Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • First of all it sounds as if your retailer is very decent and very responsible. This itself is unusual in these kinds of circumstances and I think we need to bear this in mind. The guarantee is not particularly relevant and in fact the dealer had a statutory duty to exercise a certain responsibility for your computer – probably for several years as their obligation under the consumer rights act. The dealer may not have known this and it simply acting out of a sense of moral responsibility and that is even more noteworthy. You've already suggested earlier that you didn't really want to cause problems for your retailer. I think that you will need the help of your retailer as well in order to get information and evidence. I suggest that you proceed against DPD – but before you do that – I suggest that you have a discussion with the retailer. Tell them that this is what you are going to be doing and you would like to have a copy of anything they have which relates to the special instructions which apparently your dealer has already informed you about in relation to where item should be left. Secondly, maybe you should tell your dealer about this site and also about this thread. I can imagine like many dealers who are frequently sending items by means of couriers, they have had things go missing. Tell them that we will be very happy to help them recover money for lost or damaged or stolen items – and that is regardless of whether or not they have purchased insurance. Apart from being very pleased to help your dealer recover items which have been lost by irresponsible parcel delivery companies, I think we need to encourage the complicity between you and them so they will be pleased to support you in your claim against DPD. It will be helpful if you can get a copy of the instructions that you have referred to above, and also if you can get some written evidence of your own instruction that your laptop should be left in a safe place. Have you done the reading on this sub- forum? You will need to do lots of reading of many of the similar stories on this sub- forum. They won't necessarily be against DPD but the principles will broadly be the same. Also read the pinned topics at the top of the sub- forum in order to understand many of the principles involved. Getting your money back but be quick – but your chances of success are better than 90% that you can bank on it taking anything up to a year. Have you got anything in writing from DPD either refusing you or telling you that they won't discuss with you?  
    • Thank you for telling us the text of the letter you had from the police. As we don't seem to have come across this before, it would be really useful for us to see the original please. HB
    • Pasco has recalled 104,000 packs of sliced bread after rat remains were found in at least two packs.View the full article
    • UPDATE I went rooting through an old box of paperwork I have and I've found the original Default Notice. It is dated **/**/201*, however.. The copy of the Default Notice that they sent with the LBC has a completely different date on it 😮 Can they issue 2 default notices for the same debt? Where they have changed the date on the copy, they have also changed the amount owed through failed payments and how much is required to be paid by a certain date. In addition, they sent (with the 1st LBC) a copy of the termination of the agreement, which I cannot find the original. However, the termination date is 3 days after the date given on the (doctored) Default Notice, by which monies are to be paid by. So, they gave until the 'x' date to pay the arrears, then terminated the agreement 3 days later. I bet a dollar to a dime they've doctored the termination date also.
    • Having looked through the paperwork, I note they have sent 3 seperate LBCs. Two are in the name of FCA Automotive (1st one issued 21 Jan 2020, 2nd one 21 Sept 2022) and the last one (issued 12 Sept 2023) is under CA Auto Finance UK Limited. In the first one, they did send a copy of the default notice, but this was not sent with the 2nd LBC and neither was it sent with the last one either. .  A quick look at the default notice and I see it states the agreement start date was not the same day as the original agreement was signed. It's a day different but do not know if that makes any difference. Also, I note we received a letter on the 16 Nov 2023 which states of a 14 day notice of intention to issue claim form. Heard nothing since that, until this court claim arrived. 
  • 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

John Holmes v Halifax - SETTLED IN FULL


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6557 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

Received a standard computer generated letter in response to my preliminary letter - after it apparantly took 11 days to reach the right department.

They are now in receipt of the letter before action (dated April 24th). Had a phone call Sunday morning 30th (funny this because I was told on the phone some time ago that I had to allow 14 BANKING days for them to comply because no one works on a Sunday!) the caller demanded I pay the £500 excess overdraft imediately with my credit card - I explained that because they have already taken all my money, I don't have any to pay them so they will have to wait until I get my charges back - you can imagine the conversation that followed?

Any way, this extra £500 is a direct result of them continuing to take charges from my account - it runs at about £300 per month now despite us using a credit card all the time- A classic example of spiraling out of control.

The Halifax are going to charge me 26% per month until I settle up.

What would you say is the best course of action?

