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


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • occysrazor
      Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued

      By occysrazor · Posted

      Thanks for the feedback. I have added the new paragraph 47 to my version of the WS / court bundle as per the feedback. I won't be uploading an updated version of the WS / court bundle here, given there is no other changes needed to the previous WS / court bundle uploaded yesterday (post #244). I will now get 2 copies of the updated final WS / court bundle printed and ready to post to the Court and to Evri. For reference, the date for filing the bundle is 24th May at the latest - this is 14 days before the hearing date of 7th June. I'll keep you all updated on if Evri reaches out to me before the trial date. 
    • honeybee13
      John Lewis - Got caught shoplifting

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Hi. I think you already know that stealing isn't the way to live in the UK. You could ask for advice from the student welfare people at your university who should be able to tell you about how to deal with this and refer you to legal advisors if you need them. HB
    • Wen9821
      John Lewis - Got caught shoplifting

      By Wen9821 · Posted

      I did call the police both in the UK and in my country but both of them said no way to get the money back now. I tried my best not panic but it indeed influenced my life in many ways, the only thing I could do is start therapies. It happened around February- March, so I started to do this shoplifting thing to cover my rent and everything from the end of March, it’s been a month now… today it my first time to get caught. I know it’s very very bad, I seriously didn’t want to do this at all. But luckily I just saw an message from HR, they asked me to have an online interview next week. I’ll stop this behaviour and wish my messed up life back to normal soon 
    • dx100uk
      MET CCTV PCN NTK - starbucks closed - Southgate Park CM24 1PY

      By dx100uk · Posted

      thread title updated please complete this:  
    • dx100uk
      John Lewis - Got caught shoplifting

      By dx100uk · Posted

      did you contact your bank about the fraud? contact the police , action fraud anyone in authority? have you done anything about it? when did it happen? dx  

  • 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.

Deed of assignment help needed!

sequenci

By sequenci
in General Debt Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5770 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

sequenci

sequenci

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sequenci,

 

I abbreviate everything where possible, but yes I was referring to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

 

i thought so :p

 

cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

tifo

tifo

Posted
Posted

i think tbern123 is making progress in his(her?) case against Cabot so keep an eye on his(her?) thread. The s.136 argument has been used by Cabot.

 

On my own two accounts with Cabot and after my s.78 request, they are giving me the same 'we are not the creditor' argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
laaldinger

laaldinger

Posted
Posted

Originally Posted by tifo

 

This is the 'Cabot' argument and we are still not sure if s.136/s.139 of the LoP 1925 applies as they state they are the owner of the debt as they have been assigned the 'duties' but are not the creditor as they have not taken on the 'obligations'. So how do we pay someone who says they are not the creditor under the CCA 1974 definition (which is the Act that regulates our agreements) but we owe them money?

 

 

 

Just popped in on this thread, but if they (DCA) have not obligations, then why oblige them, talk to the origional creditor. lol

Good luck to each and all.

All comments are personal opinion only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
  • Author
Posted

s.139

 

Leases and Tenancies

139 Effect of extinguishment of reversion

 

(1) Where a reversion expectant on a lease of land is surrendered or merged, the estate or interest which as against the lessee for the time being confers the next vested right to the land, shall be deemed the reversion for the purpose of preserving the same incidents and obligations as would have affected the original reversion had there been no surrender or merger thereof.

(2) This section applies to surrenders or mergers effected after the first day of October, eighteen hundred and forty-five.

 

eh?

 

why would this be relevent?

Link to post
Share on other sites
tifo

tifo

Posted
Posted

i understood most of what you state above .....

 

your position seems to be that Cabot (or any other creditor) are correct in using s.136 of LoP Act 1925 as this is how debts are legally assigned.

 

However, as the agreements are all regulated by the CCA 1974, why and when does this cease to be the case when the debt is assigned under the above s.136?

 

Also, it is not yet clear whether the duties and obligations pass to a creditor under s.136 LoP or just the right to collect but not provide anything else as required by CCA 1974.

 

This would mean we have one creditor with the duties (LoP 1925) and another with the obligations (CCA 1974) so no wonder we are all confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Laiste

Laiste

Posted
Posted
i understood most of what you state above .....

 

your position seems to be that Cabot (or any other creditor) are correct in using s.136 of LoP Act 1925 as this is how debts are legally assigned.

 

However, as the agreements are all regulated by the CCA 1974, why and when does this cease to be the case when the debt is assigned under the above s.136?

 

You are confusing the assignment of a debt which is governed by the LOP Act 1925 with the contract itself, which is regulated by the CCA 1974. These two pieces of legislation cover different things. Just as if you were to find unfair terms in the contract, you would look to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regs 1999, for example. Not all aspects of an agreement regulated by the CCA 1974 are actually covered by the Act! If the Act did cover every eventuality it might make understanding one's rights more straightforward, but that's not how it works. When a debt is assigned, it is still governed by the provisions of the CCA 1974, that does not change by virtue of the debt being sold to a third party.

 

Also, it is not yet clear whether the duties and obligations pass to a creditor under s.136 LoP or just the right to collect but not provide anything else as required by CCA 1974.

