Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dx100uk
      friends paying a DCA on a 118118 PDL loan subject to ID theft - Help!

      By dx100uk · Posted

      ACI are part of the Perch Capital group along with TM legal.  
    • grumpy59
      eBay parcel worth £265, booked via Parcel 2 Go, 'lost' by Evri

      By grumpy59 · Posted

      Thanks jk2054 - email now sent to OCMC requesting an in person hearing.
    • Dislao
      Islington Suspended bay - Obstructed sign

      By Dislao · Posted

      You can easily argue your case with no sign on the nearest parking sign
    • Dislao
      Islington Suspended bay - Obstructed sign

      By Dislao · Posted

      Same issue got a fine yesterday for parking in suspended bay which was ending at 6:30 yesterday, next thing I see a fine 15 minutes before it. The sign was obstructed 
    • occysrazor
      Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued

      By occysrazor · Posted

      Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June. Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri. In the main: The WS is signed by George Wood. Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim. Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs. They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen. They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82. They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri. Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states:  ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’ This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.   Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations: Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency   This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri. Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.  As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS. However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know. Thanks. Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Seahorse v Cabot

Seahorse

By Seahorse
in Debt Collection Agencies

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5867 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

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

andrew1

andrew1

Posted
Posted
WTF has MBNA got to do with my thread?

 

 

Well, that is a leading question Seahorse, but... you could say MBNA and Cabot know each other, you could also say Cabot and you know each other too and if MBNA have any sense and know you are in the Cabot Fan Club they will read your thread and learn something about being somewhat careful of what they do so they don't get the FAN CLUB treatment as their chums in the Towers have.

 

WTF Fantasy meant is another thing altogether though I'd imagine:D

 

Sarah :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
FANTASY CHARGES

FANTASY CHARGES

Posted
Posted
Well, that is a leading question Seahorse, but... you could say MBNA and Cabot know each other, you could also say Cabot and you know each other too and if MBNA have any sense and know you are in the Cabot Fan Club they will read your thread and learn something about being somewhat careful of what they do so they don't get the FAN CLUB treatment as their chums in the Towers have.

 

WTF Fantasy meant is another thing altogether though I'd imagine:D

 

Sarah :p

 

wasn't this the thread you were asking a while ago why cabot opened in ireland ???

( cabot shadowed MBNA)[what is the name of that bird that picks a hippopotomuses teeth (scavenges)]

Cabot Financial pioneered the UK debt purchase market in its present form in 1998

so you can see they shadowed MBNA

 

we only monitor a mere 350 threads so likely to make the odd mistake by referring to mbna without mentioning cabot

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vulture_Bank

Vulture_Bank

Posted
Posted

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/128121-provisions-legal-assignment-debts.html

 

very very interesting

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cabotkicker

Cabotkicker

Posted
Posted

I'm thinking of signing my next letter to them with Cabot Fan Club, rather than a squiggle; seems like much more fun!

 

But nowadays, I can't be bothered, I just let them send the same old template letters, on nice expensive headed paper, usually about twice a week! I think I'd feel bit lost without the regular drop on the doormat; they have become like an old friend in a way:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
elizabeth1

elizabeth1

Posted
Posted
I'm thinking of signing my next letter to them with Cabot Fan Club, rather than a squiggle; seems like much more fun!

 

But nowadays, I can't be bothered, I just let them send the same old template letters, on nice expensive headed paper, usually about twice a week! I think I'd feel bit lost without the regular drop on the doormat; they have become like an old friend in a way:D

 

 

Nice to know they care isn't it? ha ha ha :D Nice to have friends in such places isn't it?

 

I must say our postman's bag is so much lighter thesedays ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Rhia

Rhia

Posted
Posted

Has anyone got a deed of assignment from Cabot - this is the actual sales agreement between the OC and Cabot and will be 30 odd pages long and not a letter of assignment which is one page.

CFC has discovered that some people have been sent an Irish version and we are trying to find out what this means. If you have one can you PM me or leave a message her with SeaHorse.

Big thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
elizabeth1

elizabeth1

Posted
Posted
Has anyone got a deed of assignment from Cabot - this is the actual sales agreement between the OC and Cabot and will be 30 odd pages long and not a letter of assignment which is one page.

CFC has discovered that some people have been sent an Irish version and we are trying to find out what this means. If you have one can you PM me or leave a message her with SeaHorse.

