Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just a typo change that I'd make for the last line. Maybe also add something that says "I assume you will be fully aware that you cannot rely on a clause of a contract that you do not produce."
    • Hello, Firstly, and most importantly I am sorry for your loss. I would go back to the bank with the death certificate and ask them to step in. Remind them firmly but politely that there is no limit for DD claims   Please let us know how you get on.
    • My wife is the named person to his bank account with him having Dementia being his daughter (I say named person she still is but he recently passed away and the deputyship application has now being stopped by the solicitor as it's no longer needed) We've only just got the Death Certificate so the bank will be the next step informing them. She went to the bank and explained the situation but even being his named person the bank said she didn't have the power to stop DD without any legal documents (virgin money) was the bank. She could have copies of bank statements that was about it.
    • I see you said you tried to stop the DD but it seems that didn't work. May I please ask why that didn't work? You should be asking your bank to cancel the DD and I don't see why they would have objected, hopefully you can clarify this. I agree that you should be making a claim here against your bank and ask them for a DD refund. There is no timeframes for this.
    • JK: Yeah That's correct. We left rent payment coming out of his bank account from January 2023 - August 2023 until we could find somewhere to sort out his belongings which was fine. I tried to give notice a few times from August 2023 asking for advice from Sanctuary housing how we went about this explaining his condition and that he was in a Nursing home from December 2022. I explained we don't have any legal powers to his account like POT but were in the process of going for Deputyship and that I was the named person to act on his behalf to speak with Santuary housing. I said we could provide details of his condition and proof he was now in a nursing home with date he moved in. This went ignored despite repeated attempts to contact them until a housing manager contacted us end of February 2024 and notice was finally accepted with his tenancy coming to an end March 22 2024. Although they have continued to take rental payments for the flat despite someone else living in it from the 1st April. I wasn't aware payments were still being taken till I checked his May banks statements. I had asked them to back date rental payments to August 2023 when I gave notice rather than just giving notice in March 2024 but they've ignored that bit. I don't see why they shouldn't give it back they've taken money they shouldn't have. Thanks DX, I wasn't aware we could do that for that length of time. I'll ask my wife to check with the bank this week
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Just been to court/CL finance**WON IN COURT**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5591 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

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi bluetack,

 

 

Congratulations!!! Well Done!!!

 

 

I'm not actually surprised that you had more knowledge than those solicitors. Bet they thought it was going to be a walk in the park.

 

 

Best wishes, Jeff.

 

 

WELL DONE - BRILLIANT NEWS!!! NICE TO SEE YOU WON!!

 

Jeff, this is the big mistake these companies are making in their thinking we don't know anything!!

 

Time these comapnies woke up and realsied that Consumers have rights too - gone are the days where we let them take us for a ride :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear hear! I think it stinks that TWO solicitors attended to fight a case that was listed for a 10 minute hearing.....

And then lost ::)

Absolutely well done, and well done Rory as well. The advice on this thread will be invaluable to others and will be an inspiration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

 

When you say you doctored the statements - what exactly do you mean?

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Or it could be if she forgot a comma:

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had, doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

I'm just hoping really that's what she means, would be bad otherwise.

I'm reading the whole paragraph to read that she had a statement in her posession that was doctored by the solicitor to read that they owned it.

Judge has then looked and took the opinion that CL and sols cannot both own it.

I may be gravely wrong, oooer!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No she clearly states this which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor

 

YIKES............:!: :!:

 

Surely not. I think (hope) there may be a misunderstanding here........

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having thought about it, ... the production of statements in court does not necessarily prove the existence, ownership, or liability of a debt, (anyone can print statements of sorts), then it's unlikely to sway a judges decision if you just happen to write on certain statements that XXX company claim ownership from XX date,... because they are.

 

I would imagine it only becomes a problem if documents are produced with the specific intention of misleading the court to your advantage. If this was the case, surely two Solicitors would have picked it up????

 

I'm just theorising, thinking out loud.......

 

No. I'm sure it's OK. 8-)

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no doubt your thread will be a tremendous inspiration to loads of folks who were dreading being taken to court.

 

Now EVERYONE knows the application as an agreement arguement has been totally blown out of the water.

 

Well Done for having the courage of your convictions.

 

To all the MIB who I know trawl these posts.... TAKE NOTE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and I also took along a copy of my last statement which I had doctored to read that CL Finance's solicitor (two of them turned up to fight the case) actually owned the debt they were chasing me for!!! The judge agreed that this proved statements alone were not proof of debt.

 

I read that as the Judge having been shown how easy it is to alter a statement, realised that such statements cannot be relied upon as proof of a debt.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that as the Judge having been shown how easily it is to alter a statement, realised that such statements cannot be relied upon as proof of a debt.

Beat me to that lol. I think he altered the docs and pointed this out to the judge - to show that these statements prove NOTHING. Perhaps op will see and explain lol.

Diddy Vrs Clarity - Clarity have produced CCA on behalf of EGG CC

Diddy Vrs Woolwich - I am at stage 2 (recieved shcedule of charges applied to account)

Diddy Vrs Buchanan clark & Wells - sent CCA request, not yet complied.

 

Mission is to end the year 2007 as level - dont want to owe or be owed by then :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, do I feel famous!

Wasn't expecting this kind of response from everyone and its great, but I think I need to clear a few things up.

First of all, there was a lot of money involved here, over £9,000.

The solicitors were given big case reference books to try and find the points I had raised (I think there were about 11) but the judge was reading them out so quickly they hardly had chance to turn the pages! (they did look silly)

Then one of them said about the statements being proof of the debt.

It was at this point that I gave the judge the statement saying the solicitor actually owned this debt. I admitted then that I had altered the statement myself to prove that anyone with a computer is capable of falsifying documents that are not signed.

No one mentioned anything about this being unlawful, but I knew the statement thing would be raised and thats why I did it.

Remember, two years of the statements were missing. Their argument was that the account was dormant therefore no need for statements, the judge's reply was statements have to be supplied at least every twelve months (one of my defence points).

This was the main structure of my defence:

Non compliance CCA 1974 s127(3)

60(1)(a) 60(1)(b) 60(1)©

61(1)(a) 61(1)(b) 61(1)©

78(1)(a) 78(1)(b) 78(1)© 78(4)(a)

79(1)

 

CCA 2006 not retrospective - Default under regulated agreements/ 11 (a)(b)©

 

House of Lords ruling: WILSON and others v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

 

I do hope this info will help anyone else in a similar position.

I will post the court docs/strike out when they arrive.

(not sure if I should show you doctored statement, could lock me up if spies watching...........)

Also, I asked for costs and was awarded £50 even though I hadn't gone prepared with anything written down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...