Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi slick!    On 22 July they said they would refund me £74.07 Theres no DD in place as my membership was a once off payment in November last year.  Hi Dx,    I paid through PayPal last year as a one off payment. 
    • I'm trying to understand it all but I certainly tend to agree with my colleague @dx100uk that it looks as if you may have been taken for a ride. You found an advertisement for a bag on an online sales site. Instead of going through the established procedure of that site, which presumably allows them to recover a commission from the seller you started dealing directly with the seller who is an unknown person to you and of course that allowed the seller to avoid paying the commission. At whose suggestion was it that you went off-site? You then pay by PayPal but instead of logging it with PayPal as a payment for a purchased item, you tell PayPal that it was actually simply a gift or transaction between friends and family. This also allowed the seller to avoid paying a PayPal fee on the money. At whose suggestion was it that you paid in this way?       I don't say that you definitely have been scammed, but it doesn't look very good. This is how it might have happened: after you agreed to take the transaction off-site, so you lost the protection of the established system – and the seller avoided the commission and also avoided the sales site knowing that they had sold their item, you then agreed to pay the seller some money – but not for a purchase – simply as a gift. This has two consequences. Firstly, the seller avoids a PayPal fee and secondly, because PayPal has been misled as to the purpose of the payment, you lose the protection of PayPal if it turns out that you've been scammed or there is some other problem with the transaction. The seller then apparently sent you the parcel and they sent you pictures of a package with your address on it. Separately they sent you a Hermes tracking number – but there is no evidence that the package was actually posted to your address. The seller might simply have taken a picture with your address and sent that to you by way of reassurance – and then changed the label and posted the parcel to themselves but sent you a tracking number which is inaccessible to you and in respect of which you will be prevented from getting any information. All you've seen is a parcel with your address on it. All you've been given is a tracking number which satisfied you for a while until the parcel did not arrive and then when you started to make enquiries, you found that you were unable to access any details referring to the tracking number. Of course the tracking number says that the item was delivered – because maybe it was – but in that case it was delivered to the address on the parcel which might have been the seller's own address – or the address of a friend. I don't want to say that this is definitely how it happened, but it is a plausible scenario. Of course Hermes is an awful lot of parcels – but on the other hand I expect that most of the parcel is that going to Hermes hands are delivered successfully. We only get the bad stories on this forum. I can imagine that Hermes rate of successful deliveries is better than 97% because otherwise people wouldn't simply just hate them, they would go out of business.   We can help you bring a complaint against Hermes if you want. However, on the basis of what you say, the odds are stacked against you but it would be useful to try and find out the address which was associated with tracking number. As far as your apparent willingness to travel hundred and 50 miles to ask for your money back, don't bother. If you did actually go there, are you sure that the seller actually lives at the address that you have been given? What evidence do you have that? Of course if you found that the seller didn't reside at that address then it is slamdunk that you have been scammed. But then what are you going to do? You can try to inform the police but of course it won't get you anywhere. You can inform the sales website – but they will say that you brought it on yourself because you agreed to go off-site. You can inform PayPal – that they will say that because you sent the money which was calculated to avoid their fees, you have lost the protection. If you travelled the 150 miles and found that the seller did reside at that address, do you really think that they are going to hand your money over to you? If they are acting dishonestly then they will simply say that it is nothing to do with them, that they addressed it all correctly and they don't understand what has happened and that this is simply Hermes up to their old tricks. What are you going to do? You simply risk getting into a very nasty argument and depending on how bad it went, you might even find that the police are called and I'm afraid that they would be looking at you – not the seller. Maybe you can answer the questions that I've post above as to who it is who initiated the various ways of doing business.    
    • The legal campaign's going well then. The recount in Wisconsin gave Trump more votes but Biden even more, at a cost of $3m. And a donor to the organisation bringing the failed cases is suing to get his $2.5m back.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
    • Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.
  • Our picks

Hoist Claim Form - TSB Lloyd trustcard Credit Card debt *** Claim Discontinued ***


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No depth or detail needed. Just give it the appropriate heading, details of the claim, etc... and state something like:   "Further to the Order of the Court, dated _________, requiring the C

yes it can be used by the lower courts BUT ...as SR said, it's [p'haps] relevant.....   i added p'hap's as you need to point out it's not in your case, the date of your agreement pre dates c

Assuming the court does not dispense with Notice of Allocation then yes....a witness statement will have to be submitted at a later stage (after allocation) so even though its a formal defence some po

yes it can be used by the lower courts BUT ...as SR said, it's [p'haps] relevant.....

 

i added p'hap's as you need to point out it's not in your case, the date of your agreement pre dates carey and the carey case is not retrospective to pre apr 2007 CCA act changes. this is an important point you need to make amongst the others about carey.

they always throw carey into the mix where they don't have the required paperwork and know it,

 

in your case they must produce the signed agreement for court enforcement regardless to the fact that, poss, under carey, what they have produced might be compliant under the consumer credit act . two totally different things.

  • Like 1

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

My only fear DX is that I have lost a case a couple of years ago relating to a loan agreement from 2003 and their solicitor quoted Carey case to the judge and it was used against me - that time they used a reconstituted agreement for the loan agreement. 