 

As I have previously stated in this post, when a debt is sold to a third party, the rights and obligations pass to the new owner. Can I ask where this view has stemmed from that one party retains the rights and the other the obligations? It would simply make no sense for one party to enjoy the benefit of a contract and the other party the burden of the contract. That would be illogical.

 

This would mean we have one creditor with the duties (LoP 1925) and another with the obligations (CCA 1974) so no wonder we are all confused.

 

I don't understand the apparent confusion, to effect an assignment, the rights and obligations both pass to the new creditor. Whether the assignment is lawful from the perspective of allowing the creditor to assign his rights, but denying the debtor the same privilege, is in all likelihood an unfair contract term, in breach of the Consumer Regs 1999 and can be argued vigorously in any court claim. Additionally, such a contract term would not have been individually negotiated with the debtor, which is also in breach of said regulations.

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,

Laiste.:)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
tifo

tifo

Posted
Posted
Also, it is not yet clear whether the duties and obligations pass to a creditor under s.136 LoP or just the right to collect but not provide anything else as required by CCA 1974.

 

As I have previously stated in this post, when a debt is sold to a third party, the rights and obligations pass to the new owner. Can I ask where this view has stemmed from that one party retains the rights and the other the obligations? It would simply make no sense for one party to enjoy the benefit of a contract and the other party the burden of the contract. That would be illogical.

 

Laiste, i was referring to the Cabot letters to every person who asks for documents under s.78 CCA1974. This states that they have been assigned the duties under s.136 LoP 1925 but not the obligations under CCA 1974 and are not the creditor as defined by s.189 CCA 1974, so don't have to supply anything other than a letter of assignment to prove they own the debt, which they and every other DCA normally send.

 

You will be aware of the 'tbern123' and 'seahorse' threads on Cabot which also fight on this very point.

 

If every alleged creditor gave this answer then that makes a s.78 CCA 1974 request of no use at all as it would not apply anymore. This again makes no sense because a lot of people are having debts written off or unenforceable as a result of this request (including me).

 

Therefore either they have been assigned the obligations as well as the duties and CCA 1974 still regulates the debt or ......... well, we don't have answer for the 'or'.

 

Make sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Laiste

Laiste

Posted
Posted

Hi Tifo,

 

I haven't read the threads you refer to, but I do know that DCA's are incapable of telling the truth! They do not want to do anything other than squeeze money out of people. So a vaguely palatable fob off excuse that they are under no obligation to furnish the info requested, sounds like the standard tripe metered out by these parasites. If they told me the sky was blue, I wouldn't believe it, I would verify it for myself!;)

 

If you are in contact with people that have been told this load of nonsense by Cabot, I would tell them next time they are in conversation with one of their plebs...oops I mean reps, to firstly ask if the agreement has been assigned as per the terms and conditions of (bank's name) contract? When the affirmative answer is given, I would ask the pleb/rep to confirm where in said T&C's the assignment states that the assignee will enjoy the benefit of the contract without having to shoulder the obligations.......? I predict a deafening silence will follow!!!

 

If debts are being written off purely on the basis of s77-78 requests, it's probably because of the inconsequential amount paid for the debt. They want hassle free debt collecting, anything else is going to cost them money, much simpler for them to cut their losses.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
tifo

tifo

Posted
Posted
Hi Tifo,

 

I haven't read the threads you refer to, but I do know that DCA's are incapable of telling the truth!

 

If you are in contact with people that have been told this load of nonsense by Cabot

 

I thought everyone on here had read tberns excellent thread on Cabot.

 

I myself have received the letters i mentioned from Cabot for two accounts and they state as i have explained. I'm waiting for an answer to the reply i sent but nothing yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Laiste

Laiste

Posted
Posted

Hi Tifo,

 

Why would you assume that everyone on here has read Tberns thread? There aren't enough hours in day or weeks in a year to read all the excellent threads on here, particularly when one has other things to do as well.....!:o

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.:)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
tomterm8

tomterm8

Posted
Posted

I am no longer welcome on CAG

  • Haha 1

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tifo

tifo

Posted
Posted
In addition, it is my opinion that under these circumstances, the DCA would have no authority to pass your information onto third parties under the CCA, and that any action such as placing a default on your credit file might consitute a criminal offence.

 

Cabot are already maintaining 2 defaults (1 for each account i have with them).

 

I'm going to try and get these removed by the CRAs (though Experian is difficult to deal with).

 

But, if s.136 LoP 1925 does not give them the right then under what right are they doing this? They cannot be using CCA 1974 as they state none of its obligations apply to them.

 

Does it state anywhere that they are able to collect and default me under s.136 LoP 1925 as a 'duty'?

 

See why this is so confusing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
tifo

tifo

Posted
Posted

thanks for the excellent post Richard,

 

I'll wait for their response to my letters and then write back using some of the info i have since acquired.

 

The letters are signed by their 'legal counsel/legal director' Willem Wellinghoff (WW for short) and he seems to reply to all debtors who dispute accounts with Cabot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomterm8

tomterm8

Posted
Posted

I am no longer welcome on CAG

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
make them aktiv runners

make them aktiv runners

Posted
Posted

Thanks Richard.

 

If my reading is correct then in order to be a data processor (for updating credit records) they must be able to supply the very document that gives that permission, ie executed copy of the CCA.

 

Perhaps the CCA request letter should be amended to include a paragraph on data processing? What does everyone else think?

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...