Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • But there were exceptional circumstance involved, they must count for something 
    • £1300 is fine. Don't worry about it. Don't worry about the disclaimer. It has no effect. They are trying to introduce a new term into a contract which has already been made. It has no relevance. Even if a certain delay was acceptable, the fact that they have already had your computer for three months and they are now effectively suggesting a further two months that is five months which amounts to about 20% of your period of ownership – is not acceptable. What I'd like to know – and I think is quite important – is what they say in their warranty if the computer is beyond repair. I'm assuming that you are prepared to bring a small claim against them – and that is what we will propose that they fall back on that term – especially if the term proposes that they supply you with a replacement. This would then avoid the problem for you that you would have to accept only a proportion of the purchase price. If you're not prepared to sue them – then frankly there's nothing you can do. If you are prepared to issue a small claim then your chances of success are better than 90%. The risk you if you lose is that you lose your claim fee. If you win then you will recover all of your losses. If you want to start a small claim that we will help you all the way but it will assist enormously if you can find the terms and conditions of the warranty. Have a look at their website and you may find references to it there or at the Currys website. Did you pay for this warranty or was it simply included as part of the purchase price? If you paid, then who did you pay? Did you pay Acer or did you pay Currys?  
    • Not trying to be rude, but 90% of my last text was the disclaimar from Acer which could have helped somehow.   I know I have the bad habit of making long paragraphs, but I'm sure Acer at least knows how to space and punctuate correctly.
    • Hi there, The clause that the agent is relying on is as below (Termination Clause) This Agreement will end immediately if the Landlord withdraws their instruction before the Agent finds a Tenant. Once the Agent finds a tenant who meets the criteria agreed which was agreed with the Landlord, the Landlord must pay the Agent the agreed commission.   The criteria wasn't agreed in writing but in general I wanted a trustworthy and a transparent tenant - when I rejected this tenant, I gave it in writing that I considered the tenant not to be transparent and therefore, the tenancy not to be granted.   This is what the agreement states with regards to commission on the contract. The Initial Commission fee is payable on the commencement of the tenancy and charged as a percentage of the total annual rental amount of the agreed term as specified in the tenancy agreement There is no tenancy agreement so there is no annual rent amount.   Sorry I can't upload the Claim form - please let me know if there is any information other than I have supplied already that would like to know. thanks,   Bankfodder, on your earlier note about whether the consumers have to always be provided with the cancellation rights, yes they have to - this is what the Regulations 2013 imposed compared to 2008 regulations which did not.   Even with the 2008 regulations, not providing a cancellation rights is not a route to escape - please see the case precedence below.   https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/brief-october-2014/consumers-cancellation-rights-are-unaffected-by-failure-to-give-notice/   I have to disagree with you on your point about Section 6c being applied here - that again is likely to be applicable to tenancy agreement (with the tenant) certainly doesn't apply to the agency agreement. My agreement with the agent is to provide services. 
    • I'm terribly sorry but this is the second time that I'm asking you to space and punctuate your posts correctly. I appreciate that you are doing things on a telephone – but it doesn't prevent you putting in paragraph returns
  • Our picks

Backdoor Lowell CCJ - old Hutch/3 mobile debt - debt was SB'D **SET ASIDE** still chasing?


Recommended Posts

doh i think the muppets have forgotten they already agreed to set aside ...:crazy:

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
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If the debt was sb'd you cant lose   Dx

Prepare and present your evidence as to why the debt is statute barred.

Sign it...keep a copy...then check regularly with the court if its been lodged and that the hearing of 11th Aug has been adjourned.   Andy

Posted Images

Thank you for the reply - I'm half expecting them to either drop the whole thing or to spring the "We had to tell the court that you don't want to pay so we're going to restart proceedings" idea given the language in the consent order that I signed with them. Going to read up and prepare to defend in case they fancy playing that game. It'd be nice if they would actually play by the rules for once...

Link to post
Share on other sites

they can't it's SB'd.

 

 

  • Thanks 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
  • 3 weeks later...

They've had another go today - same little begging letter as before pretty much so I won't bother posting it in full here but they've decided not to bother putting in the Tomlin order option. Gotta love the "If a settlement cannot be reached within 14 days from the date of this email, further action may be taken against you." Emphasis mine. It "may" be taken? I'm pretty convinced it won't.

Would it be worth another SB letter or do I just ignore it as there's nothing they can do here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes why not

then we will hit them with conc 

maybe get a bit of compo out of them..

  • Thanks 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

I sent the standard SB letter by email and by recorded delivery yesterday, woke up to this in my inbox from Lowell:

Quote

We note that your email is the same as the email sent to us on 21 October 202 and this was responded to. We also recognise that you may be using a template copied from the internet. Please see the following response to your internet template:

 

“We note that you believe the account to be statute barred, and as such, you consider that we should not pursue the debt any further. However, the default date for the account was on 13 February 2014 and as by issuing a Claim within 6 years of this date we are satisfied that the Claim is not statute barred and are entitled to bring proceedings to recover the sums outstanding.”

 

Taking in the above information, we now ask that you respond appropriately to our email below within 14 days from the date of this email.

 

I'm thinking that they're throwing their toys out of the pram a little and the statement they gave isn't the proof that we'er asking for... sounds like they know they can't win this and are relying on intimidation/begging. Shame about that 🤣

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the claim was set a side.....it does not mean its been abandoned...it merely remains stayed until the claimant informs the court if they wish to proceed.They set a date of 23rd Oct to try to reach a settlement and at which time they will inform the court  the status  of the claim.

 

So at this stage the following is still correct.....unless they discontinue the claim or they leave it stayed indefinitely  at which point you could challenge their position for leaving it stayed

 

Quote

However, the default date for the account was on 13 February 2014 and as by issuing a Claim within 6 years of this date

 

 

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt is not regulated by the CCA1974...there is no requirement to issue a Default Notice.Check your statements or with the Mobile provider for last payment date.

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
On 15/05/2020 at 16:57, ridecar2 said:

I have just phoned them, my last payment was August 2013.

they're claiming that the default date was the 14th Feb 2014 and that they commenced the legal action on or around the 25th January this year, making the debt not statute barred,

 

I'm asking them to email me everything that they have about this case,

 

thank you all for your help and I'll update you when I get more information.

 

the debt was already SB'd when they raised the claimform..

 

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

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...