Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • 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

Capquest issue bankruptcy notification *** WON + COSTS ***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4574 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

I have received a letter today threatening me with bankruptcy.

 

quote "we find ourselves preparing a statutary demand under section 268(1) (a) of the insolvency act 1986 which will be completed on or around the 22nd June 09 which will be served upon you."

 

It then goes on to say I can aply to the court to have it set aside, quoting sections from legal rules etc

 

At the bottom it says I can stop this if I come to an agreement to pay a reduced amount from the origional debt of £1413 to £847

 

The letter also states I could be made bankrupt and my property and goods taken from me. Can they do this if the propert is in my husbands name as well as mine?

 

Please help me understand all this as I am thinking it would be best to settle with them.

 

Thank you for reading this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 263
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

who is the letter from?

 

I am going through this at the moment.

 

Is the debt disputed? If so go for a set aside. BUT hurry you only have 18 days from the date of their letter.

 

How was it delivered?

 

Stick with it and dont let them get away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just a scare tactic. In all likelihood they won't even bother sending you a SD. If they do you will be able to apply to have it set aside and when (note that I say "when" and not "if") you win you can also claim your expenses from them as well.

 

I would suggest that you wait and see what happens. They're just doing a very good job of trying to scare you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a scare tactic - it doesn't take two weeks to a prepare a statutory demand. Its just a form which the creditor fills in and serves.

 

If you are bothered by the threat and can't dispute the claim, one option would be to agree the £847 and then send them £100 which would reduce the debt below the bankruptcy limit of £750.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have attached the document, hope it works.

 

 

Well it worked but you have to have super hero eyesight to read it. What did I do wrong?

untitled.jpg

Edited by starling
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK failing to post the document itself I thought I would give you more info.

 

The debt was origionally with capital one. The letter was headed "capquest"

 

I have recieved a cca from them but it was judged to be dodgy by you guys. Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment but I do have it just can't lay my hands on it. After they sent the cca and I fielded calls for a while I then received a letter from a different company saying they had bought the debt but now it seems it has been returned to capquest who have telephoned non stop twice a day for afew weeks and even rang my daughters mobile and asked for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a letter today threatening me with bankruptcy.

 

quote "we find ourselves preparing a statutary demand under section 268(1) (a) of the insolvency act 1986 which will be completed on or around the 22nd June 09 which will be served upon you."

 

It then goes on to say I can aply to the court to have it set aside, quoting sections from legal rules etc

 

At the bottom it says I can stop this if I come to an agreement to pay a reduced amount from the origional debt of £1413 to £847

 

The letter also states I could be made bankrupt and my property and goods taken from me. Can they do this if the propert is in my husbands name as well as mine?

 

Please help me understand all this as I am thinking it would be best to settle with them.

 

Thank you for reading this.

 

Make you bankrupt for £1400? Hmm, I don't think so - cost them nearly that much to do it.

 

Sounds like a scare tactic and they are doing a good job.

 

Er BTW, are there any unlawful charges on this account?

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recieved a cca from them but it was judged to be dodgy by you guys. Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment but I do have it just can't lay my hands on it. After they sent the cca and I fielded calls for a while I then received a letter from a different company saying they had bought the debt but now it seems it has been returned to capquest who have telephoned non stop twice a day for afew weeks and even rang my daughters mobile and asked for me.

 

Hmmm thats a no-no according to OFT debt collection guidelines... how did they get her number?

 

As to stat demand threat.......as already advised, it costs them to make you bankrupt and on a debt of 1400 they wouldnt make anything.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and send crappyquest this to stop the phone calls

 

Harassment by telephone

 

Account Number: XXXXXXX

I am writing in relation to the quantity and frequency of telephone calls that I have received from your company, which I deem to be personally harassing.

I have verbally requested that these stop, but I am still receiving calls. (Delete if necessary)

I now require all further correspondence from your company to be made in writing only.

I am of the view that your continued harassment of me by telephone puts you in breach of Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

If you continue to harass me by telephone, you will also be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded. (**Even if you don‘t yet have recording equipment!!**)

 

Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone who has helped me.

 

Is the general concensus that this is an empty threat and I should ignore it?

 

As its only a threat it could be either way tbh

 

The company have been warned about issuing SD's instead of the normal route for chasing debts by the OFT but who knows if they are stupid enough to continue....complaints to the OFT will help other people.

 

All I can advise is IF anything like a SD does come through the letterbox get on here straight away and you'll get good advice on how to set it aside and how to claim costs back from the vultures.

 

If you have them it would be worth getting together the Notice of assignment, the default notice, and the cca.. scanning them and posting them up minus personal info.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I were to take the other route that someone sugested of accepting the offer of reduced payments and paying £100 to get the debt below the bankruptcy level, would that not be admitting the debt is mine and give them grounds to persue me further?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if I were to take the other route that someone sugested of accepting the offer of reduced payments and paying £100 to get the debt below the bankruptcy level, would that not be admitting the debt is mine and give them grounds to persue me further?

 

Yes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a matter of interest I have been reading the top post http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/172543-just-recieved-signed-capital.html

 

and the signature on the document in that post is eaxactly the same as the one on my "cca" is that normal or a coincidence or maybe they use a rubber stamp to add a sig when the cca is requested?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course forgot about photo bucket :rolleyes:

 

Ok the top one should be (if I've put them in the right order) the bankrutcy threat I got yesterday and the nexy is the CCA the sent me. I would just like you to confirm that it is unenforcable before I proceed to ignore the threat.

 

untitled.jpg

 

Sorry had to cut the second one as it had all my details still on it. I will have to wait until my daughter gets home from school to cut them out for me. I am very limited in my computer skills.

Edited by starling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I sorted it. Is this a load of rubish? Oh and note the sig is the same as the one in the link I posted before, coincidence????

 

 

Not a single prescribed term on that application form. Did they send anything that they say was on the back of the page?

 

Unenforceable in my humble opinion. I notice there is a mark on the YES box for PPI, and a tick in the no box, Is that your doing? Did they take money for PPI?

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...