Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • And presumably it has been thoroughly checked out mechanically. You're confident that you have identified all the defects. Your situation is this: You can certainly bring a County Court claim against the dealer and on the basis of what you say, you will probably win. Under ordinary contract law, it might be considered that the breach of contract is not overly serious and you have not been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. On that basis you would more likely to be awarded a sum of damages to reflect the reduced value of the vehicle had it been correctly advertised. Under ordinary contract law, the breach would have had to be so serious that it could be said that you had been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. This is what is called in law – a fundamental breach – and this would allow you to treat the contract is terminated. This is where you find a difference between ordinary contract law – the common law contract – and the statutory rights provided under the consumer rights act. Under the consumer rights act, because you have identified a defect and assert your right to reject within 30 days, then you are entitled to reject the entire contract simply on the basis that the vehicle is not of satisfactory quality – even though you have not been deprived of the whole benefit of the contract because you are still driving the thing around. In other words, the car is not up to the standard that you would expect considering all the circumstances – and particularly in view of the price – about £26,000. This is why you are better off suing under the consumer rights act because I understand that you want to reject the vehicle and you would not be prepared to accept a reduction in price – although you could negotiate this if you wanted. The complicating factor here is the value of the vehicle. If the dealer Hills Prestige of Lymington,  want to stick their heels in, then you will be obliged to bring a County Court claim against them. Where a claim is for a figure less than £10,000, the action is allocated to the small claims track. Small claims track rules concerning costs are that even if you lose your case, you won't have to bear the costs of the winner. In other words each party bears their own costs. This is done to discourage expensive litigation. It doesn't always work because large corporations don't give a fig and they will spend huge amounts of money trying to crush their customers rather than settle claims which are worth a tiny fraction of the litigation costs. Where the claim is more than £10,000 then it gets allocated to the fast track. This means that if you lose the case then you will have to bear a substantial portion of the costs of the winning party. This can act as a real disincentive to litigate. The problem is that some companies use this as an opportunity to intimidate their customer – who is generally speaking a litigant in person – with the prospect of substantial costs in the event that the customer loses the action. This can put a lot of people off very understandably. Your chances of success here are extremely good that you need to be aware that your risk factor if you lost a fairly high level of costs – will be more than £5000. If Hills Prestige of Lymington, decide that as part of the litigation strategy they want to intimidate you, then they could litigate in a way which causes obstacles and delays and which incurs greater costs for them and then I do this simply to raise in your mind the spectre that if you were to lose, then you would be liable for a large proportion of those costs incurred. It's a nasty – who-blinks-first – style of litigation. It doesn't always happen that it can do. Conversely, if you brought this action a new one then they would have to pay your costs. Perversely though, because (I imagine) he would be bringing the action yourselves, you would only be able to recover your costs at a litigant in person rate which is currently about £18 per hour. I say it's perverse because if you decided that you wanted to employ lawyers to represent you, they would be able to recover their costs at the professional rate. It's also perverse because even though you might decide to try and save money and incur only litigant in person costs, if you lost the action you would have to pay the dealer's costs at the professional way of their legal representatives – assuming that they used professional legal assistance. If you wanted to bring a legal action then we can help you all the way although of course it would be you would be going to court. We would simply be advising you and helping you to draft your documents and advising your strategy.  
    • Yes no indication that it was a private sale until we asked for our money back under right to reject. With regards to repairs, the only outstanding defects seem to be slight misalignment of ns wing, overspray on components inside engine compartment, but we were able to find out some of the parts replaced from Toyota, such as ns wing, bonnet, front bumper, front grill, A/C radiator, inner flitch plate which is poorly finished and front bumper support. That doesn’t count as Immaculate to me.
    • It's most unlikely they will reach out to you at all. Any offers will be made at mediation. If they agree to settle your entire claim then of course you will have to accept it. Why should you not want to anyway? Other than that you seem to understand your position quite well
    • You say that you've had an inspection which has confirmed the damage. Have you had the vehicle inspected generally to identify the defects? On the basis of what you have told us I don't see why you shouldn't be able to rely on the right to reject – but you should understand that simply because the consumer rights act provides for a right to reject, it doesn't replace or supplant the common law of contract in any way and so you still have your general contractual rights. In other words, regardless what the RAC say – you still have excellent rights. We are finding that the right to reject under the consumer rights act seems to be pretty toothless and is generally ignored by most traders and people still find that they have to litigate.     When I say it was there any evidence that it was a private sale and they were simply selling on behalf of somebody else, I mean for instance was that pointed out to you in the original advertisement or by the dealer who should you run the vehicle? If there is any basis upon which they can argue that you are fully aware that it was a private sale then it makes things a little more tricky as far as contract law is concerned – you wouldn't take the benefit of the consumer rights act although you can still fall back on the common law of contract. It will make things easier all round if there is absolute no indication that they were selling for a private seller because on that basis, it is a trade sale regardless.
    • So, if I understand correctly from reading other cases on thia forum, I need to monitor MoneyClaim so that I can apply for judgement the first moment it becomes available. This will be in about 14 days unless they acknowledge the claim in which case it will be 28 days for them to come up with a defence?    If understand correctly, Hermes might contact me and offer to pay fraction of a cost of the mobile phone they lost/stole, if I drop the action - and that I should refuse this offer. Hermes might also contact me an offer to pay the full cost of the mobile phone + all my court fees – and I should consider accepting this. Hermes might put in a defence so that the matter is then drawn out and I will then receive a questionnaire which I should complete. This would ask you if I wanted to enter into mediation – and I should refuse mediation or should I agree for mediation to take place? It will also ask which court I want the hearing to take place, and I should indicate my local court. I should pay the hearing fee to continue further, as Hermes may well be waiting to see whether I am prepared to pay the hearing fee.   If I pay the hearing fee, then Hermes will realise that I am serious and they are looking at a court hearing. At this point they might contact me and offer the full amount + court fees.   Do I understand the sequence of events correctly? Thanks.
  • 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

Cabot/MFS/Mortimer chasing 2008 CCJ/CO - property with CO was repo'd


Recommended Posts

Hi

 

not sure if this is in the right place.

