Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • sounds pretty typical. scan everything up to ONE multipage PDf please follow upload we dont need any statements. dx  
    • Participants can get £50 - but must permanently consent to the retailer using their personal data.View the full article
    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
  • 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
      • 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

Revisited civil claim ***Claim Discontinued ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2099 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

Are you misunderstanding what we asked for? the claimant is the person or entity suing your friend, we dont need to know anything about the friend.

Reason for wanting to know this has been made but perhaps not fully. ONY THE PERSON WHO HAS SUFFERED THE LOSS MAY SUE so if a store then the store can sue. If the claimant is a third party (not to be confused with the solicitors acting for the claimant) then they dont have a right to do so (locus standi) so their claim will fail if this right to be in court is challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Can you send me a message as a pm? I have had thoughts and discussion regarding one of my earlier posts that may have a better result than arguing about quantum for damages. You currently disallow people from mailiing you so I cant just drop it on you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Quick update, after all that it went out in a bit of a whimper.

 

Witness statements sent within the prescribed time but nothing was received, then a notice of discontinuance arrived, thanks again @ericsbrother and for those interested the claimant was £££land

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's clear they used the court system in the hope they trip you up with cpr and win by default,

 

out of interest what would of happened if witness statements are not received within the prescribed time?

 

i could be wrong but i get the feeling they had no intention sending their witness statements and made a decision to quit based on the defence that was submitted, was it that they were never going to be able to prove such a loss for the so called case costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, no WS from the claimant would mean no evidence to challenge hence the respondent could ask for a strike out.

 

 

Can I ask, did any of the recovery companies (RLP/DWF et al) get involved or was this a direct action from the claimant? For the life of me, I cannot see why this store would have followed this action after the case from 2012

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claimant was CRS...not ££££££land ?

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

Claimant was CRS...not ££££££land ?

 

To make clear, £££land was the claimant, CRS was the provider of threatograms, they gave up after 5 letters, then 2 threatograms from £££lands solicitors before they issued the court claim.

 

ps the answer i gave was to this.

 

Can I ask, did any of the recovery companies (RLPicon/DWF et al) get involved or was this a direct action from the claimant? For the life of me, I cannot see why this store would have followed this action after the case from 2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

they did this because they were badly advised or encouraged to by either CRS or the solicitors. Once the push came to the shove the other parties will have hidden behind a wall and then said "that isnt what we advised you to say" when it clearly was. They were all hoping for a quick kill and when they got to see that it would be defended they cut their losses, which at this point would have been more than they could ever gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...