Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The case against the US-based ride-hailing giant is being brought on behalf of over 10,800 drivers.View the full article
    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. 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. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
  • 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
      • 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

backdoor Lowell CCJ now warrant - Old Vodafone debt - although last invoice Nil


Mopbucket
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1136 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  

 

Received notification of CCJ in 2019 from lowells regarding an old phone my wife upgraded.

Last bill shows nil balance.

 

Challenged with CEDR

they gave below response seeming to agree with me but could not intervene due to CCJ.

Now received warrant.

 

Can anyone assist. 

vodafone have not investigated even though i gave them last bill showing nil balance in 2019.

 

The adjudicator has reviewed and upheld the company’s objection to this application for adjudication.

The adjudicator has provided the following comments:

"I have reviewed the company’s objection, which is made under Rule 2.2.3.

Rule 2.2.3 details that a case cannot be dealt with by the Scheme where “the customer has not complained to the company at all, or where it has been less than eight weeks since the customer first complained… and the company has not provided the customer with its final position to the dispute”.

 

The company submits that the emails that the customer appears to have sent to Vodafone have not been received in relation to this account.

The company also state that they have only received a query concerning the matter with the debt collection company and that it has not received a formal complaint yet.

 

have reviewed the customer’s application, which states they first complained on 23 May 2019.

I note that in their email to the company on 23 May 2019 and that the company issued a response in which it stated that they had received the email and that an agent would be in touch in two working days.

 

I find it more likely than not that the company had received the complaint email sent by the customer in May 2019 and that the complaint related to this account.

 

As a result, I do not find Rule 2.2.3 applicable and so reject the objection made on this basis.

However, in reviewing the customer’s complaint, I note that it concerns a CCJ in relation to a debt, which the customer disputes.

 

Unfortunately, I find this causes the claim to be ineligible in its entirety under Rule 2.2.10.

Rule 2.2.10 detail that the Scheme cannot deal with “a dispute that has been or is the subject of court proceedings … (unless such proceedings or alternative procedure have been abandoned, stayed or suspended)”.

 

This is because a CISAS adjudicator does not have the jurisdiction to overturn a CCJ. Consequently, I find that the case must be withdrawn on this basis. Sekinat Ajenifuja, In-House Adjudicator."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Wife upgraded phone and changed phone number Nov 2016 and stayed with Vodafone on a new number and phone, so old account should have been shut down.

 

May 2019 receive notification of CCJ through Lowells, started to pay. Then Vodafone said whilst investigated by CEDR in Dec 19, no need to continue to pay.

 

Dispute with Vodafone and get copy invoices last invoice 2016 no balance on old number

 

Ring many times and lodged complaint through Resolve to Vodafone no response

 

Contacted CEDR ombudsman who seemed to agree my case but could not intervene due to CCJ

 

Told complaint with Vodafone Directors still no response after numerous calls.

 

Once CEDR dropped case Vodafone sent letter Jan2020 to say pay up.

Now received warrant. I have suspended as I said would pay through payment plan.

 

I am sure this has happened to many others as I remember Martin Lewis mentioned about an Vodafone IT error in 2016 on Vodafones systems whereby some people were given CCJs in error.

 

Any assistance, guidance would be gratefully received

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to backdoor Lowell CCJ - Old Vodafone debt - although last invoice Nil

Hi

Spoke to Northants Got created case date 9/4/19, date of service 14/4/19 re Vodafone Agreement, logged by Lowell’s.

 

i have previously got the vodafone superuser acct ref but never explanation and womans name who was supposed to be reviewing.

 

I have invoices upto nov16 showing no balance brought forward just before upgraded.

The debt they said was over £2.5k.

 

When wife spoke to someone in Vodafone they that write off debt sold to Lowells.

We also spoke to a credit agency who said the account was impeccable from 2001 to late 2016 when phone upgraded. £2.5k must be 10 years rental!!?!

 

Also in past was informed by nice person in Vodafone it states on the file do not speak to the customer 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) the defendant entered into an agreement with vodafone under account reference        .......** ('the agreement').    
         
2) the defendant failed to maintain the required payments and the service was terminated.     

                             

3) the agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 30/08/2018 and notice given to the defendant.                               

 

4) despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £2,308.44 remains due and  outstanding.        

                         

and the claimant claims                      

a) the said sum of £2,308.44                 

b) interest pursuant to s69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.506, but limited to one year, being £111.82           

c) costs   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the point the contract was terminated Nov16 to upgrade to new number and new account and line was supposedly turned off.

Who ever did upgrade did not turn off old account and seem to have carried on billing.

I have copies of last invoices no balance carried forward! 

 

If it is any help to others,  Northants bulk said they could cut & paste claim particulars and email. Which they did 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Will do

 

dont understand  “f there's little or nothing to do with the debt or CCJ, that in itself is important.”


Narrative mentioned 6 x payments of £100  for payment plan but not £2.5k.


many thanks in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to backdoor Lowell CCJ now warrant - Old Vodafone debt - although last invoice Nil

Hi 

 

Found some pdf old invoices which show that a debt all of a sudden was raised in January 2016 from £74.28 to £719.45 thereafter lots of one non recognisable charges. The Invoice style changed format, and billing number format (changed to a B7 prefix). I cannot see where the extra £640 came from and the plan changed. I note from the SAR the operator states there was an error in SAR states "error occurs open new profile".

 

Mobile Number  Date Plan Charge Overdue Balance
079*******7 20 March 2014 83.83 100.36 £184.19
079*******7 22 July 2014 92.91   £94.00
079*******7 22 June 2015 109.03   £130.00
079*******7 21 July 2015 56.24   £66.65
079*******7 20 August 2015 81.38   £149.85
079*******7 21 September 2015 55.14   £65.33
079*******7 20 October 2015 52.42   £62.07
079*******7 19 November 2015 58.2   £69.00
079*******7 22 December 2015 62.6   £74.28
079*******7 18 January 2016 63.73 686.72 £719.45
079*******7 18 February 2016   719.45 £838.27
079*******7 18 May 2016 162.5 1185.97 £1,348.47
079*******7 18 August 2016 56.5 1353.63 £1,513.37
079*******7 18 October 2016   1499.15 £1,534.63
079*******7 18 November 2016   1534.63 £1,585.05
Link to post
Share on other sites

The plot thickens

 

I have a screen shot of earlier invoice B7-99496*40 with same account number showing £50.42 no balance brought forward.

 

However, based on the invoices as sent to my wife 7/11/19 after I complained to Resolver and CEBR the same invoice in different format.

 

Surely they would legally would have legally been required to credit and rebill not just revamp on old invoice number?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multipage blanked.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi

 

Sorry for delay. Apparently broken phone had 8 months left and Vodafone agreed to wave remainder of contract if wife started a new contract (new number and new account number) in Nov 2016.

 

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...