Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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

sumbody help me!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6178 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

having looked through these threads, i realise that im seeing the name of 3 mobile a few too many times. i wish id seen this earlier and id never signed up with them.

i to cut a very long, dreary, and somewhat exhausting story short, i purchased a 3 contract 35 quid a month in january via an independant company, dunno if im allowed to say the name or not. they promised me chashback so id pay virtually nothing, by the 4rth month.

turns out the company stopped taking any of my phone calls, or responding, when the time came to cough up my money, and now i can no longer afford the contract! ive tried numerous times, phoning 3 as well the company but its like talking to a blank wall. they will n ot cancel my contract! ive cancelled my direct debit to them as well, n ive told em ill see em in court!

now ive got two questions!

1)who is my contract actually with? 3 or the company i brought it from?

2)do i have a chance in court if i only made a contract with an independant company and as they have not honoured their end of the contract, i dont need to honour mine?

what shall i do?

help me, coz to be honest, i NEVA wann have to talk to them customer service ppl again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Your network contract is with 3. It is 3 that is providing you with a service, and you are paying 3.

2) You almost certainly have a contract with 3. The fact that you also had an agreement with a separate company regarding cashback is almost certainly irrelevant, and you still have to continue to pay 3. If you do not pay 3, you will probably find that they will disconnect you and pursue you for the full remaining line rental of your contract, and you will damage your credit rating.

 

If the company you had your cashback deal with is still in business, you may be able to pursue them for the sum owed to you through the courts. However, this will not be instantaneous.

 

Some people have had some success getting 3 to reduce their line rental bills, having explained that they are unable to pay. See numerous other threads in this forum.

 

Never enter a mobile phone contract you can't afford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate you'd be better informed if you joined this forum BEFORE you signed up - but it's unfair to complain about 3UK, the problem you describe in not under the control of ANY network, and failing cashback schemes (which are very much like pyramid schemes in a way) were so common - are less so now as people are more knowledgeable about how volatile these dealer promises can be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pursue the cashback company, pm me their name if you cant get a hold of them i can usually find a lot of information about a company and may be able to assist. It does seem there are a lot of things like this going on

Link to post
Share on other sites

buzby, in fairness 3 seem to be particularly guilty of letting any sheister set up as a reseller. i'm sure i've heard that they're clamping down a bit, which can only be a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for 3UK, is the contract and deal have been set up correctly. It is because the 'cashback' scheme is underwritten by the dealer and not the network that the problems arise. They are using the dealers commission to pay for the cashback, and if this doesn't materialise as the dealer expects, the customer is left standing as the dealer goes to the wall. No network has been immune from this and 3UK now has onerous conditions in place for their retailers to stop this happening. Yes, they have chucked out dealers who have tried to con the public, so they've done what they can. The T&C regulating the situation are those of the network, which won;t refer to the cashback as the promotion had nothing to do with them.

 

The answer is to explain to 3UK the situation and their standard response is to allow a tariff modification that will cut down the monthly spend to help the consumer caught in this trap. If the dealer is no longer a 3UK agency, this will be a slam-dunk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BASH.COM LTD

126A UPTON LANE

LONDON

E7 9LW

Company No. 05639881

 

Looks as though the company is being wound up (closing)

I dont think you will get much luck getting anything from them. I will look for more

 

Ok the company look to be doomed, i found another company who are linked to them in some way, they may be able to provide more info

 

Talk2 Sales Marketing

 

I will keep looking

Told you it was bad

4.22(SC) - Notice of constitution/continuance of liquidation/creditors committee12/03/20064.22(SC)

 

http://www.creditgate.com/companysearch/BASH.COM+LTD.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

hey, im somewhat happy to say that after months of sending letters to 3, and asking them to deal with my solicitor, 3 came to a compromise saying that theyd give me credit on my account and reduce my line rental. i was very happy and accepted it! but a coupla days later, they turned around and sed that in order to reduce the line rental, id have to carry out an xtra 6 months on my contract, so in total, 24 months with them altogether! just wanted to know if they are allowed to turn back on their word after everyfing was settled?!

dont worry, though cos im thinking of accepting their renewed offer, and the sooner i get away from 3, the better!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sneaky bar stewards! This contract extension is NOT ON! Your agreement was based on the details discussed at the time. Their subsequent revised offer disadvantages you, and you don't (indeed shouldn't) have to accept it. Of course, you could argue if they are locking you in for another 6 months, you'd want and expect a new handset in compensation for their enforced additional lock-in period. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...