Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

AA loans/BOS - claim discontinued


myboro
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4108 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 All,

 

I have an unsecured loan and due to redundancy have not been able to pay since January this year. Balance over £20,000 monthly payment £285. Went via CAB and proposed a token payment of £1/month in March.

 

Anyway all seemed well as proposal accepted - seemingly as an ongoing amount. Checked my credit file and noticed it was defaulted as of 31/7/09.

 

Original Creditor is AA Loans and currently dealing with Blair, Oliver and Scott (Bank of Scotland DCA).

 

As I had no default notice queried with Blair Oliver Scott in August, recorded delivery complaint. No reply back so today I rang to find out what had happened. BOS stated AA would have defaulted before account was passed so needed to speak to them. Rang AA and initially said default issued in April, when I asked about proof of postage came back and said that they had not issued a default but asked BOS to send one when account was 4 months and a penny in arrears.

 

BOS had already stated that no default had been issued so I am asking what should I do now. If they have defaulted me without sending a default notice what does that mean.

 

What is the best way to move forward without getting into trouble. They accepted £1/ month without any fuss so I really do think they have done the right thing. What options are open and what advice would people give

 

:):):)

 

Many thanks

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I think you will need to get all that has been said in writing as they will deny everything that has been said otherwise.

As I see it, you could demand they remove the default but then there is nothing stopping them issueing another one (properly)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume they haven't terminated the account.....as Foxy has said they can issue one whenever they like, if they terminate and then issue a DN, then it would be an unlawful recission of contract.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the phone both AA Loans and BOS stated the account was terminated but I do accept the only evidence of this is my credit file. AA stated that they terminate/default when an account is 4 months in arrears. As I was paying £1 a month this occurred when the July payment (5th) was missed. So they action-ed the default early July. However rather than send a default they stated they asked BOS to send it.

 

Date of default 31/7/09 on credit file, which fits with the dates stated by AA Loans.

 

How can I get this in writing without them trying to cover it up, they are no doubt aware of an issue following my phone calls yesterday asking when the default was issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could try and SAR each company but to include all call transcripts (you may need to give them dates of calls)

With a little luck, any screenshots may show what they have done with the account

  • Haha 1

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

OK, so they have now gone into cover up mode and I need advice as something seems wrong. I received the attached letter which now confirms they die not send the default and low and behold they have sent another.

 

What a shame I alerted them to the error, silly boy. Is there anything worth trying nor. I am obviously going to complain but feel as though they will cover everything up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off you dont say anywhere that you've checked that the agreement is enforceable - is it?

 

Unless they terminate, they can issue a DN when they like

 

and

 

Dont ALWAYS assume that there has to be a default notice issued for a default to be placed at a CRA. CRA's are commercial entities that tend to do what their customers want to be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've unapproved the offending post, could you re-post without the personal details :)

 

Thanks for the 'heads up' mandyjayne.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, think I'll ask if they would consider a write off in the circustances. Re the agreement it is valid apart from I believe it should be a multiple agreement as it paid off a previous loan.

 

In one sense a shame as they accepted my pound a month but its not as if they need the money really.

AAResponse.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

They confirmed the account was terminated when I first asked the question in October. As I said at first, reply now confirms no default was issued at this time. As I was made redundant and have nothing to pay I am going to simply write and ask the account be written off in the circumstances. Nothing to lose I guess!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Just to Update everyone - AA issued proceedings on this and I had a no win no fee solicitor defend

RESULT : Feb 2012 claim discontinued.

Great as balance was still over £20Ka

Link to post
Share on other sites

As above - they issued proceedings without a default notice. The agreement should also of been a multiple agreement but it was not. I have not seen the defense put forward as I was just happy to see this disappear! :wink:

 

Extract from dispute letter below:

 

"I am writing in response to your letter dated 9th November 2009 which now confirms in writing that no default notice was issued at the time our account with AA Personal Finance was terminated. Before your letter we could not be sure this was indeed the case and I thank you for confirming this in writing. Without being sure I felt it would not be wise to dispute the debt in case, for example the notice was simply lost in the post. Now your letter has made clear no default notice was issued we formally dispute the debt and we no longer offer token payments. This letter should clarify why we feel this is reasonable in the circumstances and propose a solution to this issue in both our best interests.

The consumer credit act makes it clear that a default notice is required when an account is terminated. Both AA Personal Finance and Blair Oliver and Scott made it clear on 27th October that the agreement had been terminated. This was also a matter of record with the Credit reference agencies for some months before this. What appears beyond any doubt now is that the account was terminated by AA Finance sometime in March 2009 without a default notice being issued. Your letter now serves as written confirmation of this and as a result finally clarifies what actually happened.

Therefore AA Finance terminated the agreement unlawfully at or around March 2009. Under elementary contract law in England AA Finance become the contract breaker and we are the injured party. As a result we have the option to accept the termination and recover damages. It is worth noting the following case in support of this position. In Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha [2007], Lord Bingham said:

 

'The repudiation of a contract by one party ("the repudiator"), if accepted by the other ("the injured party"), brings the contract to an end and releases both parties from their primary obligations under the contract. The injured party is thereupon entitled to recover damages against the repudiator to compensate him for such financial loss as the repudiator's breach has caused him to suffer. This is elementary law.

For clarity we ACCEPT THE CONTRACT TERMINATION given the circumstances.

So what does this mean, well the agreement is terminated now and as a result neither of us bound by its obligations. In addition you cannot now correct this by the issue of a Default Notice which you appear to be trying. There is no longer any agreement between us on which to serve such a notice. The only debt which we possibly now legally owe as a result is the arrears when the account was terminated. In your letter you states this is £581.34, which may or may not be correct.

Moving on from this I would ask you now to review the original agreement. The agreement may be unenforceable anyway as it is not set out as a multiple agreement. This is required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Part of this loan was kept by AA Finance to clear our previous loan. This means this was a multiple agreement and the original agreement was therefore wrongly drawn up. This in itself means it is also questionable whether a court would be able to enforce the arrears owed at the time of termination, namely £581.34.

Bearing in mind both these issues and in an attempt to save time, effort and future costs I ask you give serious consideration to the following simple resolution. Write off this account and remove all details of the account from the credit reference agencies."

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...