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

Lowells/Overdales claimform - sons old vodafone


AA99
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 200 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

Long time since I've been on the site (thankfully!) so am a bit rusty.

My son bought a new phone on the internet during lockdown 3 years ago from Vodafone.  Unbeknown to him they sold him a SIM package too which he never activated and never used.

He has now received a Notice of pending CCJ for over £300!

Can I be reminded of how to deal with them?  SAR first?  He's very anxious that they've given him till 9th July to act.  Can correspondence now be emailed legally?

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back AA99

What has he received ? the following ?

 

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

Thank you Andyorch.

I shall endeavour to upload the letter but that may take me a week! 

In the meantime,  the letter is from the solicitors and is headed Notice of pending CCJ  saying he failed to respond to the CCC ,  threats of bad credit file, threats of a Warrant of Control (Bailiff) and wanting full payment of over £300.  

I will speak to him again this evening for more info and raid his emails.

I shall also read the links above that you sent.

ps. Can I ask my son to calm down a bit now?!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you scan and post up that threat letter from the Sols?

Seems extremely immature to threaten bailiffs for such a trivial pittance, ruddy jokers.

Ah wait, it is Slowdales isn't it.....been playing with their crayons again.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like he already has a backdoor ccj <<clickme and read the link

he should not be moving around and not updating any owner of a debt on his credit file in writing..he has moved...that almost always guarantees a backdoor ccj now a days.

you/he needs to ring northants bulk tomorrow and quote the claim number on that letter.

ask for a copy of the default judgement and the claimfrom by email pdf.

you need the particulars of claim (POC) at least, if they cant forward an electronic copy of it, ask them to read out the POC and also the address it was served too. record the call.

how much it the debt?

as for bailiffs, its a consumer credit debt. (if if if they return to court and are granted a warrant for court bailiffs get involved - of which the court will inform him - best to update his address with the court when on the phone too!) there is no right of forced entry anyway. so to all intent if bailiffs do get used simply ignore them.

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 backdoor ccj Lowells/Overdales -vodafone debt sons old

Thanks dx. 

A Backdoor CCJ sounds horrific!  To notify everyone of a change of address almost seems contrary to not giving out any information to DCAs!  Especially if this letter is the first he knew about the debt?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

eh where do we say do not give out info to DCA's?

if they own a debt (sold to them) then they are now the creditor and have the same rights as the original creditor.

that means they can raise a court claim.

they did to an old address quite legally... NEVER EVER EVER run from 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

They may not yet have requested judgment but it will be tricky to get up to speed without the original claim form and password to enable online MCOL AOS /Defence by the deadline.

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

£320

35 minutes waiting for northants bulk to answer the phone.

Claim form costs £11 but POC being emailed now. 

They did confirm that No Judgement yet issued.

POC reads:

Judgment amount:

 

Particulars of claim:

THE CLAIM IS FOR THE SUM OF £227.80 DUE BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER A VODAFONE ACCOUNT WITH AN ACCOUNT REFERENCE OF XXXXXXXX

THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAINTAIN CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACCOUNT AGREEMENT.                          

THE DEBT WAS LEGALLY ASSIGNED TO THE CLAIMANT ON 21-11-22, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT.    

THE CLAIM INCLUDES STATUTORY INTEREST UNDER  S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF ASSIGNMENT TO THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUM OF £9.94                            

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF £230

Link to post
Share on other sites

what date was this poc and what address an old one?

did they say on the phone that judgement has not been made

if so you could file a defence we have and stop this in its tracks.

 

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

If you had the password on the claim form (required to submit an online defence)as I have already stated you could stop them getting a default judgment....if the system allows and its in time.

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

It will be by close of business today I suspect

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

MCOL is only one way of responding to a claim. 
(AOS, DEFENCE, N180 ETC)
.
If you are having problems logging in, or would prefer not to use MCOL
you can fax, email or post your response to the Court instead. 

If you send your response by e mail 
please send it to [email protected]

ensure you quote “Claim number xxx xxx (type of response i'e AOS , Defence, N180)” in the subject field. 

using the above details

put all below this as the defence in the txt of the email. simply copy and paste it

 

1.THE CLAIM IS FOR THE SUM OF £227.80 DUE BY THE DEFENDANT UNDER A VODAFONE ACCOUNT WITH AN ACCOUNT REFERENCE OF XXXXXXXX

2.THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO MAINTAIN CONTRACTUAL PAYMENTS REQUIRED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ACCOUNT AGREEMENT.                          

3.THE DEBT WAS LEGALLY ASSIGNED TO THE CLAIMANT ON 21-11-22, NOTICE OF WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT.    

THE CLAIM INCLUDES STATUTORY INTEREST UNDER  S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF ASSIGNMENT TO THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUM OF £9.94                            

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE SUM OF £230

 

defence 

The Defendant contends that the original Particulars of Claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

1. Paragraph 1 is accepted. I have, in the past, entered into a contract with Vodafone, however I do not recall the exact details, nor do I recall any outstanding balance. I have requested the claimant verify the exact details of this claim by way of a CPR 31.14. To date, no statement of the alleged account has been received.

2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of what the alleged debt is.

3. Paragraph 3 is denied I am unaware of any legal assignment.

Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into a Agreement/ Contract; and

(b) show and evidence the nature of breach and termination

(c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is required that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

5. If the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim, due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act.

6. Regardless of the above, should the alleged amount claimed include an early termination charge(s) amounting to the total balance of the remaining contract, OFCOM guidance clearly states that any Early Termination Charge, that is made up of the entire balance of 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.

7. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.

 

GO DO IT NOW! better by 4pm too.

you should get a email acknowledgement it filed.

then comeback here there is one more thing to do (CPR 31:14 i'll give you that when defence is ack'd as filed.

dx

 

.

  • Thanks 1

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

Lets hope the 33 days have not already been exceeded, not knowing the date of issue of claim.

 

I've made a few edits to the above proposed defence.

 

 

.

  • Like 1

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

urm..worth a try.

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

hehe they will be spitting feathers if your defence is accepted.

 

heres the cpr you need to send

do not sign it

just type name.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

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

Received email reply :

 

Good morning,
Thank you for your response.  

I’ve processed your response but am returning it to you as it wasn’t signed.  

 If the case goes to court, it may not be considered a valid document.

Kind Regards
 
Do I just type his name at the bottom or do I have to actually sign it? 
Link to post
Share on other sites

what the CPR?

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

The defence ? you didnt say who from or what the email is in connection to ?..

 

.

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

The email I sent for defence wasn't signed.  I shall print off and sign it and post it.

Will I do the same for the CPR31:14 ?  Or email it first to sols and then also follow up with a printed name, not signature, hard copy by post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...