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. I had initially counted 6 emails from them but I can only find 5 now... If I can't find the last one I will just change the number down to 5. 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

Link/Kearns claimform - MBNA/Virgin Credit card 'debt' *** Claim Dismissed with Costs***


Recommended Posts

Court today. Won with costs. Thank you Andy.

 

Kearns sent a agent down from London who was read into the brief but wasted a lot of time on irrelevant issues.

 

Judge pretty much demolished my arguments around the non-enforceable agreement.

He accepted the online agreement as original.

He accepted the tickbox as valid execution signature.

He accepted that the T&C were "in one document" even though you had to click a link to a separate web page.

I kind of expected all those.

 

Interestingly though he also accepted the Claimant's assertion that the agreement was non-cancel-able because no antecedent negotiations took place, hence no notice of cancellation was required in the agreement. Interested on anyones feedback on that.

 

Finally he turned to the DN.

He said that the Claimants assertion "had some force" that the notice period being to short was deminimus as I did not rectify in any case, but that the error on overstating the default amount was fatal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Excellent well done ...thread title amended to reflect the outcome.

 

The only time an agreement is none cancelable is if you sign for it on the creditors premises...all the rest ....On line etc are cancelable.

 

You will only benefit from a cooling off period if the credit agreement was made in one of the following ways:

 

For agreements signed away from the creditor’s normal business premises – i.e. at your home, place of work or at an exhibition stand

For agreements made at a distance (online, by phone or by post)

For agreements which fall under (1), you will have a cooling off period of 5 days, which begins from the time you receive the second copy of the agreement (containing the cancellation form). For contracts which fall under (2) and (3), you benefit from a 14 day cooling off period. Unlike the cooling off period for goods bought under the **Distance Selling Regulations (DSRs, the creditor may make a reasonable charge for any service (such as insurance cover) which was operating during this time.

 

There are specific guidelines on how you should cancel the contract, which must be notified to you by the creditor before or immediately after the contract is made. If the creditor does not make this information available to you, then your cooling off period will not begin until this happens.

 

With any contract or sale which is concluded away from the Creditors normal business premise, you must be sure you have been presented with clear written notice of your right to cancel, at or before the time the contract is made. If you have not, the contract is legally unenforceable. This notice, which cannot be in the form of small print, or otherwise disguised, must also provide a cancellation form and advise you on how and to whom a notice of cancellation is to be made. You can use the cancellation form provided or a simple written notice, as long as it is clear of your intentions. And as long as you have posted your notice of cancellation before the end of the cancellation period, it doesn’t matter when it is actually received. For this reason, it is always advisable to send it recorded delivery.

 

 

**Distance Selling Regulations

 

From 13 June 2014, the Consumer Contracts Regulations - which implement the European Consumer Rights Directive into UK law - apply to all purchases you make at a distance, for example online or over the phone.

 

This piece of legislation replaces the Distance Selling Regulations.

 

Again well done.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to  The National Consumer Service  to help us to keep on helping you 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. So do you think the judge was wrong in law? We didn't really get into DSR, simply s76 definition of cancellable which then flows through to the requirement to be in the actual agreement.

 

Given how much time and money Kearns put into this, and gut feel on if they will appeal, or is this just a sausage machine to them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to wait and sit it out but I have never seen them appeal a claim on CAG

 

" that the agreement was non-cancel-able because no antecedent negotiations took place"

Here is the relevant legislation

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/56

 

http://www.studentlawjournal.com/articles/2007/consumer/ccanteneg.htm

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to  The National Consumer Service  to help us to keep on helping you 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its been a week and not seen anything from the courts to confirm judgement, nor heard from Kearns regarding the payment of costs.

how long does the court usually take to issue the judgement?

 

Also, looking at my credit file, I see that the original default shows as Closed, but that Link had registered a new default in their name (updated 8/8/17). it still shows the default date 31/5/12 so should fall off in May next year?

They also have stated the balance to include all that interest that they are not entitled to without a court judgement.

 

Should I write to Link and demand removal from the credit file, as the court found the DN faulty, hence the termination was an unlawful recession?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"They also have stated the balance to include all that interest that they are not entitled to without a court judgement." Irrelevant given you wont be paying it..let them add what they wish

 

Should I write to Link and demand removal from the credit file, as the court found the DN faulty, hence the termination was an unlawful recession? No...you still defaulted with the OC...stands for 6 years...no connection to court claim.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to  The National Consumer Service  to help us to keep on helping you 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Link Financial keep chasing the alleged debt, even after losing in court, by letter and frequent text messages.

 

I wrote to them to state the debt is statue barred (last payment December 2011),

they have written back saying its not SB, as it was not defaulted by MBNA until 31May 2012.

Should I just wait 1 month then write again after 31 May with another SB letter?

 

My fear is that they will keep pestering even after that date - Or should i raise a Ombudsman complain straight away to get them to stop?

 

Their letter says that they can keep contacting me even if 6 years has passed, if we have been in contact during that period - which I guess is interpretative as we were "in contact" during the court case.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let them chase...block their texts...file their letters...they will get tired and move on to another unsuspecting cash cow.

 

Legally there are actions you can do to stop them but do you really wish to go to the expense and stress...far easier to ignore them.....and cheaper.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to  The National Consumer Service  to help us to keep on helping you 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link Financial keep chasing the alleged debt, even after losing in court, by letter and frequent text messages.

 

I wrote to them to state the debt is statue barred (last payment December 2011),

they have written back saying its not SB, as it was not defaulted by MBNA until 31May 2012.

Should I just wait 1 month then write again after 31 May with another SB letter?

 

My fear is that they will keep pestering even after that date - Or should i raise a Ombudsman complain straight away to get them to stop?

 

Their letter says that they can keep contacting me even if 6 years has passed, if we have been in contact during that period - which I guess is interpretative as we were "in contact" during the court case.

 

what letter did you send please?

 

link will carry on yes, as they are entitled too, even if the debt is statute barred, as long as they don't threaten court .

 

 

if you sent our statute barred letter then they should be doing neither and you can complain to the FCA under CONC rules but we need to see the letter please..

 

 

in E&W even if a debt is statute barred, it still exists and the 'creditor' can ask for payment

you can equally ask them to go away...

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Body of letter sent:

 

You have repeatedly contacted me via letter and SMS message regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself.

 

I would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5:

 

“An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

 

I would point out that in their consumer credit sourcebook, the Financial Conduct Authority states the following rules:

 

"...a firm must not attempt to recover a statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland if the lender or owner has not been in contact with the customer during the limitation period." 7.15.4

 

"A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred." 7.15.8

 

The last payment or acknowledgement of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

 

I await your written confirmation that no further contact will be made concerning the above account and confirmation that this matter is now closed.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's brill its our SB letter

they should cease all comms

if they don't then off to the FCA and complain I think is the route.

 

for now let it run

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

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...