Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
        • Like
      • 160 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

Arrows/Restons stayed Claim M+S credit card debt - Application to lift Stay


Phantom943
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2277 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

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ah! you filed an embarrassed defence:mad2:

no wonder,

 

so this time follow our tried and trusted method eh?

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

The claim was defended on the basis no defence could be entered as there was a lack of documentation to back up the claimants claim and none were included in the claim.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Seasons greetings all.

I have some work to do this week in assembling a defence for this matter.

Starting with the original Application for credit, im looking for people's views on this.

The document can be found in post 9 and is page ten of the attached PDF.

 

Im particularly looking for views on whether or not this is enforceable as my thrust of arguement will be that it does not include the prescribed terms and conditions within the four corners of the document.

 

Is there anything else which could constitute a defect?

and how do i go about setting this out in document form.

 

Many thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

post 22 for a start

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

Many thanks.

They have provided two sets of what they say are T&C's my point will remain they are not contained within the four corners of the application form.

 

No notice of assignment,

from memory i think thier WS points to theres suficient information contained within other documents,

 

im going to be making a big point that their agent went to court and stated that the docs were available,

just not on the day

then back tracked a little and was in the process of saying it takes time to produce, at which point the Judge stopped her.

 

I'm looking for a nice choice of words to suggest that 13 months from request is reasonable amount of time in which to have supplied these and they havent or have witheld them for whatever reason. Some help with suitable words would be great.

 

The point about authorised payments.... this would of been payplan or similar i wasnt involved in that aspect and the other half has no recollection of what the arrangements would of been. Again soem suitable words may be hellpful if its thought this avenue is worth following.

 

I saw a thread regarding costs, im unable to find it again but there did appear to be some good argeuments against their costs, if someone canb recall the thread and point me in the right direction that would be helpful.

 

Theres also contained within their WS references to Default notice, we are sure there was no default notice sent to us or indeed a termination notice, again pointers on how to cover this aspect may be helpful.

Many thanks once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are not 2 sets of T&C's in their WS?

 

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

“Other half opened a M&S account in September 1989.”

 

 

The agreement is subject to the CCA 1974 before it was amended in 2006, if the agreement does not comply with the statutory requirements of containing all the prescribed terms within the ‘4 corners’ of it, then you can rely upon s.127(3) of the 1974 Act before it was amended and the authority Wilson v First County Trust, House of Lords decision on this point, where it was held that such an agreement was irredeemably unenforceable against the debtor.

s.127(3) of the 1974 Act was repealed by the amendments in 2006!

Check your own records of the account statements and compare them with the amount stated as arrears in the default notice, if they are not the same, then the default notice is not accurate and therefore invalid.

Bear in mind that before the 1974 Act was amended the time limit to remedy the breach stated in the default notice was 7 days (it’s 14 days now since 2006).

As they haven’t complied with your s.77/78 request under the CCA, they are not entitled to enforce the agreement, although they will probably comply with it now after the recent hearing.

The PPI on the agreement is a relevant and material issue, because PPI is a fraud on the consumer (it was never “mis-sold”), this means that the agreement is a prohibited article under ss.1.7(b)(i) & 1.8(d) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as it has been used in connection with fraud contrary to s.1 Fraud Act 2006, in your case as the agreement is dated 1989, the PPI is deception under the Theft Act 1968.

As the agreement has been assigned, the Claimant is recognised as a creditor under the 1974 Act and therefore he is legally responsible for the PPI on the agreement and liable to pay it all back to you.

Work out how much PPI is due back to you and counterclaim for it.

The illegality principle applies to the agreement and the court (no court in the jurisdiction) can assist the Claimant on his claim:

The illegality principle – the law

The rule stated by Lord Mansfield CJ in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, 343, is a rule of public policy that;

“The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio ["no action arises from deceit"]. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own standing or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa ["from an immoral cause"], or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted.”

In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, Lord Toulson (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson and Lord Hodge agreed) said:

[1] “No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act.” So spoke Lord Mansfield in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, 343, ushering in two centuries and more of case law about the extent and effect of this maxim. He stated that the reason was one of public policy:

“If, from the plaintiff’s own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the advantage of it; for where both are equally in fault, potior est conditio defendentis.”

[120] The essential rationale of the illegality doctrine is that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system (or, possibly, certain aspects of public morality, the boundaries of which have never been made entirely clear and which do not arise for consideration in this case). In assessing whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, it is necessary a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim, b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact and c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts. Within that framework, various factors may be relevant, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the court is free to decide a case in an undisciplined way. The public interest is best served by a principled and transparent assessment of the considerations identified, rather by than the application of a formal approach capable of producing results which may appear arbitrary, unjust or disproportionate.

