Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Backdoor Aktiv Kapital/Hagerty CCJ - merged old Barclays OD+Credit Card debt - How Do I set aside? ** WON WITH COSTS **+ campaign to shut them down


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4106 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

debt was still with aktiv a few months ago- no mention of court order

debt then passed to BCW-still no mention of court order

debt then passed to Philips- still no mention of court order.

 

in past 6 months- been approved for £20k worth of credit plus approval for £200k worth of morgage debt

 

experian credit score is 999 out of 1000

 

doubt there is a CCJ there, but suppose it's worth checking- is trust online kosher ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, it is the official Registry Trust which holds all Court Records.

 

If, as you say though, you feel there is no likelyhood of a CCJ then they cannot write, let alone visit you acting as Bailiffs which is something they tend to do to frighten people, and as such you should make a complaint online as many on CAG have done previously about this very subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HS,what address do i put in on that site for the search ?

 

My full story is here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262664-Aktiv-have-found-me-after-I-quot-lost-quot-them-2-years-ago&p=3133069&highlight=#post3133069

 

is worth me starting to CCA them, BCW and AKTIV ?

 

and is there any other threatograms I can send them ?

 

I'm feeling really ****ed about this, I'm use to everyones threatograms and have become very adept at reading between the lines which usually says we can do sweet FA. However this letter claims to can visit me without notice and permission except their own debt recovery department. This I regard as a criminal threat.

 

Also I am a person of considerable means now, however I refuse to pay this debt on principal that the bulk of the debt was paid up, and the bulk of the debt that remains is the fictitious interests charges they added when I went to clear the debt in the past. In other words I am not going to be a victim of these loans sharks for the rest of my life, where new debt suddenly materialises from now where when I'm nearly free of them.

 

sorry to rant, before I got carried away what I was going to say,is that if any of these companies step out of line with what they can/cant do. I do have the means to take it further and have read plenty of cases where DCA's have picked on the wrong person. so any advice on being able to threaten them back in this way would be appreciated.

Edited by sick of thames credit
Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't just send somebody roud to take your goods without a court order. end of. You need to go to Consumer Direct and complain to Trading Standards, the OFT, Ministry of Justice and your local MP about the threatening nature of their letter.

 

Stop worrying, if they do send anyone round you can tell them to get lost, you have NO obligation to let them in and they have NO right at all to demand money from you on the doorstep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I am a person of considerable means now, however I refuse to pay this debt on principal that the bulk of the debt was paid up, and the bulk of the debt that remains is the fictitious interests charges they added when I went to clear the debt in the past. In other words I am not going to be a victim of these loans sharks for the rest of my life, where new debt suddenly materialises from now where when I'm nearly free of them.

 

Stop feeling victimised here. You need to go back on the attack, so you are in control, not them. Check to see if BCW have obtained a CCJ using the links contained above in several posts. You have nothing to worry about searching for a CCJ using the trustonline site. If you find a CCJ, you just get it set aside, on the basis that you did not receive the court claims papers.

 

If it highly unlikely that Phillips are acting as bailiffs, so if they are saying this in their letter it is wrong. They would have mentioned the CCJ and about having a court order. As they don't appear to have done this, then the letter is just a threat which should be reported to trading standards.

 

In regard to Aktiv, they do appear to make debt amounts up. A relative of mine had a £800 debt and then suddently AK increased the debt to over £3500 even though the debt was statute barred. Following a complaint the a debt was passed by to another DCA who had missold the debt to AK and the debt was back to £800. So you are quite right in disputing the amount.

 

BCW from what I have seen are just incompetent idiots who send loads of letter and make silly phone calls, but nothing more. I doubt that they have lifted a finger to apply for a CCJ, but you should check, so you know how to deal with this.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had three of these on the trot from Phillips - It was not even my debt!! have enough of my own not to worry about accepting one more, but it was for an account with a Credit Card I had never had!! I just ignore them (reported them of course) and they have gone quiet at the moment.

 

However, Christmas is coming so by the nature of these companies they will up their efforts soon to see if they can frighten anyone into paying up, or to at least 'spoil' as many festivities as they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

Oh, yes, the leeches will be getting ready for the lead up to Xmas. Takes a special kind of person I think as some will no doubt enjoy spoiling other people's lives over this period and I hope every single second of it comes back to them later in life when at their lowest point in life comes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just a quick update to my own situation - sorry to hi jack your thread SOTC!

