Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • writing only not email ...end of.. does she want to keep the car?
    • Having another go now. Here is my thoughts on approach with the defence while I edit the WS. Focused around proof of service of CCA required paperwork, referring to s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925, and this section (my highlights) "Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned through the post-office undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered." Having a photocopied letter only in exhibits is not proof it was serviced. Strict proof? Proof of postage/receipt? Or, am I missing the point with the above please? And somehow arguing the agreement looks smelly.. like I could have typed it up myself. - not sure how this can be argued correctly, but it's just a piece of paper with my name on it, I think having a judge decide is a perfectly reasonable thing for a person to do if they don't think it's right. As it's my first court case and potentially many to come, I'm keen to experience it (or one of the first ones), I can afford to argue this one in court. I will also benefit from seeing this through for future decisions I will have to make.. rock and hard place With all of that said, and taking dx's advice, I'll TO if attractive and maybe do court on future ones that have a greater chance at success.
    • Back in 2019 this forum helped me to get free of Payplan and through some CCA letters dispense with a number of old debts. One related to a Barclays Overdraft from the early 00s, last payment through PayPlan was 04 June 2019. I have informed Drydens in both May 2019 and June 2023 of change of address. No letters beyond a confirmation of the change and a request for finanical details, which ive ignored. Today ive just received 2 letters from them that look like notice of assignment, or confirmation of appointment letters - along with the usual requests for payment and mild threats of further action. What i was wanting to know is do i just ignore these as per usual? I know that i cant CCA an overdraft debt but what is the usual "plan" for dealing with old overdraft debts? Am i trying to run the clock down until June 2025 when it becomes statue barred?
    • put selling and dca's and a very rare chance of a court claim out your mind. months/years if at all. but never ignore a letter of claim. as for the rest, to be frank you are now in the knowledge/research stage. a day.  
    • Upcoming changes to DRO rules The rules to qualify for are DRO are changing on 28 June 2024. From this date, the maximum level of debt you can have for a DRO will increase from £30,000 to £50,000. Another change on the same date will mean you may qualify for a DRO if you have a vehicle worth less than £4,000 (the current limit is £2,000).   Debt Relief Order Unit Insolvency Service Phone: 0300 678 0015 Email: [email protected] Individual Insolvency Register www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/eiir/ Insolvency Service www.gov.uk/government/organisations/insolvency-service   .   .  
  • 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

Leeds Merchantile Aug 29th


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6091 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

Bad news...a stay was granted but only until the Judge in the OFT case makes his initial decision...other things are also involved...however any DISPUTED charges made by the banks to todays claimants may not be enforced.during the duration of the stay..what ever that means???you tell me.

The templates for objection/appeal.are wrong in one area

The arguement that we (the claimants) have not got funds to employ barristers against the Banks,was in fact made one of the reasons for a stay,as the OFT have the money and they are 'supposed' to be representative of us,so anyone else needs to delete that from any letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what i've been told the bank cannot put any more charges on disputed accounts. Which is really good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes have to agree with you there Jess, us Barclays claiments were disappointed. What time did you end up getting out, as i left after talking to the Barclays representative - who was applying for a stay on our claims. So we didnt necessarily have to go back in?

 

out of interest which one was you lol?

 

I got out about 4ish, god I thought we'd be in there forever! lol

 

Erm, not sure how to describe myself lol, I was sat in the jurers section if that helps? Next to a guy with glasses, 2nd from the end nearest the wall. About 5 ft 4, blonde, late 20's, the lady who looked really really bored lol! Who were you, did you stand up and talk at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jess, thats good for you, if they dont pay you can send the bailiffs in LOL xx

 

Thanks, yeah it's good, but I'm not getting my hopes up for a cheque in the post in the next 14 days, prob will have to go to the baliffs knowing LTSB!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good luck with the cheque business, at least a handful of people will/should be getting what they went in there for.

 

Jess - Dressed all in black by any chance? No i didnt stand up and talk. I was in a blue shirt and tie about 5ft 5, mind 20s, sat next to a bloke in a pink shirt in the area on the right you walk in the door. I didnt realise there were going to be so many people in one hearing, and how disorganised could they have been at the beginning. I found some of the language the bank representatives used was a bit over my head at times.

 

I got kind of confused towards the end. So, due to our claims been stayed until the OFT have had the test case, do we have to go back to court at all/until after that has taken place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Judge Leeds Merchantile Aug 29th took a great deal of time this morning over his decision to stay the majority of cases of which 150 individual claimants were represented. He ruled in favour of the stay applications and recieved direction from some of the legal representitives of the banks who had failed to submit stay applications in to the court in sufficient time. The OFT test case has become a security blanket for the Banks and this test case will be the cause of further delays and many loop holes for the banks concerned. Valiant and brave claimants I am sure many linked to this forum spoke up during the open court opportunity to oppose the motion to stay. Sadly for the majority this battle for he present has come to a standstill. A long day in court.

I now await my letter from Barclays to which I will object to their request to stay my case which on a court trial date set as soon as possible following the week commencing the 3rd Dec will be granted its stay application.

Dont know what others felt about today or if they succeeded in getting their bank to settle or where we go from here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good luck with the cheque business, at least a handful of people will/should be getting what they went in there for.

 

Jess - Dressed all in black by any chance? No i didnt stand up and talk. I was in a blue shirt and tie about 5ft 5, mind 20s, sat next to a bloke in a pink shirt in the area on the right you walk in the door. I didnt realise there were going to be so many people in one hearing, and how disorganised could they have been at the beginning. I found some of the language the bank representatives used was a bit over my head at times.

 

I got kind of confused towards the end. So, due to our claims been stayed until the OFT have had the test case, do we have to go back to court at all/until after that has taken place?

 

Yep I was the one all in black, I might as well been going to a funeral the way I was dressed :rolleyes: I don't do formal usually lol

 

Yes I know what you mean about the amount of people there, I did expect that though but yes it was unorganised and I don't think anyone expected that so many of us would stand up and have our say. I wish I could of added something but I wasn't confident enough that I could of argued my point with the solicitors.

 

I'm sure they intentionly try and baffle us with long words and legal terms to intimatate us all, but in some cases it didn't work which was great to see.

 

Yes I get the impression that if the OFT test case rules in your favour you will be back in court again, presuming that Barclays don't decide to pay up first?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I was the one all in black, I might as well been going to a funeral the way I was dressed :rolleyes: I don't do formal usually lol

 

Yes I know what you mean about the amount of people there, I did expect that though but yes it was unorganised and I don't think anyone expected that so many of us would stand up and have our say. I wish I could of added something but I wasn't confident enough that I could of argued my point with the solicitors.

 

I'm sure they intentionly try and baffle us with long words and legal terms to intimatate us all, but in some cases it didn't work which was great to see.

 

Yes I get the impression that if the OFT test case rules in your favour you will be back in court again, presuming that Barclays don't decide to pay up first?

 

 

Yeah, im used to wearing a shirt for work but dont normally do ties.

 

I got the impression the banks solicitors were not very experienced though, made a few errors and they didnt seem that much (if at all) older then me (24). They didnt seem that long out of uni.

 

To be honest, because the court has put a stay on the barclays claims until the OFT test case, i cant see the bank settling before the test case. The banks could be a little more confident now that the judge has postponed the decision until jan. Although its not over yet by a long shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...