Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Orders for Sale


CS75
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1242 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

What type of agreement ?

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 OTHER

 

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

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi, it's a letter reconfirming our payment arrangement offer agreeing to adjourn on the basis the terms are met each month until the debt is paid off. Any breach will result in them relisting the OFS but they want us both to sign confirming, which I am reluctant to do when the charge is in one name only.

 

The fact it hasn't been in both names is one of the defences we put forward.  I worry that if for whatever reason, we break the agreement (believe me we want to stick to it wherever possible), we are both then liable as the agreement letter has been signed. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your only agreeing to the terms of adjournment...kinda like a Consent Order...your not agreeing that the OFS will proceed...which could anyway whether you signed to agree or not.It does not admit liability to any OFS proceedings and should they proceed you defend as normal.

 

Is it an Official Consent Order they intend to lodge with the court ?

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 OTHER

 

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 wouldn't...if its not a consent order and wasn't attached to the letter...then their requested agreement is and remains informal......just agree to the adjournment and please maintain the agreed payment plan.

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 OTHER

 

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

  • 2 months later...

Hi, we have managed to agree terms with this creditor, thankfully and finally.

 

Now we face another problem...

 

my husband was declared bankrupt in 2018 by another creditor.

 

Long story short, it's now in the hands of a trustee.  They have apparently completed a drive by valuation which is higher than the first creditor mentioned previously so the trustee believes there is more equity for them to take.  Our property is leasehold with a 54 year lease so tricky to value. 

 

We made an offer based on the first creditors valuation which was rejected by the trustee because, guess what, their valuation stands. So, I am now fighting again to save our home.

 

Is there anything we can do to challenge the valuation and suggest the equity isn't as high as they think it is?

Will a trustee be brutal enough to effectively push us into a homeless situation during a global pandemic because raising the funds they are seeking, is somewhat out of reach?

 

Any help is gratefully received.

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

are there any like properties nearby that can be used as comparison ?

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

Hi, thanks for your reply. The last house sold like ours was about 10 years which has a big extension. We did have our property valued about 18 months ago by a local agent but not sure how we would calculate what it would be worth with a short lease, as they calculated using freehold value. Also, with the fragile economy the way it is, I would have thought properties would be less now? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are getting close to the limit of 3 years The provisions that require a trustee in bankruptcy to deal with a bankrupt’s family home within a period of three years from, usually, the date of the bankruptcy order.

 

Quote

my husband was declared bankrupt in 2018 by another creditor.

 

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 OTHER

 

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 wonder if it might be worthy to scratch the surface of the original judgement CCJ regarding the debt litigated over ?

start fighting back a bit? to check id everything was above board regarding it and it's debt?

 

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

We did hire a solicitor at the time to challenge it as it was an old business debt and it was against an overdrawn directors loan account, now liquidated company. The solicitor failed to fight it. Is it still worth challenging?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry if it's irrelevant and i'm just musing

but....

 

wasn't par chance SCM or eversheds was it representing LLoyds in the claim and the CO etc was it?

 

i'm trying to reconnect with someone i've not heard from in almost 10yrs..

they almost had exactly the same scenario as you.

 

lloyds litigation dept were not fully aware of all that their sols had been upto and done

a pleading letter was written directly to the head of the dept.

 

within 24hrs someone was on the phone and the whole lot! was cancelled inc the CCJ the CO and any outstanding balance which i believe was then something in the region of the £20k mark for an initial litigated debt of of £15k.

 

reason given was that the personal guarantee was somehow defective and the gentleman considered their sols actions as very vex and unfair..had they been fully aware it would not have ever gone that far.

and yes it was a pers debt on a joint property too

 

as i say just trying to help.

 

 

 

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

Hi, it was CMS.

I am bound by confidentiality so can't discuss the content but a junior solicitor dealt mainly with the case and more senior solicitors created the witness statements and a barrister attended the hearing. 

 

I used a debt charity to help me write to them with our final payment plan offer and they accepted.

To say we were gobsmacked and relieved is an understatement. 

 

Just gutted we are now fighting with a trustee in bankruptcy and so worried we may lose the house afterall :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

the involvement of CMS is typically fatal to anyone.

they are bulldogs.

 

i think andyorch has a good knowledge of their previous here.

though a confidentiality order raises my eyebrows here ...why?

 

 

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

Yep they were particularly challenging.  We just had to agree to not discuss the suspended case and didn't want to tip the balance when an order for sale was particularly imminent - the Judge would have granted it, I am almost certain, he was as unforgiving as they were! The debt charity suggested we accept the terms too so here we are now defending an unforgiving Trustee instead!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Can anyone help us please.

 

We have provided the Bankruptcy Trustees an internal valuation of our property which is 18 months old.

They want to do their own valuation in full PPE during lockdown.

Do we have to agree? 

 

The estate agent valued slightly higher than them but with Covid reducing property values and our short lease, we feel the house is worth a lot less. 

 

I don't trust their over inflated drive by valuation

 

am I within my rights to insist we do our own valuation or do we not have a choice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...