£140.00 in full and final settlement, and his reply was to threaten me with court. I have no fear of County Court, I have won five cases out of five, and have some good stuff to show the judge.

 

Some of you are correct in telling me what I should have done, but I did not. Wrongly I gave the company the benefit of the doubt. Mine is an honest business, and I expect the same from those companies with whom I deal. If I am cheated I use my knowledge of consumer law to obtain satisfaction.

 

I own several rental properties and engage plumbers, electricians, etc., several times a year. I have never encountered this sort of thing before in 40 years of trading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you pluck your figure of £140 out of the air? You were prepared to pay £181 + VAT before so why not now? Is it a hurt feelings discount you're looking for?

 

The way this reads now - after removing what is essentially handbags (or manbags for the sake of equality) - is that you agreed a price with them after works were carried out, they eventually invoiced you for that price and you're now refusing to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked for a job to be done and it was done, The plumber phoned me two hours later and demanded payment of £231 plus v.a.t.. I asked him to send me an invoice and the threats started.

 

Hang on! It started off being a locksmith, and now it's a plumber?

 

I googled and called a locksmith in Reading

 

.......

 

Locksmith arrives, does the job, and phones me.

 

I own several rental properties and engage plumbers, electricians, etc., several times a year. I have never encountered this sort of thing before in 40 years of trading.

 

I've never encountered (in my 40+ years) a locksmith morphing into a plumber 2+ days later either....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were prepared to pay £181 + VAT before so why not now?

 

 

Where did I say that? In any case that figure included vat.

 

 

Bear in mind that locksmiths undergo training of between a few days and less than a year. It is hardly rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that there are three issues here, admittedly connected, but need to be treated separately.

 

First potentially criminal behaviour , the OP claims that he/she was threatened by this locksmith. This an issue surrounding Criminal Law, as such is not a Civil issue. Report the alleged instance to the police and let them sort it out.

 

Secondly the issue of “I am now negotiating a further discount on the basis that, if I make a complaint to the Police about Reading locksmith's threats it could hurt their business.” My view is that this is unethical and potentially criminal behaviour on the part of the OP, and he/she should cease this course of action immediately. Irrespective of the alleged action of the locksmith, to try and extort money or services through the use of threats is in breach of Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968.

 

 

Finally the OP refusal to pay for worked carried out by this locksmith. As the OP, by his/her own admission did not have a quote prior to commencement of work I see that there he/she has little choice but to the pay the invoiced amount in full. If payment is not made a can see that the OP would be taken to court, which would likely increase the overall liability as costs would most likely be incurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are being naughty, I mentioned plumbers as an analogy.

 

Ohh, after I posted I wondered if autocorrect had changed a mis-spelling of "owner" to "plumber", but you have confirmed that wasn't the cause.

 

You've "used plumber as an analogy"?

 

Funny that, it looked like you were describing the events again, but slipped and made up "plumber" instead of saying "locksmith".

 

Why would you even need to use an analogy when you say you were describing actual events............. that doesn't make sense, and as Judge Judy says ............

 

Are you sure it is me being naughty?. People can make up their own mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you GSi416, (Rover?) I agree with para 2 it was unethical and I have decided to report the matter to the police and inform Trading Standards.

 

My position is, if chummy rejects my offer of £140.00 IFAFS I shall pay a lesser amount (s ay £125) into his bank account and he can sue me for the balance if it wants to. I am no stranger to the CC and my hobby is helping people battle the private parking cowboys. I very much doubt that HH will view his behaviour with approval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

worse than that, if it is viewed as a B2B matter the court may well decide the OP's behaviour is enough to grant a full coats recovery order and will certainly take the contract at face value as agreed at the outset. If the locksmith is reading this thread then your record in court is about to change

If the OP was a little old lady with a problem I would be amongst the crowd baying for the blood of the locksmith but if you are in business then you cant afford to be "too busy" to miss the vital details that save you or cost you dear. The behaviour of the locksmith after the event is though, irrelevant.

I see it like this. You asked some one to do a Job, they do the job, you don't like the price. A court might take the view that you, by accepting the work to be done, you have agreed the final invoice irrespective if you knew what the amount would be.

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...