Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am hoping for some help. I noticed some readers state they have successfully challenged leaseholder charges. I am now being charged in excess of £2000 leasholder service charges on a garage in Kent. It is a simple garage. As it is a  non-residential the normal tribunal routes to appeal  the garage charges are unavailable. I requested an explanation of the charges. All the service company have provided is a list of charges nothing to say how these charges relate to my garage which has never been visited or maintained. I am charged management fees, account preparation fees, audit fees. The leaseholder forwarded my account to SLC solicitors three years ago. Three years ago I sent SLC a cheque to avoid legal action. SLC did not bank the cheque as they agreed that the charges are unreasonable. However the management company continued to issue charges on the garage. SLC have issued legal action again. I would love to hear from readers who have successfully challenged unreasonable leasehold service charges.
    • i can't find a lost scottish court claim for a speculative invoice... likewise i haven't seen any gauge of an increase in PPC's issuing court claims in scotland since the much trumpeted POFA changes in Scotland - if they even happened or changed anything   it pers concerns mea bit  more as you say you've read up....focussing on POFA.. that you still appear not to have understood the very 1st basic principle of PPC things ..they are not FINES.   if they did get sheriff officers to issue a claim, and again there is no data to indicate any increase at all in them doing so, bar a handful of cases you can count on one hand in the years before, there would be plenty of chances to fold .
    • Hi This is the email i sent in December.     Hi  I do apologise but I must say going by your list of varying case studies upon your website i think you are wrong. There are various examples there of let us say loans that have have recently completed, whereby resolutions have been found, they were not deemed out of time just because the policy was entered into at the start of the loan, some +10yrs earlier. What concerned me more was the DMP and thus the CMP & CML membership were only recently concluded.. The comment you have made that PayPlan sold me the two plans I've complained about in October 2007 is somewhat mute as policies were still live within the last 6yrs with regard to payments toward them , even within the last 3yrs , if fact. I would also like to mention. "letters in 2015 from Payplan should have alerted me there was an issue," is again pretty mute as I was not aware then I could complain of mis-selling, there is no evidence I can find before 2017 anywhere that CMP & CML were even reclaimable.! I would also like to point out there is a diff between CMP & CML, they state they are both membership schemes, they are NOT. I also believe the above further answers his exceptional circumstance question...there are none as I believe I don't need any as I am NOT out of time! For the reasons above I don't agree with your decision and would like to have this looked at by an ombudsman as stated in your previous email. Kind Regards.     I will post the attachment shortly.   
    • Ah I see, I did kind of give them a notice to pay up in 7 days before taking things further but they refused and instead asked for the next instalments through a solicitor letter. I was thinking whether it would be better and more cost saving if I instead take this to a small claims court as oppose to the big courts, I know that is what you suggested at the begining. I was just not sure if I had a case since I unfortunately signed the new variation agreement.   
    • Yes, I expect that the mutual agreement was based on "we'll give you this amount of money but part of the deal is that you agree not to talk about what happened during this mediation". I suppose that either party can insert any demands they want in the mediation process and it's up to the other party to accept it or to walk away and then to go on to court
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 491 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

3 minutes ago, Monty Putron said:

if no letter of claim

OK will take stock, see where we are with the letters.

 

If I can find that they have gone PAP I will send the pro-forma letter in 5.

 

Will update in morning, I am sure I am missing some mail.

 

What if I don't have a PAp that they've issued?

sit on your hands

 

if you want to help others

scan EVERYTHING you've ever received up to ONE multipage PDF

read upload

 

it would be very useful

and if everyone did this

it would help everyone.

 

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

Here we go. ML PAP located. My reasons to dispute are many though, so if I just put no documentation provided as the reason I am not prejudicing anything. Scanning 2 docs into 1 is tricky but will upload asap.

 

 

Here is their FD rec'd 27 08. Initial contact was on 11 08.

MOR 2708 FD.pdf

 

Here is their FD rec'd 27 08. Initial contact was on 11 08, here's that one.

MOR 11 08 1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

for what reason?

 

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 hours ago, Monty Putron said:

This firm are now in the bargaining stage where they hawk respondent's details around in the hope of persuading one of their 'clients' to launch an action.

not sure who or what you are referring too here?
 

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

not sure how many more times in various ADBC/moriarty PAP LOC topics here I have to keep saying this....

 

Moriarty are not debt buyers, they are not a DCA.

 

they are solicitors that can only do something when they are told to and legally engaged to do so, by their stated client.

 

they have no legal powers whatsoever to willy nilly do anything without being told to as they are not the legal owner of the debt and never can be.

  • 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

Should they issue a claim without issuing a PAP then any defence must contain the following paragraph.....which has an adverse effect on costs .

 

1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 2

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 Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have missed a letter/letters.

 

I got a Moriarty text message referring to a different reference number than from the PAP I already replied to.

 

Should I also 'Pap-reply' to this reference number just in case?

They may be trying to backdoor CCJ me.

 

I have received nothing in the mail, but then my mail does go 'missing' a lot from my flat's shared mailbox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does the text state in full ?

 

Reference number error ?

 

Andy

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 Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

you should be blocking all text/emails.

they have your correct address from the other pap reply.

so they will be in hot water should they try a backdoor ccj on anything now...

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

But it still would not be a backdoor claim

You'd not miss every letter nor a claimform from the court

Be pretty unlucky if you did

 

 

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
2 hours ago, Monty Putron said:

Dear Mr X Please contact Moriarty law on xxx quoting ref xxxx

 

Its the 2nd text msg I've had, the first one had the right ref number, which I ' pap

replied' to

 

 

So they have yet to actually send you in writing a Pre Action Protocol and Letter of Claim ?

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 Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right...your post reads like you had two text messages.

 

" Its the 2nd text msg I've had, the first one had the right ref number, "

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 Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did get two text messages.

 

1) I got a written pap and I sent a written standard pap reply

2) Then I got the first text asking to contact them. It quoted a ref number that checked out. Ignored.

3) The second text came just last week, with a different ref number that was not the one on their written pap or 1st text. Ignored and blocked.

 

Just worried about that second text as it has a different ref number that I don't recognise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrelevant unless they send a further PAP with that reference number.

  • 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 Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...