Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Ird/J&P - Letter Of Claim - old Emirates NBD debt


Recommended Posts

Hi all

Just coming back to this Forum, as it helped me so much a few years back with ADCB/Moriarty.

I've had the circulars from IDR chasing Emirates NBD debt.

They've been on and off over past few years, seem to be a run of letters, emails SMS and then go quiet, then start again.

A few months ago, same started with J&P, just a basic letter, email, sms asking to get in contact.

Then last week I saw an email from Emirates NBD saying J&P were acting on their behalf.

Up to this point, the main thrust of the letter seems to be please contact us, or contact ENBD about payment.

Then I received a letter - I can't scan/upload it at this time but I will as soon as I can - which appears to be similar to what I've seen on other threads. Namely giving bank details of ENBD, saying they've been "instructed to pursue action", and saying they've enclosed a copy of Information Sheet, Reply Form in compliance of Pre-Action Protocol

They state I have 30 days from date on letter to reply, and "if you fail to do so our client may have no option but to pursue further action against you".

I'm of the view, as per advice on other threads and my experience with the other lender/company, to reply as per thread #5 in the main thread.

On the basis that I wouldn't wish to give them ammunition by not replying or missing the opportunity.

I'm aware that on some threads, in similar situation, one poster had been advised by sols not to reply and apparently J&P didn't progress from there, other than sending same requests.

I feel these things are always down to the individual's choice, and I'm keen to see what others may have done/may be doing so will actively read other threads also.

Please feel free to ask if I can help with anything, or share any opinions, and in the meantime I'll get the uploads done ASAP.

Oh, one other thing. It may sound a silly question, but as they say - silly questions are better than silly mistakes.

The correspondence address in the current case and the previous one is correct and current.

I've never actually written to the banks to confirm my address, as is regularly advised, because I presumed if Moriarty/IDR/J&P are using that address, there would be no need to.

 because both cases seem to have my address correct, should I still write to the bank or take it that there's no need in this instance?

Thanks again for everyone's help in the past, and hopefully the future, and good luck to all

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Judge & Priestley Letter Of Claim - old Emirates NBD debt
  • dx100uk changed the title to Ird/J&P - Letter Of Claim - old Emirates NBD debt

thread title updated

hit letter of claim 

follow posts 5.

as for the bank

no need as your paploc reply contains your new address and J&P are acting on behalf of  IDR who's client is the bank themselves.

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

Thanks for answer ref address/bank. Thought it wise to double-check.

When I reply to them as per post #5, what should my reason for dispute be?

" dispute this debt because..recommended reason as advised from your thread and add the debt purchaser has yet to provide any or all of the required documentation."

Link to post
Share on other sites

there isnt one. use that default.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Has anyone replied as advised to a Paploc from J&P and had any follow up or developments?

I've read on other threads about cases of people ignoring paplocs  from J&P with no further action, or in some cases, the messaging reverted, but I can't seem to find cases of the opposite (ie replying to paplocs)

I know the advice on here is not to ignore paplocs, but just wondering if there was much evidence about J&P taking court action. I've experience of a previous debt being chased via Moriarty (ADCB) and it was widely reported Moriarty wouldn't attend, and they discontinued my case. Less sure about J&P, hence the question.

 

I haven't decided which course of action to take yet (ie reply to paploc or not), still evaluating but haven't found many J&P threads, conscious there could always be a first time.

For record, I have been receiving IDR on and off for a few years, then a few months back J&P took over, with sms/emails and then a few weeks back I received email notification from ENBD "appointment of third party collection agency"

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was the same.

they switched over to J and P after a brief hiatus when it went to the bank.

They even called up the cheeky buggers.

I also recently received the email about the 3rd party but it was IDR.

Seems they've suddenly started sending those as they hadn't previously.

ADCB occasionally send an identical one but with a different agency.

Meaningless.

One thing I'll add is when IDR restarted they still had/have the original amount from a few years ago rather than updating to what it is now once JP disappeared and it went back to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply.

After you didn't respond to the the paploc, what was their next step? Did they resend the paploc?

I feel it's like others have suggested, it's a 'fish' to get someone to respond.

Ref the email, I don't think I've ever had one, even when J and P took over with the first round of comms, then I received two within in a few days (both with same info) and a few days later, the J and P paploc.

Any guesses what they're thinking changing between J and P to IDR and vice versa?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Update, but no real update.

I'm still 'on the fence' about what to do, looking to make a decision tomorrow as still have a few days before the 30 days are up.

On one hand, history says following certain advice on here in my last case worked, ie ADCB/Moriarty discontinued.

On the other hand, I can't find a lot of evidence on here about J and P following anyone who replied to Paploc as advised on here (ie post 5 etc). I've read a few posters who ignored paploc and it didn't get any worse, suggesting that could be worth considering.

The thing is, it could just be J and P are relatively new and there's always a chance one could be the first (ie if I replied to paploc as per advice), but balance of history suggests otherwise.

Decisions, decisions.

Edited by gigglemal
Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not a case of 'J&P being 'new'.

as ive said before,

IDRWW just rotate around various sols that they can get that have no real legal morals and that are for want of a differing explanation, nothing more than a 'here use our letterhead' type fake, paperwork only, small firm/sofa sitter sols, that allow their details to be used under contract just to get a few £'s per letter fee. They never appear in court either, just defer off to locums.

99% of the big hitters wont and have never gone near the UAE debt threat scam simply to earn a few Quid. 

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

Sorry, I meant 'new' as in there isn't many threads referencing them on here, but you've explained it better than I could 🙂

It's just that I haven't found much evidence of what they tend to do if someone submits a paploc, and with other cases stating ignoring *seemed* to have worked insofar as going back to messages/letters, 

I'm leaning towards taking a chance on that approach.

When you say they never appear in court, on those cases with the locums, what were the outcomes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

well you wont find many J&P threads

they've only just started to use them...think about it....,,,,

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

Posted (edited)

yeah I started getting about 3 years ago, straight away texts, letters and even a call from the chap whose name is on the letters.

Edited by dubai 5 0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I guess we're all part of the experiment/sample size 😀 

Whilst there's a first time for everything, ie if someone did reply to J and P paploc and they took it further, it does seem the balance of info is on ignore, at least up till/for now.

Whatever happens, will update in due course. Always grateful for the advice on here.

@dubai 5 0 - thanks for your feedback on other threads, interesting to see the take from your sols and it seems to have worked. They made a good point about the time aspect.

How long was it in your case from when you ignored the paploc until the next development?

 

Edited by gigglemal
Link to post
Share on other sites

all debt collection anywhere in the world is all a great experiment.

did you know 85% of people in the UK think a DCA are BAILIFFS..and blindly start paying them..:frusty:

they don't read letters PROPERLY and don't twig nowhere do the say WILL or CAN do anything they HINT at by using clever wording.

the whole DCA industry, which is the biggest in the whole financial market, would not ever exist if people simply STOPPED PAYING THEM.

but its been that way since the late 1970's when they started.

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

Decided to ignore the paploc.

Based on some of the threads here that suggested J and P were 'fishing' and after a paploc was ignored, they reverted to another round of sms/email etc.

Whilst the 30 days to return has only recently passed, this may not be indicative, I received the same email from J and P as at the start of the exchange.

Will update over time as things develop.

Hope this helps

  • Like 1
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...