Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm sure I've said before that it's fine and dandy bringing in rules that favour you or your party, but you have to consider how it would play out if your opponents get in and want to use the same rules...
    • Its Gaelic celebration and bonfires today - Beltane Quite fortuitous for tomorrow lets hope
    • look on the bright side - it would allow Biden to do what he likes ...
    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights.  This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information).  The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
  • 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

Furnitureland/Multimaster


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5797 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

Hi, can anyone give me some advise on this and what to do next?

My husband and I bought a dining table and chairs from Furnitureland in Oct 04. We also took out insurance to cover any damage to the table, which is glass, and the leather chairs. We don't normally take out the insurance but as we have 2 small boys thought it would be worthwhile for this!

About a year later we noticed that the castors on the table legs were coming loose and were breaking/broken and also the leather chairs were splitting at the seams. My husband called Multimaster and they sent out a technician. He said that we had a claim as the chairs were not leather, they were PVC and also that the castors were not of sufficient quality to hold the table, they would never last. We then received a letter from Multimaster informing us that our warranty does not cover against this type of damage. We sent a letter asking them to reconsider and didn't get a response! We also sent a copy to Ernst & Young as Furnitureland are no longer trading, but got nothing from them either. We are still paying for the table and chairs but are ready fed up that the quality is not what we were sold and that there is no come back with the insurance. Why give us leather master certificate of insurance and leather care brochures if the chairs aren't even leather!! I have left this on back burner but am now ready to kick a**! Can anyone help or point me in the right direction please? Any help greatly appreciated, thanks, Catchleen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me make sure I understand this. 1. You ordered leather chairs, but the inspector told you they are actually PVC? If so then there is a failure to supply goods as described, contravening s.13 of Sale of Goods Act.

 

Did the inspector write down what he said about the castors? It sounds like they were not of suitable quality from the start of the contract. In that case, it will make things easier as you have the required proof needed once six months have passed.

 

If you have bought these goods on credit, then the creditor is equally liable, so you can claim against them. The warranty will not matter - you have statutory rights which the warranty cannot affect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest legallyblonde25

Hi there, I am a commercial litigation solicitor who specialises in consumer law. What gyzmo says is perfectly correct. Your warranty is simply an additional insurance policy and does not affect your statutory rights. The furniture does not conform to its description nor does it meet the statutory satisfactory quality in terms of section 14 of the 1979. In terms of the act you can formally reject the goods in terms of section 14 and seek to enfore your contractual remedies, that is to say to formally cancel the contract and claim a refund (often referred to as damages.) Having dealt with hundreds of furniture claims very often the company will only respond once a solicitor's letter is received or if you threaten litigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gyzmo and legallyblonde25 for your replies. Gyzmo you asked about the castors, the inspector said to my husband that they werent strong enough when he visited and then in the letter we received said "following his inspection of the furniture, the technician has informed us that the plastic castors on the table legs have shattered under the weight of the table and the fabric of the PVC chairs has gone brittle and cracked." Also what do you mean by the "required proof needed once six months has passed?" We have bought these on interest free credit, so should I write to both multimaster and the HFC claiming that the goods are contravening the Sale of Goods Act and that I want a refund for the goods and the warranty cost? So effectively forgetting any insurances and going for statutory rights and should I still be paying the HFC? I'll have a look around the site for any template letters to get me started. Thanks again, that's brilliant news xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there if the furniture is bought on HIre Purchase then the finance company are jointly and severally liable as well. At the same time as writing to reject the goods write to finance company indicating that in terms of section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 they are jointly and severally liable.

 

Good Luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

with regards to proof:

 

Within the first 6 months of purchase, it is down to the seller to prove that the fault did not exist at the time of sale.

After 6 months, it is down to the buyer (you) to prove that it did exist at the time of sale. Having that report should go a long way to show that the goods were not fit for purpose in the first place. It should save you having to get a report to prove your case. The inspector seems to have done that for you already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks gyzmo for that. The inspector hadn't left an actual report with us but said to my husband that the castors would never last, although they have mentioned this in their letter. I've sent letters to the HFC bank and Multimaster by rec del and see what happens from there. Thanks for your help and I'll keep you updated with any progress x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well the deadline has passed and we have just received a letter from HFC today saying that due to the Data Protection Act, Multimaster cannot discuss the account with HFC directly without our authority. So my husband called Multimaster and the lady on the phone could see that we had sent a letter but knew nothing else! My OH told her that we would send in a letter of authority so they can discuss the details with HFC. I would have thought that this wouldn't be needed as both companies received copies of each others letters. I'm now going to start to write a stronger worded letter to m/m and address it to the MD and see if that gets me any further. If anyone has any other ideas or advise, please let me know! Thanks C x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Multimaster have eventually sent a bog standard complaints letter and will get back to us within 8 weeks! HFC hadn't received anything from multimaster up to last week, as multimaster were denying having received our letter of authority :mad: . They have received it now though, as I re-sent it recorded delivery again. The deadline has passed (I'd even given them an extra week) so now I'm unsure of how to move forward.