 

AK have now sent me a photocopy of my original Egg agreement including my signature - but it may be just copy of a microfiche and not a copy of the original - as the accomanying T&C's have the agreement number blanked out - so obviously this was not physically attached to the signature page in their files. I still have MY copy of the original Loan Agreement - and the one sent by AK seems identical - apart from one EXTRA clause not present on my own original. I believe in Scotland they would have to "aver" they do hold the original agreement in order to go to Court - and then produce the original in Court - but not sure if they will have this - or only a microfiche of it - and if they would need to have the original T&C's (which have a serial number on them) or just a "true copy" of them.

 

They also include a copy of an Egg NOA on plain paper with the Egg logo at top and and Egg/Citi Group Regd Office at foot - but no NOA was sent registered or recorded post as required by LOP 1925.

 

I had SAR'd Egg last January and had told AK I was still awaiting the info provided. They say Egg "no longer hold any records pertaining to the account" - but surely such records must be held to conform with Money laundering rules at least?

 

This letter doesn't give copies of statements or other correspondence or information from Egg. I am minded to just sit it out and only when they get heavy again tell them the SAR has still not been satisfied. I am hoping there was a DN and TN issued which could make everything unenfiorecable - but not so sure following Brandon verdict.

 

Does anyone know:

 

1. Does AK get original agreements from Egg when it buys the debts?

2. Do they also need the actual original T&C's - or just a true copy of them to enforce payment?

3. What about copies of statements and other infor which should come after a SAR? Should AK now provide this - and is the debt unenforceable until they do?

4. How low will AK go in agreeing F&F?

 

Any help/info/advice welcome

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Have had a long running dispute with Aktiv Kapital, facts are I defaulted on a student credit card and bank account in 2002.

 

Aktive tracked me down and I entered into a payment arrangement.

 

After paying off half of the debt, they added loads of spurious interest charges which meant I owed more than I did when I started paying them!

 

So I told them, I'm not paying a penny more and I will see them in court.

 

This was in 2008 and I ignored all mail from them since as I knew they would not take it to court as the interest charges were illegal and fictious.

 

since then, about 3 years I moved address, aktiv tracked me down not long after that and for the past 3 years have frequently sent me mails either from themselves

or other agents acting on their behalf.

 

they are the usual threatograms from bailiffs and such like threatening a visit.

 

But nothing ever happens as I suspect they know they havn't confirmed it's me at this address.

 

However recently for the past couple of months, things have gone quiet on the letter front, until a neighbour delivered a letter to me today.

 

It was a letter from a company called "Money save solutions" informing me a CCJ had been taken out against me last week at Northampton court.

 

What disturbs and concerns me is, is that my neighbour has a similiar address,

however the letter has been clearly adressed to his address, and previous letters were clearly addressed to my address.

 

In other words, after 3 years of sending threatograms to my address, they have sought a CCJ but deliberatly changed the address slightly so I would have no knowledge of the CCJ.

 

How do I go about verifying there is a CCJ ? I beleive it is real as there is a CCJ REF and date on the letter.

 

Secondly how do I go about having it set aside ?

I guess it should be straightforward as I have proof from the previous letters that they have given the court a false address.

 

Thirdly how long does it take to appear on my cre3dit report, I've just checked and I'm still on 999.

 

Fourthly, I have just accepted a job for which I need to be FSA regulated, will this affect me ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is quite up to date...it is a method recommended by a lot of folk on CAG.

 

The other option is to phone the court with the reference number you have on the documentation and see what they say about the when, where and who.

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks, Have just searched. put in my exact address, CCJ is real. But wasn't my address

 

my address is

 

No. X, road name, town name, county name , post code

 

my neighbours address is

 

No. X, house name , road name, town name, county name , post code

 

i.e. there is 2 addresses on my street with the same number, but to distinguish them one has a house name and one doesnt.

 

what annoys me is this must be deliberate, as they have never sent any post to other address until they sought this CCJ!

 

So looks like I need to have this set aside, some quick research shows I need a N244 form which I have just downloaded. However as I no Information regarding the judgement apart from the fact that it exists, how do I obtain the information regarding the judgment ?

 

Also once I have it set aside (hopefully), am I still able to put the debt into dispute (i.e. CCA requests and such like) ?

