Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • @dx100uk no, haven’t received any correspondence as of yet. Still waiting on a court date but seems to be taking forever. Have noticed an increase in unhappy customers on here
  • 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

JCI/BW PAPLOC - Old Talk Talk Broadband debt subject to dispute LBC Received .


Drays
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 380 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

JC International Acquisition LLC

 

 02 September 2020

 

What is the claim for – 

 

1. The claimants claim is for the balance due under an agreement with Talk Talk Limited dated 29/12/2014 which was assigned to the claimant on 27/03/2020 and notice of which was allegedly given to the defendant on the 07/09/2020 and which is now all due and payable.

 

The defendant made no agreement to pay monthly instalments under account number xxxxxx

 

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? yes this is what i have

 

What is the value of the claim? £528.00

 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Landline ,Broadband & Mobile Phone

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? After

 

Has the letter of claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Debt Purchaser

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year? No

 

Why did you cease payments? 

I ceased payments because of the loss of signal that I have been experiencing throughout the time spent with the company in relation to my mobile phone.

 

They were still investigating the line when I received my online monthly bill and I noticed they had overcharged me £180 for data usage.

I called TalkTalk and they explained that my data was over the limit but could not substantiate it as I was using an old Nokia (Brick).

 

My broadband Package was £10.10/month for 18 months’ contract and TalkTalk was unable to clarify some unexplained itemised charges on my online account. As a result, I raised my billing complains with them in numerous occasions but to no avail.

 

Meanwhile, I have been inundated with annoying phone calls on a daily basis from allegedly TalkTalk technical support staff.

They were asking things like I have faults in the router which needs fixing and or that I should follow their instructions to get things back to normal or risk losing my internet altogether. I have reported the calls to TalkTalk but their staff were in denial that this has anything to do with them. Furthermore, I was advised to write to them in order to allow me to move to another provider without penalty because I believe they failed to protect my personal details.

 

In the middle of this confusion, I had to switch to Plusnet and immediately contacted TalkTalk to try and resolve the bill issue but they demanded that I pay them the alleged outstanding payment of £245.95 but the caller said that there may be some serious issues with my bill and to wait until the final bill is received before it can be resolved!

 

I haven’t heard anything from them since 02/02/2016 and I thought that was the end of it till now when I received a correspondence from bw legal who issued this claim.

 

What was the date of your last payment?  Around March 2016.

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Yes

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan ? No

 

Please note that I have received a letter of claim from bw Legal and that I have 30 days to respond to the claim starting from the 2nd of September 2020

 

Therefore, I need to provide my defence and or use the reply form in time and not sure how to proceed.

 

Any help will be appreciated.

 

Many thanks in advance

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Andyorch changed the title to JC International Acquisition LLC Court Claim Received .

you respond by following Post 4 here:

do NOT use their reply pack.

but you MUST reply.

follow Exactly as post 4

i would suggest the reason as: the alleged debt concerns a dispute for failure to provide a reliable service ( put nothing else at this stage)

 

 

JCI buy these old telecom debts up because sadly so many people wet themselves thinking they are owed and JCI have magical powers...when they don't. the debt is subject to a valid dispute.

 

there are number threads here regarding them..

https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=JC Talk talk&oq=JC Talk talk&gs_l=partner-generic.3...801398.805115.0.805375.12.12.0.0.0.0.121.799.10j2.12.0.csems%2Cnrl%3D13...0.3728j1478984j13...1.34.partner-generic..12.0.0.zyRD3vNgDww

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

  • Andyorch changed the title to JC International Acquisition LLC Court PAP LBC Received .

cant see ticks in the relevant boxes but that prob just the conversion

 

don't sign it just type you name 

send via 1st class and free Proof of posting from PO counter

 

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

Hi All,

what's wrong with reclaim the right LTD page? third time unlucky for making my donation this morning!

prob..you get "something went wrong & we could not process your transaction" i'll try again later or tomorrow.

Thank you.😕

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everyone,

Received a reply this morning from BWlegal:

  • Account been placed on a hold
  • No specific time frame provided for documentation to be sent.
  • No 30 days mentioned

Now  they are asking me for evidence in support of my claim!

If you prefer I will upload them documents in pdf format for simplicity.

Is there anything else that should be done now or shall I just sit on my hands and wait?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are under no legal obligation to do so.

let them sweat 

the next move is not yours.

 

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to JCI/BW PAPLOC - Old Talk Talk Broadband debt subject to dispute LBC Received .

there s no pressure

it's purely what we call a speculative claim letter

hoping you don't respond or respond and wet yourself and cough up.

 

there are 100's of telecom debt claimform threads here

we win almost 99% of them.

 

one of the sentences from the defence that usually makes them give up is this

 

5.Notwithstanding the above should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the entire balance of the remaining contract. OFCOM guidance states that any Early Termination Charge that is made up of the entire balance if the remaining contract is unlikely to be fair as it fails to take into account the fact that the provider no longer has to provide and pay for their service.

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 months later...

Hi Guys,

On checking my spam emails today, I stumbled up on BW legal reply spoofed email but no post received from them on this occasion!

 

their email is dated 11/12/2020 with 10 days to reply?

previously a letter of claim was sent ( with 30 days to respond) requesting a copy of the notice of assignment.

 

Also failed to explain the alleged data usage of £180?

 

Instead they are requesting me to give them a bell.

will upload in pdf format

 

.bills.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

upload doesnt work?

 

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

ignore

 

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

  • 5 months later...

open

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Open

Link to post
Share on other sites

open 

you can post here 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

  • 2 weeks later...

start what again?

 

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

so sorry dx 

I think I posted this to reported post.

Evening everyone,

Apologies for any delays because I was out sick for the last week and unable to respond

BW legal have finally decided to bring the above claim forward once more.

This time they have posted a notice of claim prior to any proceedings.

I think I have 30 days to reply to their alleged claim.

The letter of claim enclosed here is dated 26/10/2002

Your support is appreciated.

Drays

BWlega2002.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

your last payment was more than 6yrs ago

send them our statute barred letter from the debt collection section of our library.

 

game over 

job done

 

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...