Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I suggested consideration of bankruptcy some years ago. It was not well received.
    • That is a superb WS. However, I have a few tweaks to suggest. In (2) "indicating" not "indication". I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2. Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay. I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion. After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point - 8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.   In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits. In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write - 16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative. You also need ot number your exhibits. The rest is excellent - well done.
    • Did you ever think of walking away? Become bankrupt and in 12 months it'll all be behind you. My feeling is that you may well get nothing from the sale of the property anyway. Going by the date this thread started it looks like eight years of arrears, lender's costs and receiver’s fees on top.
    • Just to clarify - I make use of evening legal clinics. It is not always possible to see a lawyer (they have limited time and days/week).  This means questions one has may never get answered or there's weeks between follow-ups.   To be really clear - I am representing myself; I am playing at being lawyer/ barrister - which means I take help wherever I can get it (and then research it thoroughly). Ae - a judge in a recent hearing pointed out the receiver is not part of my current proceedings - and suggested I have a separate claim v the receiver. Disclosure has presented damning evidence v the receiver  The receiver against whom I have a complaint is not part of the receiver governing body.   The receivership is in 2 names - a joint one.  My complaint is directed at whom I was told is the lead receiver.  The other named receiver IS a member of the governing body.  But he has now left the company.  And the lead receiver has retired - but is still a working consultant on my case.   All the evidence shows it was the 'lead' receiver who was doing all the  work/ the misbehaviour.   But if the appointment was 'joint' would I make a complaint against them both?    I am sure that wouldn't go down well with the other receiver who is at the beginning of his career. The law is very much against borrowers.   But the evidence against this receivership is crystal clear.   I just don't know how and to whom to complain.   The places I've tried so far don't offer much transparency       
  • 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

MMF/? claimform - old peacy loans PDL subject to IR complaint.


amyrue
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2501 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

Hi

 

I received a county court claim form from Northamptonshire County Court regarding a claim by MORIARTY Law on behalf of MMF that I owe £879.21 for Peachy Pay Day loan debt that they had now purchased.

 

I had ignored the MMF letters for the last year and had ironically pursued an irresponsible lending complaint with Peachy Loans as the original creditor in January this year given I had repetitively rolled over 6 loans from Peachy at the time of the loans in 2013 - 2014 (see attached loan statements).

 

 

The response that I had received from Peachy Loans was that they no longer owned the loan and I should get in touch with MMF.

 

 

I hadn't gotten round to contacting MMF when I got the county court claim.

 

 

So far I have done the following:

 

1. I have acknowledged receipt of the claim form and indicated that i will be providing a defence within the 28 days (due 7th July)

 

2. I have written to Peachy Payday Loans a subsequent email advising them that as they had 'stonewalled' me I was proceeding with my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

 

Within 48 hours of my email Peachy have responded ( a very long letter that basically refutes that they were irresponsible in lending to me) and conclude as follows :

 

"Please be advised that when it's agreed a payday loan was mis-sold FOS don't usually expect the lender to write off the original amount borrowed.

 

 

They only expect us to remove the interest and charges, and remove the loan from your credit report (if it's been paid off).

 

 

If you've paid towards the loan then you'd usually get additional interest on the amount you'd paid too.

 

 

*Therefore, either ways (your complaint upheld/not upheld by the FOS) covering the principal capital borrowed is a must.

 

 

On the other hand, if the outcome of your complaint is (not upheld) this means you will be required pay the principal capital as well as the interest on the loan or any default charge.

 

Unfortunately, based on the above, we are not able to uphold your complaint as we are confident we carried out sufficient checks.

 

 

However, as a gesture of goodwill, we are willing to write off £659.40 of your outstanding balance of £879.21.

 

 

Therefore, you only have to pay £219.81 direct to Motormille Finance UK.

*This also means that you will not pay any interests or overdue fees, but only the principal capital*borrowed.

 

Please confirm if you would like to accept our offer as the full and final settlement of the complaint and that your complaint has been resolved to your satisfaction."

 

Based on the above it's clear that they (Peachy Loans and MMF) have communicated and decided that the offer should allow for MMF' s county court legal fees to be covered (by me!).

 

 

I am not sure whether I should agree to paying this reduced amount

- and if I do how do I ensure that the reduced claim amount is communicated to the Court ?

 

 

Also, given i have a county court claim can they decide to change the amount they are claiming for ?

 

 

Am I better of providing a defence to the Court that sets out the fact that I have a pending complaint with the financial ombudsman?

 

I would greatly appreciate your help.

 

Amyrue

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...