Appeal dismissed by IAS

Snakes_Belly · 24 October 2017 at 2:10PM

Yes and they were of the opinion that I may have a case against Excel. They gave me a case number but I have not pursued it yet. To be honest I don't really want to because it's very time consuming but if Excel pursue me through the courts I will throw everything I possibly can at them.

Snakes_Belly · 13 November 2017 at 6:24PM

Several weeks ago I received a Notice of Intended Court Proceedings to which I replied using a copy of Daniel San's (thanks) letter regarding non compliance with protocols.

In my letter I stated that I would not engage with third party debt collectors and asked them not to inflate the amount outstanding by doing so.

I have now received a letter from a debt collector and the amount has been increased by 50%. The protocols state that the claimant should "reduce the costs of resolving the dispute".

They have obviously not complied with this part of the protocol.

My next step is to write to Excel again with a copy of my original letter pointing out my comments regarding inflation of costs and their non compliance with the protocol.

I understand that I can bring this up in court as they have not complied by inflating the debt.

Interesting that in both the letter from Excel and the letter from the debt collectors that they mention the Beavis Case. The Beavis case does not really relate to my circumstances other than the size of the lettering.

The full transcripts that may help are Link Parking v Mr N and Prendi v Camden - Case 2100346960.

Both cases have similar circumstances to my scenario. The Prendi case went to appeal I think.

KeithP · 13 November 2017 at 6:35PM

Did you read post #4 of the NEWBIES thread?

You know, the post that says ignore debt collector's letters.

Snakes_Belly · 13 November 2017 at 7:02PM

Hello Keith,

I am not under any circumstances having any dialogue with debt collectors. This is a matter of principle. I did think that I may write to Excel and asked them again to comply with the protocols and ask why they had increased the amount that they are claiming.

I have two cases that may help. Failure of Excel to comply with protocols. Signage is quite small especially in relation to the formation of the contract. I also don't know who owns the land. Excel have either a contract or a lease.

beamerguy · 13 November 2017 at 7:44PM

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Hello Keith,

I am not under any circumstances having any dialogue with debt collectors. This is a matter of principle. I did think that I may write to Excel and asked them again to comply with the protocols.

I am afraid you are dealing with 2 brain dead companies

EXCEL has no option but to comply with the new procedures
and based on their past history especially when using the
the wild bunch called BWLegal, it is very doubtful they
actually know what they are doing

The debt collector drivel, is just that .. DRIVEL

I see no point in trying to refresh the dead brains of Excel,
you use the information in front of judge who should
know the new procedures.

Both Excel and the debt collector are scratching around
in the mud when they talk about Beavis.
I wish that Excel (Simon Renshaw-Smith) get their (his)
head out of the sand when it comes to Beavis as it's so
outdated and is not relevant to the majority of cases.
How brain dead can any one company be ???

OR, you could reply accepting their kind invitation
to meet in court

KeithP · 13 November 2017 at 7:50PM

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

I did think that I may write to Excel and asked them ... why they had increased the amount that they are claiming.

Have Excel increased the amount, or has the debt collector?

Snakes_Belly · 13 November 2017 at 8:01PM

The increased amount is in the debt collectors letter. I really don't know why they do this as they must realise that by this time it's plainly obvious that the defendant is either in it for the long game or hasn't got £100.00.

The debt collectors letter mentioned "this landmark case at the Supreme Court".

beamerguy · 13 November 2017 at 8:19PM

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

The increased amount is in the debt collectors letter. I really don't know why they do this as they must realise that by this time it's plainly obvious that the defendant is either in it for the long game or hasn't got £100.00.

They do this as the debt collector wants a share of action
They are dumbos in the extreme

IT'S CALLED A SCAM
Maybe Excel will seek a new legal as the last one
let them down so many times with stupid claims,
maybe they will continue with the same old rubbish,
who knows, whatever they claim, £100 plus court
fees and maybe £54 legal fees, thats it.
Excel will not be paying scrubby little debt collectors
as they will have failed so you are not liable.

This is a small claims court who will not get involved
in extortion money. Get your costs claim ready, don't get
greedy, £90 seems to be good for the court

As said, accept their kind invitation to meet them in court

"The debt collectors letter mentioned "this landmark case at the Supreme Court".

Work this rubbish out for yourself, Barry Beavis case was all about
the charge being fair ..... and nothing else

ARE YOU DOING THAT ??? NO

It's just low level rubbish from a debt collector trying to
extort money from you .... who are these dumbos .. DRP ?

Snakes_Belly · 14 November 2017 at 5:41AM

The court is likely to be Stafford. I know I have not the strongest case however I think I can give their representatives a run for their money. I really need to do some work on the formation of the contract and looking at their signs the reading is quite small in relation to the terms and conditions.

I will be back at the next stage. Thank you.

Quentin · 14 November 2017 at 10:30AM

OP. Take care - don't give your details to anyone here unless they have been here a long time and have lots of posts!

Ignore any pms you may get from anyone without those qualifications offering help

Appeal dismissed by IAS

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free