Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • 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

Corporate Credit Media DCA ARROGANT


bach
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5991 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

My hubby got a phone call yesterday from Company called

Corporate Credit Media DCA says we owe them £48 50 for writing a cheque out which bounced.

 

They threatened hubby with " will get in touch with your bank and get our cheque facility withdrawn" "will stop us using cheque facility for ever"

they were really aggresive to him, he tried to explain that this was the banks fault (long story so won't go into it) and unill we receive the answers from the bank we would not be paying the amount that they have asked for. He said we had 7 days from today and if not paid will take us to Court. Its the first time ever we had anything to do with DCA could not beleive how arrogant and rude he was

 

Bach

Link to post
Share on other sites

For £48.00 ? Er , I don't think so. Write to them and ask for a breakdown of the costs involved that brings it to £48. And as if they can contact the bank and get them to withdraw cheque facilities- what planet are they on?

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought: have you ever checked that CCM have got a legal right to be collecting this debt in the first place? :)

  • Barclays: WON!!! It took four months but was totally worth it!
  • Cabot: I'm still waiting for an enforcable agreement, more than a year after requesting it. Go on, Uncle Ken, take me to court if you dare. You know you want to!
  • Elephant.co.uk: VICTORY - they admitted there was no debt!
  • Ashbourne Management (gym membership): Finally got my default removed and out-of-court settlement; I'm not finished with them yet!

<--- If I've been helpful please remember the scales ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would write to them stating - I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY - then insist that all correspondence be in WRITING ONLY and that if they make any phone calls they will be classed as harrassment and treated as such....what they did was bang out of order, at least with written correspondence you have a record (unless you record your telephone conversations)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Im a bit nieve as Iv never come across DCa before, how do I go about checking if they have a legal right to collect ?

I have just completed a letter also to them saying exactly what 42man has said.

 

Thanks for help and advise

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI, Sorry Iv not picked you up but had a mini stroke last week, so just beginning to get going again.

The cheque was for Sainsbury.

 

 

the problem was that at that time The Woolwich who we were with, were in the process of changing over to Barclays

 

 

although there was cash in the account to pay for the cheque

my Son also went in to the Woolwich and it said on the door to go to the nearest Barclays

 

 

which he did

paid in some more cash

but they told him because their sytems were'nt properly in place they could not put in the cash untill the following week.

I complained but they did'nt won't to know.

 

There was all sorts of hassel going on with the account at that time because of the change over.

 

I beleive that I might have made the cheque out on a Woolwich Cheque book,

and as it was not set up properly by Barclays for the change over I think that is were it happened.

 

 

I took your advise and sent a signed for letter on Friday so we will wait and see what happens next.

 

 

To be honest

because I have another problem going on at the moment

"A & L Regret cannot supply CCA"

 

 

Im tempted to just pay the £48 for the sake of peace and quite.

Thanks

Lynn

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest because I have another problem going on at the moment "A & L Regret cannot supply CCA" Im tempted to just pay the £48 for the sake of peace and quite.

Thanks

Lynn

 

Lynn I know you are going through a tough time at the minute but you shouldnt give in to these people. £48 is better in your pocket than theirs. Any Bank manager worth his salt would have cancelled the extortionate charge. Thats why so many DCAs get away with it because they rely on people paying up just to get rid of them

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add to the letter that ALL TELEPHONE CALLS WILL BE RECORDED they will never know whether you do or not

 

Indeed. You may also like to mention section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which states:

 

127 Improper use of public electronic communications network

 

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2) A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b) causes such a message to be sent; or

© persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(my emphasis)

 

I was getting a great many calls from a DCA until I wrote them a letter mentioning that all telephone contact from would be considered an offence under this law; I have never received a single call from them since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Re all of your help for the above

Hi all, Thought I would let you all know I wrote the letter as you suggested asking for a breakdown of their charges etc and guess what not a peep out of them.

Thanks guys saved £48.50 and all the hassel of baliffs etc.

