Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By BankFodder · Posted
I suggest that you start off by sending Zipcar a subject access request in order to get everything, including telephone calls and any other information they have value and this vehicle. If you are confident of your position then you could see them in the County Court to get your money back. There justification for not providing you with a VAT invoice is not acceptable -
OMG - in the WS they have evidenced the list of payments recd for all vehicles for all 3 dates and our car reg isnt there - How can it not be? I have proof we paid via the app. Ive even double checked on the app that I had put the right car park code in, and I did. Plus Ive evidenced the payments in the bank statements. They are trying to use this to prove we didnt pay. They are being very naughty or completely stupid. If it was paid via the app then it wouldnt list the car park parking machine would it, so where are all the payments from the 'pay by phone' app received that day. Strange that!! Gosh Im so anxious today about it all. Im off to read some successes to try and cheer myself up -
By Assistance seeker · Posted
Thank you after today you can bring your blood pressure back down I know I have been hard work sorry when spoke to the clerk yesterday I stayed about the email and telephone number having to lodge the clerk says we already have them on file for you but will send them to that email address also just to tick that box very last thing before you rest filing the motion is there a form for this I see what I have to state but how does this get “filed” do I add it to defences or does the clerk do this or is it a form -
you number your reply as the same number as in their con (you don't need to repeat their cons words in RED) so: Defences. Background The pursuer is a well known Debt Buyer or debt collection Agency that purchases large debt portfolio 'En-Masse' for a discounted Pence to Pound reduced value. These debt portfolios, be them direct from the Original Creditors or exchanged under sales between like Debt Buying Organisations, were likely placed for sale because the Original Creditor neither wished to prosecute their customer themselves due to bad publicity or are typically related to issues of enforceability under the Consumer Credit Act. i'e [1. The parties are designed in the instance. The Pursuer has no reason to believe that any agreement exists prorogating jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause to any other court. The Pursuer has no reason to believe that any proceedings may be pending before any other court involving the same cause of action between the parties as those named herein. The Defender has resided at the address in the instance for three months immediately preceding the raising of this action and is domiciled there. The nature and circumstances of the said residence indicate that the Defender has a substantial connection with Scotland. This court accordingly has jurisdiction.] 1. Admitted. [2. On or about 4 November 2016, MBNA Limited ("the Original Creditor") entered into a credit agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement" with the Defender. A copy of the Agreement will be produced. The Agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the 1974 Act").] 2. NOT KNOWN AND NOT ADMITTED It is accepted insofar that I have had financial dealings with MBNA, i do not recognise the debt nor recollect leaving the outstanding balance to MBNA that the pursuer refers to so have therefore sought clarity from the pursuer given that that they are the assignee of this alleged debt and have very little knowledge of what they are claiming for. The pursuer clearly states A copy of the signed agreement will be produced upon demand and that the agreement is regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 ( the 1974 act ). The Said Act holds important legal protections for consumers regarding enforceability and a creditor or debt buyer must meet these by providing documentary evidence. On date 08/04/2025 a CCA request section 78 under the Act was sent recorded, the pursuer replied dated xxxxx: We write further to your request for account documentation under section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Unfortunately, the original creditor has confirmed that they are currently unable to comply with your request within the 12-day initial timeframe. Although the account is currently unenforceable the outstanding balance remains collectable and it is acceptable for creditors to register and continue the reporting of a default. We will contact you further upon receipt of an update from the original creditor. Yours sincerely, [3. The Defender failed to maintain payment of the instalments due in terms of the Agreement. On or around 14 December 2020, MBNA Limited ("the Original Creditor") served a default Notice on the Defender. The Defender failed to make payment in satisfaction of the default Notice. The Agreement was terminated. Following the termination of the Agreement the balance due thereunder is £5,803.08 which is the sum sued for.] 3. NOT KNOWN AND NOT ADMITTED 4. The Original Creditor's rights in terms of the agreement have been assigned to the Pursuer. Notice of the assignation has been intimated to the Defender. 4. NOT KNOWN AND NOT ADMITTED 5. The Defender has been called upon to make payment of the sum sued for but has refused or at least delayed to do so. This action is accordingly necessary. 5. DENIED pleas in Law The defender puts the pursuer to strict proof provide all the required documents to legally be able to enforce under the consumer credit Act and bring this claim to court. The Defender craves that the court uses its powers under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the documentation supplied by the Pursuers as unenforceable. Accordingly, given the Pursuer’s averments are irrelevant et separatism lacking in specification, the action should be dismissed. The Defender denies the sums being claimed as due and the resting owing decree should not be granted as craved. .......................... don't forget you must file a motion to the court proposing they accept your late response you are a Litigant In Person and failed to understand the procedure correctly when filing form 07 . you must also: (5) directs parties to lodge electronically, with the Sheriff Clerk their email to [email protected] by no later than 12 noon, 2 working days prior to the hearing, a note setting out the name, email address, and telephone number of the person who will conduct the hearing for each party. -
By Naveen0753 · Posted
Let me check the documents if I will be able to find for 3 months intial warranty.
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Big Motoring World,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 162 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
We are now - The National Consumer Service
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now