HFC were calling as we hadn't paid them and my OH told them the saga, so maybe they'll put some pressure on m/m? Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We've received a letter from Multimaster basically saying that its got nothing to do with them and they are not changing their mind regarding the furniture - what a surprise! My OH called them as they seem to keep going back to the warranty issue and our complaint was regarding the description and quality. The lady he spoke to wasn't bothered and told him he needs to contact Furnitureland /their administrators and take it up with them. Now I'm going to start a letter to the administrators explaining the situation and see what they say re the Sale of Goods Act, but want to make it quite strong - anyone got any ideas on wording that would help me out? I'd appreciate any help x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Update

I wrote to the administrators and have not had a whiff of an acknowledgement. The HFC asked for an inspection to be done by the Furniture Ombudsman. When I called them they told me that since Furnitureland were no longer members as they went bust, the cost to get an inspection would cost £350!!!! Well we don't have £350 to do get the inspector out so we wrote to Multumaster and asked them for a copy of the report their inspector did. They charged us £10 for the pleasure, but sent it. This has been forwarded to HFC with a set of photos. My OH called them yesterday as they hadn't responded and they've said they want a report from the ombudsman. My oh said that we cant afford to pay for that and that the original report should be sufficient. The girl is going to speak with her supervisor and get back to us. I hope that they accept the report we sent, it does say that the table is irreparable. If they don't accept it, my oh says he wants to contact one of those "no win no fee" crowd, but I want to steer clear of them and think perhaps the FOS? Just thinking ahead as I don't have much confidence that the bank will pay up. Any thoughts or advice appreciated x

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bank have got back to us and said they want the report from the Furniture Ombudsman, not the one we sent - what a surprise. My oh told them again that we cant afford the £350. In the meantime we got a response from the administrators with a form attached to complete to make our claim. They informed us that the current refund given is 1p in every £1!!! So now we are not sure what to do next - any ideas please would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Update: We've sent another letter to HFC requesting again that they accept the report already sent to them but they have refused.

 

When we spoke to the furniture ombudsman, they are still asking for £350 for an inspection, which we can't afford to pay. Also, the outstanding amount owed is £250 and £150 of that is charges.

 

However, the lady at the ombudsman suggested my husband called trading standards. He did that and the lady there has said that it sounds like we have a good case and to forward copies of all the paperwork we have to her. So it's going off special delivery today and fingers crossed we may move this forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Update: Trading Standards have told us that the bank are liable and we have a case to get a percentage of our money back, but we do still need to get an independent report carried out. TS have provided a list of inspectors they have and I've contacted one who has given a quote (substancially lower that the ombudsman). So I'm sending off my letter the the bank to let them know the inspectors details, giving them 14 days to respond if they have any objections and will not accept the report.

TS also recommended that we continue to pay any outstanding monies as this will go in our favour, so we've started to make payments again.

This is the first time I've dealt with trading standards and have found them to be helpful and prompt. I'll keep the thread updated with an further updates - good or bad!

 

Catchleen x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Update: We had our independent report done and sent off to the bank and trading standards. The bank came back to say that we should send the report to multimaster, which I did and asked them to review their decision. Multimaster came back and said that we were still not covered! Trading Standards then wrote the bank saying they were liable under section 75 of the consumer credit act and for them to resolve the situation. We got a letter at the weekend offering us all the money we have paid so far and the cost of the independent report back! It's been a long haul but we got there. Will be going shopping for a new table and chairs and wont be taking out any warranty.

Thanks for all the help I received with this, it's very much appreciated.

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you got there in the end. Again it is another demonstration of contempt of companies towards their customers. Why they couldn't have dealt with this initially rather than having TS writing to them before complying is beyond me.

 

But well done anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...