Happy New Year

Haunter

Link to post
Share on other sites

and neither of those are the full set of either T&C's

they are each pages long.

and if you look at the little numbers around the end

[cant clearly see in the scan]

neither date code related from the correct time period

so their CCa return is BOGROLL

made up from a couple of old sheets from their filing cabinet.

and an application form devoid of all the require prescribed terms.

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

the defence in this thread

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?483337-MMF-Moriarty-claimform-old-Mr-lender-PDL&p=5087051#post5087051

gives you the bones of what you need to state

bar the PAPDC bit

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

I will be drafting the defence throughout the day.

Two quick questions.

 

1. A 1989 M&S Storecard/ Charge Card: what type of credit agreement would of been inferred would it be a rolling credit account or credit card at the point of inception.

 

2. PPI: would this forma part of the same application or be treated as a wholly sperate matter. Im assured nothing re PPI was ever sent only verbal information by the individual filling o

Link to post
Share on other sites

store charge card changed to a credit card later on

 

PPI is nothing to do with your claim whatsoever

 

that was levied by M+S not a DCA.

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

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

Interesting,

however this may not be of much use to me as i cannot be sure that the card was changed

and even if it were i have no evidence it was changed or indeed when that would of been.

 

My gut feeling is that it was changed hence the rather vague details provided regarding transactions etc,

which only show debits and credits to the account and are watermarked M&S bank, not M&S Fincial services.

 

Another issue

ive noted is that the application form appears to have been over stamped with a serial number,

however thsi number does not reflect any part of the account number,

in effect there is no account number on the application form/ agreement either before or after inception.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you entered into the agreement 14th Oct 1989 it was a store card...they only converted to CC around 2003 I think.

 

https://bank.marksandspencer.com/explore/about-us/history/

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17670803

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

which all proves its bogroll

those document other than a sig are nothing to do with me.

 

shame [or not] about the statements

as until it was a credit card

you would only of been able to make purchases in house to M+S

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

Looking at the application form with regards to T&C's. Post No9 page ten.

 

In the top right hand box it makes reference to "see over" relating to lost or stolen cards.

 

The purported T+C's supplied (there were two)

are obviously not a photocopy of the original as the print is far too clear

but does corresppond to the section mentioned on the application form.

 

My question is then,

does this confirm that the T&C's were not within the four conrers of the form,

or could it be successfuly argued that they were supplied at the the point of inception.

 

In any case

my point would be they are not a copy of the actual form or part of at the point signing the application form.

 

I note also that the supplied copy is not complete

as there is clearly parts missing from both the top and bottom of the form,

but is this enough to state it is incomplete.

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever they have disclosed will be questionable.....not going to have a copy of an agreement/T&Cs from 1989.

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

Theyve sent two copies one has the date 1989 the other 2004.

 

Agreement with your signature ?

 

And further agreement for a store card or a credit card ?

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

Apologies for any confusion.

We have a photocopy of the application form which is signed by both parties from 1989, they have provided two copies of T&C's one of which they say is from 1989 The other they say is from 2004, though interestingly they are saying that these T&C's were in place when the account was terminated in 2011

Link to post
Share on other sites

And is this application from 1989 for a store card or credit card...a world of difference....the T&Cs are irrelevant if not for the correct type of agreement.

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

The application was for Marks and Spencer Account Shopping.

The form then goes on to say its a Marks and Spencer Account Card.

 

I have just noted a few more points,

The 1989 document only mentions Budget Card and Charge Card

no mention of M+S Account card as per the application form.

 

Thinking more widely,

if these supposed T&C's were on the back of an application form,

then the account holder did not receive them as they formed aprt of the application which was sent away to be signed off.

There is absolutely no evidence at all that they were sent out an any point thereafter.

 

As for the 2004 T&C's

there does appear to be a discrepancy,

the document correctly identifies the account type as being ACCOUNTCARD (note the typo)

then goes on to say

"the clauses below are taken from the M&S Account card terms and conditions.

The definitions and other terms and conditions are set out in full in your copy of the terms and condition.

 

Theres then a clause relating to interest and variations of interest which says

"Interest is chargeable as explained in clause 7" only problem is clause 7 in the supposed 1989 document does not relate to interest.

 

i suspect very strongly the 2004 document has been made up,

particularly regarding the Typo's and some of the strange spacing used in setting out a number of paragrapghs.

 

Neither document has an M&S logo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...