I'm at the end of my tether. I would have gone under if it wasn't ror this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick to your timetable - they can add as much as they like, they are only going to have to pay it back in the end. If they keep ringing you send them a letter stating that you are only prepared to deal with the matter in writing, and they must cease phoning you or you will take action under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

FAO: Alan

I know I shouldn't post on other people's threads, but can you clarify the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 in layman's terms? I have tried searching on Google but all I can understand is that it has something to do with licencing. I want to be prepared for the phone calls I get as I have just started the ball rolling and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is interested. If there is a post or thread on the boards anywhere which helps, I must have missed it, so my apologies!

 

I doubt that the call centre staff who will be calling will know themselves, but just want to be prepared!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Alan.

 

I have read the thread through and it certainly will help in many other areas of life, not just with banks!!

 

If you haven't read it, John, it will definitely help with your quest. Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sent preliminary letter April 1st - no response.

Sent letter before action April 24th - the delay was because I 'phoned them to ask if they had received the Prelim. and apparently it took eleven days to get to them?

'Phone calls started on April 30th demanding I pay back excess - these escalated to three or four calls a day.

Claim issued on May 8th, deemed served on May 14th

Halifax indicated intention to defend all of the £1,889.03 claim on May 17th

After being 'phoned every weekend - their favourite was 0800hrs Sunday morning - I suggested to them that they ask their legal department to investigate the Wireless and Telegraphy Act 1949 as they may be breaking the law "everything we do is perfectly legal I assure you and we will continue to ring you until you pay the money we are asking for......we haven't decided yet how many times a day we will ring."

 

Since then, no more 'phone calls so; THANK YOU FOR POINTING ME IN THAT DIRECTION !

 

At the moment I'm battling with the default notice and their threat to take further action through the Court or Collection Agents. I'm making no progress on the 'phone and my letters are not being answered.

 

Thank you once again for the W&T Act 1949. Any further advice?

 

Presumably I wait untill all this is over before I begin the claim for the other charges that have accrued since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has little to do with the Wireless Telegraphy Act but more to do with Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and possibly the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

 

Harrasment by telephone is illegal - log the calls, phone BT to confirm and then issue a summons. Good Luck.

 

Can I suggest to ALL users of this forum that you do NOT give the banks your phone numbers unless you want it passed round all the other creditors who will think it fair game to call you and harass you as well.

 

Deal in writing - e-mail, fax whatever but keep a paper trail. You are then in Control - not some faceless wonder behind a telephone who is attempting to manipulate your response.

HALIFAX - Settled in FULL - £1654 13/6/2006

NatWest - Prelim sent - £985 16/6/2006: LBA sent 30/6/2006 : Summary Cause issued (Sheriff Court) on 14th July : Waiting for Cobbets!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all the help and encouragement from every body who offered advice. the Halifax have paid in full the £1,889.03 we were asking for.

Their intent to defend the claim in full was filed on May 17th.

They wrote to me on May 23rd and informed me that the money had been paid into the bank account that they had closed.

Since they had demanded we surrender the cheque books and cards in order for them to "resolve" the default, I have written to them to ask that they issue a cheque to me to the value of the court fees. Be aware of this ! They at no time asked how I would like it to be paid. Perhaps I was being naive.

Of course this is all done "without liability" because the cost of defending would have been too much to recover (I wonder how much in coparison to their lavish TV adverts ?)

 

Now on to stage two to recover all the charges incurred while I've been fighting this one. Preliminary letter tomorrow. We'll see if it follows the same course.

 

As Curtis Mayfield would have said (if you can remember him) "Keep on keeping on"

Link to post
Share on other sites

CONGRATULATIONS

This is great news, well done.

Would you please fill out our survey - HERE

(and don't forget we can only survive if we get donations!! cough cough)

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) Wonderful news John! Congratulations on not only getting your money back ... but winning!

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

many congratulations

 

it is sooooooooooooooooo exciting.

 

well done

 

 

"we will not we will not be moved!

Halifax preliminary letter sent 17/05/06 charges £2661.00

Bog Standard blah blah blah letter received 22nd May 2006.

received lengthy letter dated 24th May 2006 offering £605 pah!

letter before action sent registered 5th June 2006

letter received in response to lba offering £1801.00 errrrr no ta

court action filed 23rd June 2006

deemed served to bank on25th June 2006

notice of acknowledgement of service has been filed

they intend to defend

7th july received letter PAYING IN FULL!!!

 

10th July cash deposit £112.58

10th July cash deposit £2869.00

:D :D :D :D

 

HALIFAX SETTLED IN FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6557 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...