I know its only a small amount, but its great when you do win

Thanks again for all the advice and support,

 

Lynnx

WON WON WON WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't hear anything from these LOL

 

Name & Registered Office:

CORPORATE CREDIT MEDIA LIMITED

C/O BOND PARTNERS LLP SUITE 2

1ST FLOOR TURNPIKE GATE HOUSE

BIRMINGHAM ROAD ALCESTER

WARWICKSHIRE B49 5JG

Company No. 03916622

 

spacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gifspacer.gif Status: In Administration

Date of Incorporation: 31/01/2000

 

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company

Nature of Business (SIC(03)):

7414 - Business & management consultancy

Accounting Reference Date: 30/07

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/07/2006 (TOTAL EXEMPTION FULL)

Next Accounts Due: 30/05/2008

Last Return Made Up To: 12/02/2007

Next Return Due: 11/03/2008

Last Members List: 12/02/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Press releases 2007

 

 

Consumer credit licence quarterly update

 

176/07 17 December 2007

The OFT has conducted 61 licensing actions in the third quarter of 2007 (July - September 2007). The OFT refused seven consumer credit licence applications and revoked four existing licences. The OFT also published 12 minded to revoke or refuse notices.

 

Under the Consumer Credit Act, businesses that are involved in consumer credit or hire must have a consumer credit licence. The OFT has a duty to protect the interests of consumers by monitoring the fitness of those holding or applying for licences.

 

Some of the fitness issues taken into account include acts of fraud, theft, dishonesty, physical violence, handling of stolen goods, actual bodily harm, breaching a community punishment order, obtaining property by deception, offences relating to the Trade Descriptions Act, Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act and Protection of Animals Act and breaches of the Consumer Credit Act and other consumer protection legislation.

 

During the quarter we also issued 38 warning or advisory letters. For example, we advised or warned five financial management businesses about the misleading nature of their advertising of Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs). The adverts failed to warn consumers about the potential disadvantages of an IVA such as the effect on an individual's credit rating, the potential implications if the debtor is a homeowner and the fact that any failure of an IVA can lead to bankruptcy. The OFT also warned a licensed debt collection company about a number of issues relating to breaches of our debt collection guidance. These included pressurising debtors to extend their borrowing or pay in unreasonably large instalments, refusing to deal with and/or bypassing third parties and contacting debtors at unreasonable times and intervals.

 

In considering fitness, the OFT takes into account a number of factors carried out by the business or anyone involved in running the business including:

  • any offence or conviction of violence or dishonesty
  • failure to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act or other consumer protection legislation
  • consumer complaints
  • evidence of unfair business practices
  • evidence of discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, race or ethic/national origin.

NOTES

 

1. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 requires businesses that offer goods or services on credit or lend money or are involved in activities relating to credit or hire to be licensed by the OFT.

 

2. The OFT can refuse or revoke a licence if it decides that a trader is not fit to hold one. Where there are substantiated doubts about a trader's fitness, the OFT issues a 'Minded to Refuse' or 'Minded to Revoke' Notice (MTR). This is a formal notice letting the trader know that the OFT is minded to refuse to grant a licence or to revoke an existing licence. It sets out the reasons for the proposed action with supporting evidence. Under s34 of the Act, the trader has the right to respond to the Notice by making written and/or oral representations to an Adjudicating Officer, who acts for and on behalf of the OFT.

 

3. Guidance for holders of consumer credit licences is available from the OFT website. The OFT has also produced sector specific guidance on debt management, second hand cars markets, and debt collection.

 

4. An adverse determination (a refusal to grant a licence or the revocation of an existing licence) can be appealed to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

 

5. The Consumer Credit Public Register is maintained by the OFT. The register documents traders that hold a licence and any action taken against them. It also details traders that have applied for a licence. Enquiries can be made to Consumer Credit Licensing on 020 7211 8608.

6. Applications refused between 1 July and 30 September are as follows:

Thoros Georgiou, Motor Dealer, Oakwood, London - 414136

Jamie Folkard, Furniture Retailer, Waltham Forest, London - 598094

Gurcharan Singh, Estate Agent, Handsworth, Birmingham- 580759

David Thomas, Accountant, Penpedairheol, Hengoed, 592523

Saints Estates & Mortgages, Estate Agent, Birmingham - 594893

Andreas Georgiou, Motor Dealer, Oakwood, London - 587720

Oakwood Motor Company (London) Ltd, Motor Dealer, Oakwood, London - 566777

7. Licences revoked between 1 July and 30 September are as follows:

Gerard John Joseph Mulligan, Motor Dealer, Lisburn, Co Antrim - 533094

James Pugh, Cash Loans/Hampers, Blackpool, Lancashire - 561101

Michael Anthony Sweeney, Double Glazing, Blackburn, Lancashire - 577403

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...