Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
    • okay thanks do you know how long it will take for it to get to the DCA or could the OC try and issue a CCJ? even though it's unlikely also for example would the OC agree to a reduction and a small payment over a super lengthy period of time if agreed? Rather than go through chasing apologies again for all the questions, just trying to understand all the possible scenarios.  
    • Currently - "the maximum daily price at 100p / kWh for electricity and 30p / kWh for gas – keep in mind that's a lot higher than the Ofgem Energy Price Cap, so if you can't afford prices to increase further, you're probably better off sticking with a protected tariff such as Flexible Octopus." Octopus Tracker is a product of our labs, available now to customers through our beta programme. Octopus Tracker is a beta product. Some things may not work the first time, and installations and processes may take longer than we'd like. Third party tech like In-home Displays won't always work, and on occasion data issues with smart meters can take significant time to fix or prevent things from working at all.   Copied straight from octopus   Feel free to shove it somewhere else    
    • depends what the fees are, typically nothing can be added once judgement is passed bar litigation costs. on document retention time limits etc at least 6yrs previous must be held though many hold complete info. as for acronyms and abbreviations ideally yes they should     
    • Still have to submit a statement either system....if they fail they can only give verbal because they failed to file and serve.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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

grattans


fkelanne
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6173 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

sent first letter on the 24th of april. got a reply today saying

" i have to note the comments in your letter however i would point out the under consumer credit legislation we are justified in applying a charge where defualt of our payment terms has occurred. The OFT considered the question of default charges in relation to store cars. it is questionable whether thier findings apply to other forms of credit, including mail order. the oft did NOT state that these charges were unlawful, but that in general terms, should not exceed £12 per charge.

I have interrogated out systems and note two default charges of £20.

Accordingly,i am enclosing a cheque to the value of £16 which represents the difference between uor prvios charges, and the OFT recommended threshold.

 

What do i do now? I havent sent the second letter yet just the first one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would point out the under consumer credit legislation we are justified in applying a charge where defualt of our payment terms has occurred

 

No they are not. It is unlawful.

 

The OFT considered the question of default charges in relation to store cars. it is questionable whether thier findings apply to other forms of credit, including mail order.

 

The law is the law: it applies to everyone.

 

 

the oft did NOT state that these charges were unlawful, but that in general terms, should not exceed £12 per charge.

 

They weren't asked to comment on the legailty only the reasonableness. THe £12 is an absolute maximum. The OFT said that their findings DID have wider application and that they expected charges normally to be much lower than £12.

 

What do i do now? I havent sent the second letter yet just the first one?

 

Send them an LBA. Stick to your timescales. You are in the right.

 

Steven

 

If this post is helpful, please click the scales

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

do i send the cheque back with the LBA

 

It's the simplest thing to do. They cannot argue that you have accepted their offer then which they just might if you bank the cheque. (Having said that, we banked the chequet that GE money sent and still carried on)

 

Steven

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

got this letter this morning,

 

i refer to your letter dated 14th may 2007 which has been passed for my attention. I have noted your comments, however, i feel we have acted fairly in offering to refund the difference between our previous charges, and the OFTs recommended threshold for such charges. the OFT did not find these charges to be unlawful, and as previously stated it is questionable as to whether they apply to mail order.

 

Also in view of the recent case of Berwick-v lloyds tsb, in whivh the court dismissed the claiments claim we are not prepared to issue a refund.

 

What do i do now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i refer to your letter dated 14th may 2007 which has been passed for my attention. I have noted your comments, however, i feel we have acted fairly in offering to refund the difference between our previous charges, and the OFTs recommended threshold for such charges. the OFT did not find these charges to be unlawful, and as previously stated it is questionable as to whether they apply to mail order.

 

This is travesty of what is in the OFT report - they have obviously not read it! It says that the charges are penalties (and therefore unlawful) if they are greater than the actual losses or if they can be shown to be unfair in any other way. They certainly didn't say "it is questionable as to whether they apply to mail order" - they said the report specifiacally applied to credit cards but they expected similar conclusions for other sorts of accounts,

 

Also in view of the recent case of Berwick-v lloyds tsb, in whivh the court dismissed the claiments claim we are not prepared to issue a refund.

 

This is irrelevant as the judgement will almost certainly be reversed on appeal. It only went the way it did because the judge did not have acpoy of the account contract in front of him and therefore could not demonstrate breach of contract. We just need to make sure we don't make the same mistake - ie not having a copy of the contract.

 

What do i do now?

 

Sue them in the county court. Follow the advice on this site and you will win, don't worry.

 

Steven

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i cant really afford it till the middle of the month but i dont want them to 4get about me can some please write a letter for me saying this is your last chance to pay up or i will take you to court plus somethink about that case with ltsb? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You told them in your LBA that you would take them to court without further correspondence. It doesn't matter that you don't do it straight away and they certainly won't forget about you when they do receive your claim.

 

THe timescales are for you to set not them. If it is not convenient for you at the moment then let it slip. Imagine their pleasure whenyou suddenly reappear.

 

As for the ltsb case, it is not relevant. THey were naughty bringing it up (Is your bank quoting the Lloyds victory to put you off claiming? - Contact the BBC)

 

Steven

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...