Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to be sure it is a N279. not that they pull any underhand stunts of course   but we have seen it. your bal is now £0 but we'll still attend court as you'll probably not as we've said we've closed the account and we'll get a judgement by default. dx  
    • Sorry, last bit They had ticked that they wanted the application dealt with without a hearing, so is there any relevance that a date and time to attend said hearing has been sent out ?
    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
  • 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

LCS DCA and small E-ON elec bill, fees have doubled the debt -big principle!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1869 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

Around 3 years ago I stopped renting a small lockup+office for temporary storage following retirement, taking care of all utility Co. bills in the process - or so I had thought.

 

I recently had a letter from LCS, Leeds, chasing a final elec bill from then. 

 

I replied that nothing had been left outstanding, and I would be taking it up with e-on direct.

 

e-on subsequently provided a replacement bill for me to compare with my papers from then, and it appears that the bill was a legitimate final-bill on termination of supply - I had simply overlooked to ask for a final bill from them, had taken care of others properly but not e-on on an oversight.

 

I had a redirect in place with Royal Mail, however never received an e-on bill or reminders before it finished after 12 months.

 

The bill amount was £41 and a few pennies, LCS is after £79 which presumably includes £38 admin charge.

 

I have complained to e-on who have advised that as the case is now with LCS I have to deal with/pay them not e-on, and that it includes a fee to them for dealing.

 

I have written to LCS rejecting a 93% increase and requesting they waive it.

 

I have no trouble paying a genuinely overlooked bill, and even an odd fiver maybe for writing some letters and making a few calls to find me after this time. But £38 on £41?!

 

 

So then ...

 

 

It is actually a piddling little bill but a massive principle!

 

Ordinarily I'd just settle and avoid wasting time chasing things around, but this admin-charge excuse for loading all sorts bills etc really sticks in my throat! 

 

Hasn't there been some formal movement/expose recently (with Banks doing the same thing I seem to think?) that dumped a ton of rocks on the inflationary use of so-called admin charges like £25 for an automatically-generated Bank letter for example? 

 

So, is anyone able to point me toward any rulings etc arising from what I am sure I remember as a big slap on the wrist for financial institutions and some others, over their heavy-handed and unreasonable inflating of admin charges?

 

Also, I have done a search on LCS here first before posting this, and there are a few appearances but nothing from which to judge whether they conduct themselves pretty sensibly, or are yet another of the total cowboys out there ...  is anyone familiar with them?

 

I'll probably just pay the original-bill amount because they are entitled to that, and leave them to whistle for anything more, but alongside that I'd like some knowledge of any useful industry-legislation or policy guidelines or even new codes of practise/standards for when they then start to make veiled threats.

 

If anyone can help along those lines I'd be appreciative, thanks.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hannay100
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to LCS DCA and small E-ON elec bill, fees have doubled the debt -big principle!

you are under no legal obligation to pay any unlawful penalty fess.

LCS are total cowboys and have always been so.

they are a powerless dca and NOT BAILIFFS.

nothing they can do to you.

 

 

 

 

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

send a cheque to eon with the reference number etc and if they return it then you owe nothing as they will have failed to mitigate the debt.

If it is a business contrcat it may well be that they can add fees to the bill wich they couldnt with a domestic tariff but as you will ahve paid off the bill then the third party dca cant sue you for their fee because you have no contract with them and there has been no legal assignment of the debt.

they are relying on you paying up, that is all but sometimes stupidity intervenes and they become stubborn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ericsbrother, useful thoughts and options! 

 

Since coming back to find your additions I have in fact followed similarish paths - I went to e-on's payment portal to pay the legitimate bill direct - with which I have no argument.

 

The process wouldn't complete and a window opened offering an apology and asking that I call the customer support number and someone would take my payment.

 

The Agent online was surprised at first that she couldn't put the payment through, but then reviewed the details and advised that my user account from that property/time was no longer active (Duh!), that the recent copy bill was sent simply to validate LCS's claim/involvement, that the bill was therefore not *live* nor linked to any active/accessible customer-account on her system, and that my dealings - whatever I intended to do - would have to be with LCS.

 

So I advised e-on that I was happy to settle what had been shown to be a legitimate bill, and that I would make payment of precisely just the bill-amount to the nominated LCS account as required to do, via a PayPoint using cash - which I did shortly after.

 

I have notified LCS that they are holding e-on's money and that e-on is aware, also that their fee-for-acting is wholly unacceptable and no further payment to them will be made.

 

I expect they will rattle their cage for a bit, but fundamentally they have nowhere to take anything ... unless you or anyone know otherwise???

 

Thanks again for the further advice/recommendations, apologies for missing them until just now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Hannay100
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...