 

I received a letter and a call from Mortimer Clarke regarding a debt for MFS Portfolio.

 

The debt is approximately £4k.

 

I wrote to them on numerous occasions asking for details and they never sent any.

 

Mortimer Clarke called me this morning and I had to prise the information from them -  the debt is for a scooter purchased in 2004.

 

They told me that a CCJ was obtained in 2008 and was registered as a charge on the house I lived in at the time.

 

In 2011 I got into financial difficulties and as a result the property was repossessed

I assume at that time that the purchaser would have been aware of the charge. 

 

Would a copy of the judgement they obtained in 2008 still be available. 

I got the feeling even though they don't have a copy of the judgement. 

I asked them to send me what they have and we agreed they would get back to me in a month. 

I told them I would be seeking advice on the matter.

 

There's nothing on my credit file relating to this or the reposession of the property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldn't ever be talking to a dca or their wolves on the phone.

they'll say anything to con money out of you.

 

the charge is dead, and the CCJ is more than 6yrs old.

it would take a very unfair judge to allow further enforcement outside of 6yrs.

 

have you written the the debt owner from your present address?

 

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to MFS/Mortimer chasing 2008 CCJ/CO - property with CO was repo'd

I emailed them and Mortimer Clarke some time ago and they never responded. 

They have my current address. 

I have received their standard contact letter. 

 

The mortgage was with Kensington and the house was sold. 

There's no record of the reposession on my credit file either. 

 

When they get in touch should I ask them for the County Court case number so I can chase that up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

in what way have YOU communicated your correct address to either Kenny's or cabot (MFS/Mortimer as par of the Cabot Group) since your move?

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 but not officially, probably harvested from your credit file, which in a court of law is not deemed as a legal service address

CCA MFS

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

Mortimer Clarke have emailed me a letter and attached

a copy of the original agreement signed on 29th June 2004 and

a reconstituted copy of the notice of assigment dated 30th November 2007.

The letter also states that the county court judgement was obtained on 6th March 2008.

 

Should I email them back and ask for the case number for the county court judgement? 

Will MFS Portfoli have to provide the court with a valid reason why enforcement of the judgement was not undertaken within the 6 year period and apply to the courts to have the judgment enforced.

 

Is there a standard letter I could reply to Mortimer Clarke with?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will MFS Portfoli have to provide the court with a valid reason why enforcement of the judgement was not undertaken within the 6 year period and apply to the courts to have the judgment enforced.

 

it is extremely rare for a judge to allow further enforcement on a CCJ outside of 6yrs .

 

I'd simply send them one further email stating.

your current and correct address.

stating that any further emails to xxxx from xxx will be blocked and bounced back unread and that all further communication needs to be sent by royal mail letter only.

 

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

dunno but whatever they do I can't see this going anywhere fast.

 

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
  • 11 months later...

Hi

 

Original post form 341 days ago

"

"Hi

 

not sure if this is in the right place.

 

received a letter and a call from Mortimer Clarke regarding a debt for MFS Portfolio.

 

The debt is approximately £4k.

 

I wrote to them on numerous occasions asking for details and they never sent any.

 

Mortimer Clarke called me this morning and I had to prise the information from them -  the debt is for a scooter purchased in 2004.

 

They told me that a CCJ was obtained in 2008 and was registered as a charge on the house I lived in at the time.

 

In 2011 I got into financial difficulties and as a result the property was repossessed

I assume at that time that the purchaser would have been aware of the charge. 

 

Would a copy of the judgement they obtained in 2008 still be available. 

I got the feeling even though they don't have a copy of the judgement. 

I asked them to send me what they have and we agreed they would get back to me in a month. 

I told them I would be seeking advice on the matter.

 

There's nothing on my credit file relating to this or the repossession of the property."

 

Mortimer  Clarke Have sent a letter (attached).  Could someone please advise?  I need to be prepared for when engage visit..............................it could be anytime.

 

Mortimer for Engage letter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic merged....please keep to one thread per issue.

 

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 Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

so marstons are now doing fake doorstep visits...

and ofcourse during a covid lockdown...:pound:

i wonder how many rules they are breaking here...

oh well.

 

if someone ever does appear

film them with your mobile phone

tell  them to leave your property and never return else you'll call police 101and send them the video.

do not engage 

 

they are not bailiffs 

and any DCA be them at your door, on the phone, via email or by letter

have ZERO legal powers on any debt no matter what it's type.

 

 

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...
  • dx100uk changed the title to Cabot/MFS/Mortimer chasing 2008 CCJ/CO - property with CO was repo'd

stuff and all they can do

 

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...