Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you @BankFodder, your statement is a correct understanding of my position and I agree, it is actually really what I was looking for in starting this thread, as I too believed that the maximum I could claim for is that which I sold it for, even though this was substantially below market value at the time. And so, this sold value is what I shall be claiming for + the other expenses. @dx100uk I get your point, but this is just not what I want to expose myself to. Unfortunately I was one of the unlucky ones to have my details stolen in the Peoples Energy hack, and in 2020 I discovered that those details had been used to take out car insurance, and that the insured was then involved in a collision and my details were dragged through the mud. Despite Aviva cancelling the claim and treating as though it never were, even though I have the letters from them to say that they have removed this claim from the insurance database, I still get refused insurance and credit products to this day until I send across the letter from Aviva which explains that I was a victim of fraud. So you'll forgive me for not jumping up and uploading my data to a server utility for which I have no control over its retention policy, or where the server is located globally, its legal jurisdiction, or its security protocols.
    • Speeding (Revised 2017) – Sentencing (sentencingcouncil.org.uk)  
    • upload sites dont retain copies and so what if they do... what do you think they are going to do, kidnap your grannies budgie or something..how the hell would any of the info required by us be of any use to them..... stop being paranoid and put them all in one mass multipage pdf.  
    • https://audicam.audi.co.uk/customer/6660055/00cc584e9769699ddba3807a2995032f/59022-13062024 Please let me know if you can access footage 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 161 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

LC Asset Sarl (Link)/Kearns Claimform - old Newday Marbles Credit card - Stayed since december - now CCa Return


Recommended Posts

On 17/08/2020 at 13:58, billywhizzm said:

1. The defendant owes the claimant 219153 (DEBT) under a credit card agreement with L C Asset Sarl.

 

the agreement was not signed with Link. 

their poc statement is wrong.

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

their poc is wrong regardless... just needs pointing out in your WS 

 

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

  • 1 year later...

what happened?

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

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...