Big thanks.

 

Just bumpig this thread to the top hoping readers can help Rhia with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
andrew1

andrew1

Posted
Posted
Getting sentimental, my very first post was on this thread. I understood more from this thread than I did the entire posts in the then debt forum.

 

We have had our differences old dog, welcome back though.

 

Don't you go getting soft Aktiv - you have a reputation to keep :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seahorse

Seahorse

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well, I WAS going to refrain from making any more posts. But this is just too juicy NOT to share. Apologies if it's been covered elsewhere though.

 

Right. The CCA 2006. Retrospective or not? Well. Yes. And no.

 

NO need to worry that the repeal of section 127 of the CCA 1974 will impact anyone having signed an agreement prior to CCA 2006 coming into force. That is NOT retrospective. SO what IS retrospective? Why, little old Section 19. And THAT little nugget, dealing as it does with the new Unfairness Test, should have the DCA's, debt purchasers, and all their hangers on, quaking in their boots. Here's why. . .

 

“Section 19 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 provides that a consumer credit agreement can be held to be “unfair” on the basis of

 

  1. its terms,
  2. the way a creditor has exercised or enforced his rights, or
  3. anything else done or not done by or on behalf of the creditor at any stage during the relationship.”

Note, that this means that even if you signed an agreement PRIOR to the 2006 act, you CAN challenge an agreement on the basis of it's fairness. UNLESS that agreement has already been settled. This also means that, should an unfair agreement be assigned, then you can challenge the NEW creditor.

 

Now. Your homework for today should be, "Is my agreement, or the way any of the owners of my account has behaved, unfair in any way?"

 

Discuss. :D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
pt2537

pt2537

Posted
Posted

Ah but the fairness test gives the judge a measure of discretion

 

section 127 (3) doesnt, so its a no brainer, if i were presented with an agreement with missing or misstated prescribed terms i would take the 127 route all day long

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seahorse

Seahorse

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Absolutely, PT. But if your agreement pre 2006 IS enforcable? Well, you have another little weapon in your aromoury. You might not win completely, but as you say, the judge has discretion. And if you can prove unfairness, even in the way you have been treated, is the creditor likely to win completely either?

 

Take my case for instance. An example of unfairness might be, a lender is irresponsible in their lending criteria. Say, for instance, a credit card company has a mass pre-approved mailing campaign to all and sundry. That might be taken as an example of an unfair practice, as they really should have taken into consideration the debtor's ability to pay. Dipping into the electoral roll and banging off pre-approved application forms hardly constitutes due diligence either.

 

So, why is it such a gamble for a creditor who is faced with being challenged? Well, I was rather encouraged to read...

 

The court can order the creditor to repay money to the debtor, or to alter the terms of the agreement in a specified way. For creditors this is bad news and creditors should be careful to use debt collectors who are subject to supervision by a professional body.

 

and...

 

Debt purchasers should be aware of the implications of previous “unfair practices” by the sellers or debt collection agencies acting on their behalf. Further if the agreements purchased say one thing and the court orders that it be amended to something else, it makes debt purchase even more of a risk exercise than it already is. Debt purchasers should take these potential dangers into account when drafting the purchase agreement.

 

So if your agreement is enforcable, but perhaps isn't quite totally kosher, I'd say this section gives a little bit more hope. Especially if, like Cabot, they fancy chancing their arm in court anyway, even if all they have to support their case is a dodgy application form. The thought that they might have to end up with not only costs, but also REPAYING back money, should make them think twice, unless they are absolutely 100% convinced they can win.

 

Thank to Debt Mountain by the way for the little extract above. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
lufc

lufc

Posted
Posted
The Information Commissioners Office isn't much better, but at least they bother to email me.

 

 

 

 

well i come to this creditcard companys,debt collections agancys ,now very well what they are doing basicly dont give a t-ss for ico,oft as if them 2 arnt botherd theyget away with it lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
SWIS

SWIS

Posted
Posted

I can't believe I have spent 3 hours wading through this thread. From a neutral standpoint I have to say this:

 

Reading the correspondence between seahorse and cabot you may once have had a case. Any right thinking judge will have seen you first admit owing the money and then trying to wriggle out of it using questionable tactics. For this reason I would place £50 on Cabot winning the case.

 

Sorry if this offends seahorse et al but sometimes one should stand back and review things with a neutral head on.

 

Good luck though... ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...