Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks dx and Ericsbrother.   dx We spoke with the court and they confirmed that they have not yet received the documents from CEL on this case. We asked the court if we needed to register with MCOL and were told  "it was not necessary as its all paper from now on" We were also told that the court would not dismiss their case but probably write to CEL and give them seven more days to serve their papers.   Ericsbrother I did some research and found out that S Wilson is Scott Wilson, who is Head of Legal and Compliance at Creative Car Park Ltd. (CCPL) The directors of CCPL are also directors of CEL.  In Fact the MD of CEL is also MD of 23 other companies and I see that most of the people involved are the same bunch in many of the companies.    From my investigation i see that CCPL gets the contracts from car park owners and manages their car parks whilst CEL chases any debts and mainly through litigation.  There are many cases of CEL taking people to court and they appear to be serial litigants.  So as Head of  Legal and Compliance he would be able to sign the writs for CEL.   Quite an interesting excercise doing the research!. we really are up against people who spend the majority of time rightly or ....trying to get money out of people.    I will get back to you as soon as I hear from the court. Thank you all again.   Best/BF    
    • Thanks for clarifying that dx. I'll ignore them for the time being and hopefully they will stop harassing me for payment.
    • Because of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act the matter is purely contractual whoever you proceed against. Proceeding in tort is far more difficult than contract. To a great extent contractual liabilities pretty strict whereas tortious liability is much more difficult to establish. Also, as I have suggested – going against Crampton will put them in conflict with Arrow – no bad thing. Crampton, telling the OP to go against Arrow – is a bit like Currys or PC World telling the customer to complain to Lenovo. It simply passing the buck. Much better that you keep the dispute with the retailer and then it's up to them to complain to their service provider or their own supplier. That leads to an overall improvement in standards by both parties. If you simply proceed against Arrow, then Crampton will never care whether their delivery agents cause damage or not because it won't be the responsibility.       If it is not possible to repair the frame, then Crampton will simply have to cough up for a replacement – and if they refuse then a court will force the issue. Then it's up to Crampton to take it up with Arrow.
    • On a practical note, if you ask any UPVC door/window supplier about the cost to repair, they are more likely to say that's not possible and will quote to replace the door and frame. Depending on the door size and adjacent windows, the cost could be £1,000+ which may be disproportionate, depending on the damage caused.   However, if you search the Web for UPVCdoor frame repairs, you will find specialists that should be able to quote to repair. I would expect the price of this to far lower.
    • I'm probably being dim, but wouldn't it be more straightforward to proceed against the courier who actually directly caused the damage rather than the retailer?  Isn't this really a question of negligence and tortious liability on the part of the courier rather than anything to do with a contractual relationship (to which the OP may or may not be a party)?   The OP is saying that the damage to the freezer has been resolved with the supplier, and I'm really struggling to see how any liability the supplier may have extends to damage caused to the OP's property by a third party courier.   The damage is presumably blatantly obvious (and quite expensive if a PVC frame) and clearly caused by the third party, not the retailer.  I'm not saying that claiming against the retailer is not the way to go - I'm just saying that in the OP's shoes I'd be claiming from the courier, not the retailer.   (The only practical advantage I see of claiming against the retailer is that they'd be more likely not to use this courier again - but I don't think a third-party claim against the retailer is as clear cut as claiming off the courier).
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 307 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

I came a cross and old ppi of £250 with Forward Trust Personal Finance in 1996.

I didnt ask for ppi and didnt realise it had been added until it was too late to do anything, and it was never discussed with me, as it was a one off payment of ppi.

 

I contacted First Direct Bank who took ownership of the above in 1996.

They have replied to my complaint today and said that while they provided the finance for the loan and their name appears on the paperwork, they didnt sell them or the associated finance so they were unable to investigate my claim that the ppi was misold. 

 

They said my loan was arranged by DFS as part of a product purchase and therefore the process of selling both the finance and any ppi was managed by DFS who then passed the paperwork on to them to arrange any finance.

If I had any concerns I should contact DFS direct.

 

Does anyone know if that is what I should do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go after the underwriters of the PPI

no-one else would have been regulated then anyway.

 

 

 


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

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...