Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are 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. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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
      • 160 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

Cabot/Restons claimform - LLoyds debt, stayed/lifted twice - now theyve appealed!!***Claim Discontinued***


kafkabee
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2321 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

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Cabot/Restons were given permission to appeal the Order.

 

They were ordered to file and serve a bundle of docs which complies with CPR PD 52B 6.3 and 6.4.

And - the Respondent may provide written submissions/a skeleton argument for the permission hearing.

 

Now, I filed my defence of their claim on MCOL and nothing happened- stayed/lifted etc.

 

I opposed their application for summary judgement and a fast track process - their grounds for their application:

'the defendant has no real prospect of defending our claim."

 

The Appeal Hearing is due to be heard in a few days.

 

I have filed a skeleton argument with the court in advance of the hearing within the time limit.

 

My question is this:

if their appeal were to be successful am I right to assume that my defence will need to be much more detailed and robust beyond their not complying with the CCA request?

 

Below is a piece of advice I found somewhere along the way and which I have relied on:

 

"There is no requirement for the defendant to prepare and serve a defence before the hearing of a summary judgment application (assuming the application is made before a defence has been led),

 

however, it is usually helpful to prepare at least a draft defence to illustrate the arguments to be made on the defendant’s behalf at the application.

 

The defendant should have a draft defence ready in any event in case it loses the application for summary judgment and the claim continues."

 

However, Restons lost the application for summary judgement.

 

Sorry - another question.

 

Am I required to serve a copy of my skeleton argument on Restons in advance of the hearing? The Order says the Respondent may provide a skeleton argument/submissions for the permission hearing.

 

Although it specifies that Restons have to serve docs bundle on the Respondent it does not specify same for Respondent's skeleton argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK its solely for you ref

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

I just phoned the court. This is what I've been told:

"Although there is no requirement that you file and serve written submissions/skeleton argument in Restons' appeal, as you have filed such with the court, then it would be in your interest to serve it on Restons."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really have entered a twilight zone here, a real dystopian nightmare.

 

To date this alleged debt has been 'owned' by six DCAs including Cabot.

 

Cabot's attack dogs Restons have sent me photocopies of computer screenshots which they allege show transactions on the Respondent's account, some of which are barely legible [WOOF], a transaction log from the applicant's system, together with a copy of a reconstituted credit agreement, a copy of a a reconstituted notice of assignment I have never seen before and a redacted deed of assignment. They have not provided a true copy of a default notice.

Edited by kafkabee
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest all the DCA's were part of Cabot group so not been sold around.

 

Scan up to one multipage PDF their return.

 

Click upload

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

here

 

The first time I saw the Lloyds notice was when Restons sent me a copy.

 

This is the first letter I sent to Cabot was a CCA request

- I didn't specifically request a default notice.

 

However as the Judge repeatedly pointed out at the hearing I had said "any other documentation the Act requires you to provide."

skeleton claimant.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
copy of CCA request removed please dont publish out templates in the open forum - dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

we don't need to see our templates

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

Arrears accrued after Lloyds wouldn't accept reduced payments following a period of unemployment. I complained to the FOS who upheld my complaint and interest was repaid and frozen on the account - effectively in dispute. After the complaint was closed with FOS the letters from DCA s began.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok.

i'm trying to establish whether a def notice was required or not.

 

if they went further than just asking for outstanding arrears prior to the end of the formal loan term, then a dn may have been required.

 

were you in some kind of 'plan' with them after the complaint

Link to post
Share on other sites

No plan.

It was all rather odd.

 

There were also some very odd phone calls from Lloyds that I complained about too.

Eventually, Lloyds wouldn't even talk to me on the phone.

 

I remember going into the branch to be told the account was in their recovery dept.

I just couldn't make any sense of it in the end.

 

Then the harassment started - phone calls / letters from various Debt Collectors making all kinds of threats to visit me at home.

 

I just sent the CCA request which they didn't respond to at all.

 

Now Restons are producing all kinds of stuff I haven't seen before like a reconstituted notice of assignment.

 

the judge at the pre-judgement hearing was quite adamant that she wanted to see a default notice and was the main reason she struck out the application and dismissed the claim.

 

It's an odyssey fraught with idiot traps.

And the appeal hearing can't come soon enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the judge at the pre-judgement hearing was quite adamant that she wanted to see a default notice and was the main reason she struck out the application and dismissed the claim.

 

I.

and one main reason (the issue of a def notice) why the claimant says she was wrong.

thats why i was trying to see, imo, whether she was right or not. ie to see if a def notice was applicable or not. if it was applicable, then its issue is essential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

previously posted by andyorch..

Default notices, litigation and section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act July 2010

.

For a creditor to enforce a credit agreement against the debtor,

he must serve the latter with a default notice,

this notice must be served in accordance with section 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

.

Generally, the prescribed form of a default notice according section 88 is as follows:

.

"The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify

.

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it

and the date before which that action is to be taken;

© if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach,

and the date before which it is to be paid."

.

Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

.

Should the debtor be sued for the outstanding amount,

it may be open to the debtor to raise an argument that the agreement is unenforceable

because it does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations.

.

Agreements executed before 6 April 2007 are subject to sections 127 (3) & (4) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA').

Agreements entered into after that date are not by operation of the repeal under the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

.

The effect of sections 127 (3) & (4) truly displays the paternalistic nature of the CCA, in that where a breach of a prescribed term under regulation 6 and schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 is found, the agreement as a whole will be irredeemably unenforceable.

.

In other words, the lender cannot enforce the agreement or realise any surety under that agreement; the debt in effect is written off.

 

Regards

Andy

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

the key here is "may be open to the debtor to raise an agument etc"

 

In my case the agreement was entered into after 6 April 2007 so it is not subject to sections 127 (3) & (4) - [so may be enforceable?]

 

In any event, the default notice must be served in accordance with section 87?

 

So beware of one size fits all advice.

This is an area of consumer law which, in court on the day, and depending on the judge is open to interpretation, that's what argument is all about.

 

Like God, CAG helps those who help themselves or more correctly CAG itself helps those who dare.

 

All the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it the creditor is saying as the loan term has ended no dn is required?

 

Yes, that’s their argument - however, imo it’s flawed because they are saying the account was assigned to their client 2 years before the end of the loan term.

 

And it has become clear to me during a very steep learning curve, that their claim is also fraudulent relying on what I believe to be forged letters and documents.

 

And in this case, and notwithstanding the issue of a default notice, I hope to able to prove it.

 

I'm defending this claim because I don't accept that Cabot is the creditor. Neither do I accept that Restons have proved that Cabot is the creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

id drop the not the creditor bit IMHO

by NOA they are.

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...