Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Default Amount £9237.88, all this started in 2006 Admitted debt £9075.65 Weightmans added £1515.01 immediately they became involved, no explanation The Statement shows when Marlin bought debt in May 2011 £10439.25 Their statements, not received until the SAR, are based on this. Cabot deducted £1515.01on their statements in January 2019, again did not find this out until SAR. Weightmans added in  2007 after the CH1 etc was confirmed by the court £741.50, made up of Process server fees, Court Fee (they tried for bankruptcy), Solicitors fee and Land Registry fee. Unspecfied Legal costs were added by Marlin in March 2015, again I did not know this until statements received with SAR I had been paying monthly, without exception until December 2018. I am minded to take the property charge, CH1 amount ,deduct all my payments and the subsequent fees, and request/demand a refund on the final payment made? I consistently disputed Weightmans balances, but they never responded. I also told Mortimer Clarke/Cabot that I disputed their amounts.  
    • Just follow this link and have read of some threads so your familiar with the process https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track/#comment-5178739
    • Sorry,  I'm not familiar with terminology.  Direction questionnaire is what I've seen online as next step. Witness statement: I haven't gone that far, that's why I put the question marks.
    • 2. Is correct disregard 1. You must attend ad per the order 
    • Confirmed with Central Contact Centre that the hearing is 24th, disappointed I can't speak directly with the local county court I have to email the local court apparently is the only way. The agent couldn't explain the discrepancy between the two letters, she sounded very confused. If they were identical letters in wording but only dates were different I would feel ok, slightly worried the wording differs...
  • 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

Who's wrong - me or Lloyds?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6165 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

I've started a claim for my business account.

 

I sent my first repayment request and thought I'd picked out the right template - didn't mention consumer regulations but did mention two cases: Dunlop Pneumatic v. New Garage and Murray v. Leisure Play.

 

I got my "sod off" reply this week and one paragraph goes...

 

"I've noticed that you've referred to the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations but these don't apply to you as you're a business customer and these acts and regulations only apply to consumers."

 

Have they picked out the wrong template for their reply or have I messed up already?

 

Anyone help? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are correct in that they don't apply to business customers but i think this is a common mistake so i wouldn't say you have messed up as such. I wouldn't be put off by this though, just carry on and in the LBA perhaps you could note that this was included by mistake. Its probably worth looking at some of the other business claims on the forums for information.

Redfaze Vs Lloyds TSB ***WON!!*** Settled out of court for full amount including interest and court costs:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a slightly different process for business accounts as they can't rely on consumer legislation.

 

There are however templates in the library and as you are at an early stage you should be fine to continue as you are and move to LBA.

 

Just make sure when filing the claim with the court that your particulars of claim use the business version rather than the personal banking version otherwise chances are [problem] will pick up on this and you'll have to apply to amend your claim

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've checked the template library again and I am positive that I've used the correct letter so I can only assume that in their haste (lol) to answer my letter they used the wrong reply.

 

So I'll carry on - maybe including a note to tell them of their error!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The UTCCR do not apply to business accounts so they are correct to state this. I certainly wouldn't compound the error by telling them they are wrong!

Redfaze Vs Lloyds TSB ***WON!!*** Settled out of court for full amount including interest and court costs:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies! Hadn't seen that, thank you bookworm! It's too early for me!

Redfaze Vs Lloyds TSB ***WON!!*** Settled out of court for full amount including interest and court costs:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...