Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The right to mitigate losses is being worn away by JL's negligence. OP also has the right to have their guarantee fulfilled at little inconvenience to themselves.   By disregarding the guarantee JL have effectively given up their "claimed right" outlined in the guarantee to be the executive decision maker as to whether the guarantee is fulfilled by way of repair or replacement with a TV of equivalent specifications and thus disregarded their opportunity to mitigate their own costs.   As outlined in the guarantee the OP has the right to both options.   Given JL's unreasonableness it could be deemed entirely reasonable for OP to feel it is less inconvenient to purchase a new TV with equivalent specifications. The new TV will come with a fresh set of statutory rights. OP will be able to receive some continued albeit diminished benefit from their faulty TV until the replacement arrives. If the replacement TV turns out to be faulty it can be returned at little cost or inconvenience. This is in contrast to the significantly inconvenient option of arranging to have the TV repaired which involves. Arranging for collection. Risking paying for a repair with no guarantee of success. Awaiting the TV to be returned. In the meantime OP receives no benefit at all from the ownership of the faulty goods.   Rather than being instantly out of pocket and in the position of having to risk a claim to be restored to their original position (despite being very likely to succeed), a better option would be to locate a TV of equivalent specifications and bring a claim for that amount.   Should JL continue to flaunt its own guarantees then JL is unlikely to be successful if they then choose to contest the amount claimed by the OP on the grounds OP should have diminished their costs when JL had their own opportunity to do so by simply arranging for repair of the goods themselves.   While not the direct intention, JL may decide that it is in their interests to arrange for the repair of the faulty TV than risk a claim for what is likely to be a more expensive replacement TV.
    • You should file something like this -   1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].   2.  It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant.   3.  In any case it is denied that the Claimant broke the terms of a contract with the Defendant.   4.  The Defendant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.    5.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Points (2) & (3) are catch-alls, they can be fleshed out at WS stage to include bye-laws, prohibition, you not being the driver, etc.   I see you have till 1 June to file the defence, so don't do it now, hang on and see if others suggest to tweak the above.  Don't file at the very last minute though, in case MCOL has a hissy fit!   
    • John Lewis have already told me that they cannot do anything or contribute to the repair via the manufaturer LG, as their guarantee explicitly states that 'screen burn' is not covered.   To be fair to them, on the back of my receipt it does have a list of exclusions including "image ghosting or screen burn".  The issue is that their repairer has incorrectly stated in his report that the fault is due to customer misuse/screen burn, and therefore it is not included in their guarantee and they cannot help.   LG the manufacturer have sent me an email where they state "...based on the nature of the issue that the unit has developed, the outcome is a Panel fault issue which has been confirmed by our technicians after a review of the images you provided..."  and they offered to repair it for £200.  So there is disagreement on the cause of the issue between the retailer and the manufacturer too, with JL conveniently deeming it something that is excluded from their guarantee.  John Lewis as mentioned previously are holding onto this engineer report as gospel and refuse to budge.  I understand that more recently they offer an additional extended warranty at a cost on televisions, which DOES cover screen burn, but obviously this is no use to me.    
    • I agree. Maybe I didn't read it correctly. I had thought that the whole matter had been referred to the repairer by John Lewis   On the other hand, if John Lewis has washed their hands of it – then I think a letter to them explaining that you are going to mitigate your loss by having the set repaired by the recommended repairer and that you will be pursuing them afterwards for your expenses – in view of their lack of interest. I think that will cover everything
    • @BankFodderI agree should I mention the new crime reference number in the email ?  I will draft response and put it on here before I email it across 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Been Blindly paying Link for an MBNA card debt for +10yrs finally they say can't get CCA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 328 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

hi ,

i had an old credit card debt back before 2007 and stupidly back then even though i couldnt afford it i was phoned by link

they sent me a letter saying they now owned the debt from mbna ..

. if would offer to pay £5 a month which has been going on over 10 yrs now ..

 

only recently i looked on facebook site (website name removed - dx) and have had some advice but somone recomended this site to make sure …

 

they recently last couple of yrs started saying it was a concessionary agrement of £5.00 a month and asked for expenditure forms to be filled in AGAIN WHICH I REFUSED..

they decided to cancel my direct debit but set up their own for same amount £ 5 a month saying i stil need to fil in expenditure forms but next year ..

 

. at that time i decided to ask for a cca request in december 2019 ,,

they ignored and then again i sent a letter in febuary 2020 which they ignored and recent emails ,,

 

finally may this year i decided to ask were my copy was ,

they then told me they got the request last december but could not get a copy of cca as it was too old from mbna.

 

. i then asked for a letter to confirm which i received this week ,,

it says yes the request was last december but they have only let me know 6 months later they couldnt get a copy of cca , and yes its unenforceble but we are still able to collect on the oustanding balance as i remeain liable...

 

. any help pleasewould be gratefull ..

 

i know even after all these years it was defaulted on my credit report now gone but if they decide to sell onto another debt purchaser am i liable or is it completly unenforceble like ive been told 

 

  many thanks

link financila admitting no copy.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Been Blindly paying Link for an MBNA card debt for +10yrs finally they say can't get CCA

retitled and moved to the MBNA forum.

 

stop paying Plink and ignore them.

 

no cca = no pay!!

 

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

and have

ZERO legal powers on ANY debt no matter what it's type

 

shame you've been scammed out of +10yrs of giving free money to them...none of which ever went off the actually debt.

 

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

The debt would have disappeared off your credit record years ago.

 

Stopping paying will cause them to look at the options they have available.  They will harass you for awhile with letters saying that it is still a debt owed, even if they cannot locate the CCA currently.  And if they do eventually obtain a copy of the MBNA CCA,  they will say that they may issue a Court claim and obtain a CCJ.   The chances are that the CCA is now not obtainable, as Banks will destroy old records after about 10 years or so,  as they don't want to pay storage costs for too long.

 

Yes one option is that they sell the debt to another DCA and they sell it on to another etc etc.   It can take years after stopping repayments before it is eventually written off.

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

so what it's unenforceable!!

the issue here is you've been a cash cow for years...you fell for Links LIES years ago

 

doesnt matter IF they sell it ...they are all equally powerless scammers

 

and stop talking on the phone ever about any debt to ANYONE.

they LIE.

 

 

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

yes , it was cleared off my credit report a few yrs back , and they sent me finally a letter this week admitting they couldnt get copy off cca from mbna due to the age of mbna account ,, but worded it saying im still liable even thou not enforceble ill enlcose letter recieved which they took 6 months to admit

link copy cca 2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

you might well be 'liable' morally in their eyes because that's how link work...they make their own rules up!!

 

throw the morality card OUT THE WINDOW.

all DCA's do...that's how they scam people!!

 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...