Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would suggest that you stop trying to rely on legal theory – as you understand it. Firstly, because we are dealing with practical/pragmatic situations and at a low value level where these arguments tend not to work. Secondly, because you clearly have misunderstood the assessment of quantum where there are breaches of obligations. The formula that you have cited above is the method of loss calculation in torts. In contract it is entirely different. The law of obligations generally attempts to remedy the breach. This means that in tort, damages seek to put you into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred. In other words it returns you to your starting position – point zero. Contract damages attend put you into the position that you would have been had the breach not occurred but this is not your starting position, contract damages assume that the agreement in dispute had actually been carried out. This puts you into your final position. You sold an item for £XXX. Your expectation was that you your item would be correctly delivered and that you would be the beneficiary of £XXX. Your expectation loss is the amount that you sold the item for and that is all you are entitled to recover. If you want, you can try to sue for the larger sum – and we will help you. But if they ask for evidence of the value of the item as it was sold then I can almost guarantee that either you will be obliged to settle for the lesser sum – or else a judge will give you judgement but for the lesser sum. This will put you to the position that you would have been had there been no breach of contract. I understand from you now that when you dispatch the item you declared the retail cost to you and not your expected benefit of £XXX. To claim for the retail value in the circumstances would offend the rules relating to betterment. If you want to do it then we will help you – but don't be surprised if you take a tumble.  
    • I was caught speeding 3 times in the same week, on the same road. All times were 8-12mph higher than the limit. I was offered the course for the first offense and I now need to accept the other 2 offenses. I just want to be ready for what might come. Will I get the £100 fine and 3 points for each of them or do I face something more severe?  These are my only offenses in 8 years of driving.
    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower. I still believe that I should be claiming for the item's full value, rather than how much I sold it for, as this is the same for insurance: we don't insure the value we paid, but rather the value of the item to put us back into the position we would be in if we ever needed to claim. Its for the loss adjuster to argue the toss
    • amusing that 'bad economic judgement on behalf of prior party ISN'T a major reason to wingers to move to deform yet immigration is, where record levels of such has been driven by the right wings terrible brexit and the later incompetent dog whistle 'proposals largely driven to whistle to the right wingnuts Just seems to confirm the are clueless numpties 'wetting their own shoes   Has farage bought a property in Clacton yet?   yet concern for the NHS is listed as a major issue even by those saying they are moving to deform  
    • Also, have you told us how much you paid for this vehicle? Are there any other expenses you have incurred – insurance, inspections et cetera? How far away from the dealership do you live?
  • 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

Findings so far


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6240 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

What does work though is if the assignment is equitable and, irrespective of whether the hello or goodbye letter is produced, the other 2 conditions required for absolute legal assignment have not been accounted for in the actual DOA.

This is very interesting Activ so what are the two other conditions you mention here?

and...

Now the DCA concept is working in exactly the same way (except they are authorised to data process too and probably get a % of income generated).

 

 

This idea of the DCAs getting a cut of the data processing has been aired before and a number of us believe this to be the case. Richard Spud suggested serving a S10 under the Data Protection Act removing your permission to process your personal data would remedy this.

They are skating on thin ice though surely as many, if not most, of these so called agreements are nothing more than the original application form and there is no executed agreement then the debt is unenforceable and the data processing is being unlawfully applied. Do you think companies like Cabot realise that they are possibly staring at a jail sentence?

I see that only today Richard Thomas the Information Commissioner has asked for sweeping powers to act on the banks (and DCAs) to stop them using personal data in this way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

1) All sales must be conducted under the Law & Property Act (ie nothing whatsoever to do with CCA 74)

 

No, no, no. RS said that the LOP was just the mechanism by which the transaction is assigned. The CCA still applies.

You also said something about these contracts existing somewhere. They don't. There are people right across CAG dealing with different DCAs, different credit card providers and banks and it seems something like 90% of them have the same problem the OC is stumping up a copy of the application form (and this has been debated many times and confirmed by the highest legal sources) but an application form is not a true copy of the executed agreement. Hence many companies have actually been operating accounts unlawfully/ illegally and stand to have to refund all interest charged for the lifetime of the account and the even greater issue of having illegally processed personal data and on this latter point the Information Commissioners Office is getting very, very annoyed indeed.

I must also observe that this assignment talk was first raised by the Cabot raider (and you can call me a cynic for I am) but I think it's been planted as a red herring to divert the Caboteers from the issues mainly facing their cases that the contracts don't exist. And what the feck is an hello and goodbye letter? Jeesus. A myriad of Cabot companies have been used to confuse the consumer - deliberately in my view and they are also guilty of abusing the court system by bringing cases they cannot justify. I have read some of their claims and defences and they are skating on very thin ice and have been getting away with it until recently.

And the real biggie is illegal data processing without the data subject's explicit written permission (not given in perpetuity by signing an application form) and the rather wonderful prospect of Cabot and their ilk doing a stretch or losing their CCA Licence (or preferably both).

This comes down to a very simple principle, no executed agreement, unenforceable and no data sharing.

And before I leave for the night why does Cabot have a CCA licence if they don't need one ? Total and utter bollix chaps. Keep it coming Activ we just love a great debate.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the Wilson case is easy to find. How many of these court cases are also held independently and accessible to the public eg BAILII or CAB? Do you personally know the person who gave you that information? Is the information being intentionally fed from within the industry? What are the full reasons for the case being struck out (not necessarily the same as reported)?

 

Activ I know this case Elizabeth is referring to and it was due to an improperly executed agreement. There are a number of examples of such cases being struck out on CAG. Some are Cabot, some are other DCAs. There is a very memorable recent case in Harrogate which got struck out. This did involve Cabot and the details are almost farcical. I'll paste it in here for your reference if I can find it and any others I come across. I do hope you are going to keep posting. It all makes for lively debate.

I knwo I chewed up a bit a couple of posts ago but it's only because I cannot believe the breathtaking way Cabot ride roughshod over rights. However it's probably becasue a supine public has allowed them...until now that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest way to understand it is, Cabot can't have their cake and eat it.

 

The statements in their letters are wrong and contradictory.

Indeed if their assignment is absolute they have no rights to process personal data for instance as that right (even if properly executed) will have ceased with the termination of the original contract.

Cabot states they have the rights but not the duties which under legal assignment is correct. So how can they keep registering defaults, sharing data, adding interest etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The winging it theory was Elizabeth's comment I think but seeing as how you've asked. Yes I think they wing rather a lot of things and it would seem they have, in the past, got away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Any true “assignment” in the contract will only be of an Equitable nature. The “rights & duties” in their true meaning are and always have been with the creditor, and the creditor is the party who signed the CCA

 

I've been away for a week but wanted to pick this argument up again and ask ACtiv about his above comment.

I think you are saying really that the DCA has a letter of assignment i.e. a simple contract rather than a deed (which I suspect is more relevant to property). So this means the OC remains the OC under this agreement and the DCA gets 90% of any money repaid under their actions. So it is definitely an equitable agreement.

Just one query that's going around my head in connection with this. How is it that a DCA like Cabot can bring a court case in their own name. Doesn't it have to be with the OC?

Also in many cases the OC states they have written off the debt. If it's written of, then it is truly written off and should not be assigned for any reason.

This is getting very interesting. Activ I would appreciate your comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...