Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Attaching Exhibit A as I would like some validation that this email consitutes indeed a draft defence. If not; i might need to tone down my argument. Exhibit A. Draft Defence Redacted.pdf
    • Appreciate your swift input and amendments! I've reworded some of it (and will likely reformat the page a bit before printing to make it neater) but I've included the majority of your suggestions. Let me know what you think. Would you recommend I email this to the individual who declined the compensation as well as sending it by post? Cheers Switch2 - Letter of Claim v3.pdf
    • I suggest (change in red) -   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [car reg no]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6. The Claimant is claiming an unlawful amount of interest.  The dispute between the parties concerns a disputed, unpaid invoice, issued on 6 January 2025, on which it is written "Payment to be made by 06-Feb-2025".  Yet the Claimant is claiming interest from 4 January 2025.  7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Okay. That sounds a lot better. Hopefully you now realise that the third party rights act only applies if you have used a parcel broker but you are trying to sue the courier company directly. So because you contracted directly with the courier, you are going to sue them directly. By using insurance or prohibited items or non-compensation lists, they are seeking to exclude or limit liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care – and of course this is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and in fact the insurance that they pressurise you to purchase amounts to a secondary contract under section 72 of the Act because it is a prohibited secondary contract which is attempting also to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care. The prohibited items list is an unfair term as you have already pointed out. Even more significantly here not only are they saying that it is prohibited – but they are saying this despite the fact that they were very happy to take your money in respect of insurance. These people are stupid and dishonest. But also now they will abuse the County Court system by making you jump through the hoops because it costs them scarcely anything at all to use up the County Court system because it is a publicly funded taxpayer resourced system of justice. They don't use this to obtain justice. They use this simply as a means of debt avoidance to try and frustrate their customers legitimate claims.   Okay I've made a few amendments – and also I've added a further head of damage for unfair trading which could give you a next your little bit of money and also an extra little bit of leverage. Please have a look. See if you are happy with it. If you want to take anything away. If you want to add anything. If there is anything which is incorrect – and post up the final draft here please for a last look.
  • 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
      • 162 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
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, been reading this great forum for a while now and decided to join. I have a question that needs clarifying. Attached is my CCA from Lloyds for a loan. Its stated as non-cancellable, don't know why (signed on bank premises), but it seems to have some problems. Am I right in saying that the total amount repayable should appear on the CCA? It does n't on mine and if you claculate the repayments it comes to £22791 over 5 years. But thats not mentioned, just the consolidated amount.

There are no example repayments illustrated (at 0.25,0.5 or 0.75) and it's badly composed. Technically I don't think they can highlight the APR either.

If this is unenforceable, what do I do next?

Your opinions/help greatly received and any help to direct me to the correct posting area etc. Apologies if I've posted in the wrong place.

LLoyds CCA001a.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the site.

I will move your post.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post of the agreement is far too small to read.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this works! Thanks for the re-location Martin, sorry to be a typical noobie.

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp354/podclock/LLoydsCCA001a.jpg

 

It should show quite well. My main query is which legislation covers the agreement? Signed on 15/04/04 and do the usual prescribed terms apply?

 

Cheers for the quick responses Guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this works! Thanks for the re-location Martin, sorry to be a typical noobie.

http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp354/podclock/LLoydsCCA001a.jpg

 

It should show quite well. My main query is which legislation covers the agreement? Signed on 15/04/04 and do the usual prescribed terms apply?

 

Cheers for the quick responses Guys.

 

Don't worry padlock you're not a nob.

 

Rory is very helpful too, TAKE A LOOK AT HIS OTHER ADVICE IN POSTS. It's good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true flyingdoc! Thanks for being SO on the ball!! Does this mean that as the variance is greater than 0.1% the chances of it being unenforceable increase? What about the lack of prescribed terms and no total charge for credit being anywhere on the Doc? Does anyone know which regs apply as it was signed 15/04/04? This doc is very different from one which encompasses the prescribed headings in the current 2004 Act.Any ammo to stick it to lloyds would be great, they call me night and day and totally ignore my written request to stop calling and contact me by letter only.!!:evil: My poor wife is on meds for her nerves and cannot face answering the phone :(:(:( Thanks in advance for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

were you charged fees on this loan?

 

there is a total credit under the total loan - did you have to pay an arrangement fee or anything of the kind?

 

As I understand it the prescribed terms are all there

 

there is an interested rate - an amount of credit a payment schedule and Im presumning your signature.

 

The effect of the discrepancy in the interest rates I am not sure...

 

I am hoping that rory or some other more knowledgeable person will come help us out here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi flyingdoc, i have the exact same agreemant right down to the APR and monthly rate BUT mine is defered for the first 3 months, payment starting on the fourth month, but intrest is charged from day one.

 

http://blind-as-a-bat.eu/tsb1%20edited1.jpg

 

http://blind-as-a-bat.eu/tsb2%20edited1.jpg

 

from my thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/156033-blind-clark-mitchell-lloyds.html

 

not sure if that impacts the APR, should the defered bit make mine and this one differant?

 

 

I can say the layout and content of the agreement is not complient with the regulations as set out in the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, if im correct, i have been studying them for the last two days, this makes the agreemant unenforceable without a court order, but as it does contain the prescribed terms by the looks, as you say, it would be down to the judge to decide.

 

But this agreemant is page one of three on mine, so Podclock may be missing the T&C,s as well

Edited by blind-as-a-bat
Added second page, still missing third page

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi flyingdoc, thanks for the reply. I'm confused! I can't see the total charge for credit. I can see the total loan figure (17700) but interest has to be added to that figure, I think. That would be £22791. I can't see that figure anywhere. If £17700 was the amount I should have repaid, I would have almost paid that now. Also I thought that a certain format for headings had to be used such as 'Key financial information' etc, as blind-as-a bat says. No fees or anything added and one page only, no T'c & C's supplied by lloyds. Signed on premises (so no cooling off period). many thanks for the help guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of intrest is a requirement of the regulations, as are afew other bits that are wrong/missing, but they are not the proscribed terms (which surprises me too that a key piece of financial information is not a prescribed term)

 

So the agreemant is only enforceable by a court order, now i am hoping, if i am right, that means that they cant take any enforcement action against the agreement until the court passes such an order, if so can any action such as default notice or termination be valid before that order is obtained?

 

There is always the chance the court may not agree to enforce it, if the judge where to agree there where too many errors, and as some are financial, thus effecting your abilaty to make an informed discision on whether to enter into the agreemant or not, it may be possible a judge may favour the debtor, but who knows

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's food for thought blind-as-a-bat, thanks! I think I will pursue the total charge for creidt angle as it isa major disadvantage to not have that info and the other discrepancies will be a useful stick to poke lloyds in the eye with!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's food for thought blind-as-a-bat, thanks! I think I will pursue the total charge for creidt angle as it isa major disadvantage to not have that info and the other discrepancies will be a useful stick to poke lloyds in the eye with!

 

I have a grudge to settle with Lloyds TSB, so it would be a sweet victory, just wish one of the prescribed terms was missing, then i could have really stuffed them for christmas if they had:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...