Clearly, that judge did not accept that because my agreement was pre-2007 made it exempt from the Carey judgment.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No not at all. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not even sure if they've used the word "reconstituted" in their WS. But clearly the "t&c" (7 pages) have been added to the "signed application form" at a later date, because they were not included when I first got my response to my CPR/CAA request letters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... it's pretty simple then - the agreement doesn't comply with s.61(1), so is neither properly executed nor enforceable through the courts, by virtue of CCA s.127(3). If they don't bring Carey into it then they cannot rely on it later. Maybe that's what DX was alluding to.

 

Edit to add: admittedly, the use of Carey to support a Claimant's case when they're relying on a recon for enforcement is totally wrong. You should be able to bat it off if you're wise to it.

Edited by shamrocker
Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry....that's because hippo asked the question and I didn't see it wasn't the op....

random questions are p'haps better asked on one's own thread...………………..:frusty:

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
1 minute ago, dx100uk said:

sorry....that's because hippo asked the question and I didn't see it wasn't the op....

random questions are p'haps better asked on one's own thread...………………..:frusty:

 

I was actually referring to your post from last night, DX. i.e. if they're not relying on Carey themselves then don't do them any favours by introducing it for them. 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

too right!

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 am leaving this rather late - let's hope the court has some leniency as I am a lay person defending myself - and also Christmas post.

The address I have for the court is a PO Box Number. But clearly, I know where the court is - as it is in my home town - does this mean I can or cannot "post in person"? I tried to phone them up to ask the question - found I was no.36 in the queue and gave up!! 

Clearly, the general judgment/order does not ask for me to send a copy to claimant - so is it ok to just send it to the court? 

 

Ok, uploaded first attempt. Some advice as to what to add or remove much appreciated. 

Thanks so far for all the valuable advice.

 

I'm also planning on attaching a copy of the illegible form that the claimant has provided - just so that it emphasises it when the judge looks at it. Is that ok?

 

 

witness statement_Hoist_Dec2019_REDACT.pdf

Edited by barafear799
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

you can hand it in to the court .

 

i'll look later.

 

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

 Judgments on Permission to Appeal applications dont usually set precedent.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not a formal defence - its a witness statement as required by the courts N157 you got.

 

5. hoist and rway are the same company

 

the rest until 9 is not really relevant to a WS and is somewhat meaningless.

but everything else onward is very good

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

Its a formal defence as I've already explained...not a witness statement.....the claim has yet to be allocated.

 

Edit your statement of truth...its not a witness statement

 

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Its a formal defence as I've already explained...not a witness statement.....the claim has yet to be allocated.

 

Edit your statement of truth...its not a witness statement

 

 

Andy - presumably, Barafear will be given the opportunity to expand upon the points made in the formal defence by way of a conventional witness statement later?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, barafear799 said:

Any advice on my defence please?

Thanks.

 

I think you could say much of that in a quarter of the words, and also achieve more impact.

 

I suppose you were under the impression that it was a witness statement of sorts - I wasn't sure myself tbh.

 

Has Andy advised further back as to the sort of detail you need to include here, and whether you're responding directly to the claimant's WS?

 

Hopefully he'll pop in and clarify it at some point if he hasn't already.

I haven't got time to go reading back through everything right now.

 

You shouldn't really need to write a huge amount to get the key arguments across though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes sorry I got confused as well , I don't think it needs to be too detailed as that will surely be better saved for the WS? don't want to give away whats wrong too early..:lol: they'll have time to conjure up fake stuff again then.

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

Assuming the court does not dispense with Notice of Allocation then yes....a witness statement will have to be submitted at a later stage (after allocation) so even though its a formal defence some points should be retained for later and not all the hand disclosed at this stage.

 

The formal defence should simply respond to the pleaded particulars...with a little more detail than an initial defence but not as in depth as a witness statement.Bear in mind though...thats assuming the court directs that witness statements are submitted...the claimant has already provided a statement even though not ordered to...so they have showed all their hand in advance.

  • Like 1

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a bit waffly and could really be stripped to 1 page...but covers most if not all of the points required.Payments and statements and assignment are irrelevant if you cant produce a copy of of the executed agreement.Anyway.......

 

Replace point 3 with the following.....

 

3. In accordance with District Judes xxxxx Order dated xxxxxx the claimants although not ordered to opted to submit a witness statement which states in its intro that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the draftsperson in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding that they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.

 

And your summary point 9 could be beefed up ..why not conclude with.....

 

Summary

 

19. In an attempt to comply with  the courts  Order dated xxxxxx the cliamants have failed and can only produce an illegible application form with a set of unconnected terms and conditions.

It is impossible to reconstitute a copy of an agreement from 1998 and therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and therefore the agreement doesn't comply with s.61(1) a, so is neither properly executed nor enforceable through the courts, by virtue of CCA s.127(3). Although the claimants statement tries to make up for weakness in disclosure it relies heavily on the balance of probabilities and padding it still lacks the basic requirements of the Consumer Credit Act  legislation required to enforce any agreement..

 

Therefore  by reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the help and advice so far.

 

Given I'd left things rather to the last minute, I attempted to hand deliver my letter to the court (in the evening on drive home from work) - but no letter box at court to deliver letter (the actual address is a PO Box). 

Fortunately, I managed to get someone to hand it in the next day (last Thursday) during the day - so hopefully it's ended up on the right desk. 

 

I await the next stage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Andyorch changed the title to Hoist Claim Form - TSB Lloyd trustcard Credit Card debt *** Claim Discontinued ***

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...