 

How long does it take to have a debt set aside ? as I'm worried about my job offer ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spoke to the neighbour, he has been away in australia for the past 2 months, spoke to him as I wanted to know where the other letters are. It transpires his cleaner has been looking after the place and has been filtering his mail for him.

 

I only recieved the letter today as he has now returned and the this one was delivered this morning.

 

Question for mods: should I have this thread in the Legal forum as this matter will now have to be settled in court ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I think we'll need some more background on the debt.

 

If you apply to set aside what will then be you line of Defence? It seems like you admit you owe the debt just not the interest?

 

Have you ever had a copy of the agreement for the credit card and were you sent default notices for it and notice that the overdraft would be withdrawn etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All in Legal Issues forum!

 

I did some basic research yesterday and gather my first step is to send in an N244 Form.

 

However I've some questions.

 

1) I havn't any details of my CCJ other than one has been granted and a ref no. Do I need the full details before sending in my N244 form ? If not, is it wise to do so ? e.g. There may be POC I would like to dispute at either the set-aside hearing or future hearings that I am not aware of.

 

2) I have had a good read through the forums here, and it looks like some people have had their set asides refused for not applying promptly and there seems to be some sort of time limit of a few weeks, where your set aside application is looked on less favourably. What is this time limit ? (I read one case which was turned down for this reason for just a few months)

 

3) According to trust on line, my CCJ was registered on the 01/03/12, will this be the date it was granted ? or is there some latency in the registering of the date ?

 

4) To have my set aside granted I need to

 

a) Show why I did not receive original court summons

b) Show I have realistic defence

 

Is it possible to rely on a) alone ? the reason is that I'm quite peeved by this dirty trick and feel this could set if a dangerous precedent. I.e. A claimant who is fully aware of my address, submits to the court an incorrect address, one I have NEVER lived at, then has a default granted in my abscence. Thus now I have lost the right to defend the claim against me till the set aside is granted and the burden of proof has shifted to me to prove "I have a realistic defence"

 

Background to case:

 

Opened student bank account 1994, student Credit card 1996, both with barcalys

 

approx 2002, defaulted on both, but never recieved any notices as I had moved address, so don't know if they exist or not.

 

2004, Thames credit (aka aktiv kapital) contact me, I'm informed debts are £1700 for CC, £1200 for bank account (please note I am giving approximate incorrect amounts in case the other side is reading)

 

2004, I agree to pay Thames/Aktiv £20 per month to reduce the debt

 

2008, I approach Thames to see if I can make a full and final settlement, they agree, but send an agreement to me which arrives late (past their offer date) and is not the agreement i reached with them.Thames then claim I am in breach of my original agreement from them. My Barclaycard debt is increased from £1200 to £2400 as they say they can backdate interest and the terms with my original creditor now apply. The overdraft is left at £900. I point out I have not defaulted on my original agreement as the direct debit is still active on my account and they refuse to take my payments.

 

2009, came to CAG and I CCA'd them, they sent back letter saying I didnt enclose fee so wont comply. After CCA refusual, I cancel direct debit which has now not been taken for 6 months as I consider the account in dispute.

 

2010, moved to new address, quickly tracked down by thames/activ, debts now stand at £2400 & £900 for CC & Bank account respectively

 

2010-2012, over 100 letters to new address, last one dated nov 2011 and debts stand at £2500 & £900

 

Yesterday: Discovered I had a CCJ granted on 1/3/12 for £5000, at another address I do not or never had any connection to.

 

My lines of defence are twofold.

 

a) I dispute the amount

b) since I have endured various dishonesty from aktiv, How do I know the debt exists and belongs to aktiv ?

 

or is it better the other way, dispute the debt exists, i.e. get them to prove it exists first, in the unlikely event they do, then dispute the amount ?

 

Thanks in advance

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

I don't think the OP needs to worry about setting up a defence at this stage. The claim form was clearly irregularly served since it was served at an address where the OP had no connection. The court can set aside where there is "some other good reason" for doing so, which appears to be the case here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OP reads CPR Part 6, on service, and concludes that the pleadings were not served (as opposed to just not received) then she can apply for the judgment to be set aside on mandatory grounds and need not prove a real prospect of successfully defending the claim or some other good reason; non-service is sufficient.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...