Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The case against the US-based ride-hailing giant is being brought on behalf of over 10,800 drivers.View the full article
    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. 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 simply contracted by the landowner 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. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
  • 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

Varde Investments, Experto Credite & Overseas Companies


Guest HeftyHippo
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4200 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

Guest HeftyHippo

There are a couple of threads sprung up recently about MBNA selling debts to Varde Investments Ireland Ltd. Usually the first news of this is a letter from Experto (who are owned by Varde) explaining this and stating that they act for Varde.

 

It's been suggested that such a sale could not result in enforcement because Varde does not have a UK Credit Licence as required by the 1974 CCA, and Experto although having a licence does not own the debt and so cannot act. Without seeing the actual agreement, it's not possible to say if it allows the intervention of any third party.

 

In my thread about my MBNA debt, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/238117-mbna-experto-credite-accounts-6.html#post2709293 I suggest that Varde could get a UK credit licence for less than £1000.

 

However, I've come across something else. I didn't want to put it in my thread because obviously I want to get advice on my situation in there rather than have it turn into a discussion about legislation etc. Also, it may be useful and applicable to others on here, and relevant to other creditors and debt buyers so a central discussion seems better. I haven't read all of the following documents, nor any others that may be relevant, so if you know something feel free to say it.

 

If you look at "Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 3275 The Investment Services Regulations 1995" see it HERE

 

section 4 says:

Authorised services

4. For the purposes of these Regulations a European investment firm is authorised to provide in its home State any listed service which its authorisation as an investment firm or as a credit institution authorises it to provide.

That bit seems to be a circular statement, but defines a 'European investment firm'.

 

section 5 says:

Effect of recognition

Authorisations and licences not required

5.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, nothing in the following enactments, namely—

  • (a) sections 3 and 4 of the Financial Services Act (restrictions on carrying on investment business); and

 

shall prevent a European investment firm from providing in the United Kingdom any listed service which it is authorised to provide in its home State.

 

(2) In relation to a European investment firm in respect of which a prohibition under these Regulations is in force—

  • (a) paragraph (1)(a) above shall not apply if the prohibition is under regulation 9 below; and

 

  • (b) paragraph (1)(b) above shall not apply if the prohibition is under regulation 15 below.

The 'prohibition' mentioned refers to prohibiting persons who have committed things such as fraud that makes them unfit to have a licence.

 

The parts of CCA1974 mentioned above:

21.-(1) Subject to this section, a licence is required to carry

on a consumer credit business or consumer hire business.

39.-(1) A person who engages in any activities for which a

licence is required when he is not a licensee under a licence

covering those activities commits an offence.

(2) A licensee under a standard licence who carries on

business under a name not specified in the licence commits an

offence.

(3) A person who fails to give the Director or a licensee notice

under section 36 within the period required commits an offence

Licensing

147.-(1) The provisions of Part III (except section 40) apply

to an ancillary credit business as they apply to a consumer

credit business.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 26, regula

tions under that section (as applied by subsection (1)) may

include provisions regulating the collection and dissemination of

information by credit reference agencies.

Part III deals with granting of licensing, conditions of licences, procedures etc

 

 

So essentially, for our purposes (ignoring the investment side), if a company is allowed to undertake credit and debt related activities at home, and they are 'fit and proper' then they are allowed to perform the same activities in the UK, are subject to the same rules but do not need a UK credit licence.

 

That means they can share info with CRAs and pursue debts through the courts in the same way as a UK company can.

 

Now, overseas debt collection is more expensive than collecting at home, but Varde has a UK 'wing' Experto, already set up and active.

 

Now, Varde don't have any more power than any other DCA, but we seem to have enough as it is and probably don't need any more, unless they're going to be a replacement rather than an addition, and I don't think that's the case!

 

That's my interpretation, but I'd welcome others.

Edited by HeftyHippo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be worth asking the OFT the specific question

 

'If a company has a consumer credit licence for another EU state, do they need a licence for the UK?'

 

I think this is a very important point to clarify, since if MBNA are selling stuff 'overseas' you can guarantee everyone else will start doing it eventually. I bet there's some tax advantage or something.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo
Would it be worth asking the OFT the specific question

 

'If a company has a consumer credit licence for another EU state, do they need a licence for the UK?'

 

I think this is a very important point to clarify, since if MBNA are selling stuff 'overseas' you can guarantee everyone else will start doing it eventually. I bet there's some tax advantage or something.

 

well the OFT website says they don't give advice to the public. I tried consumer direct who said an overseas company could enforce a debt in a UK court.

 

The legislation I quote above seems pretty clear to me unless my interpretation is wrong.

 

I am sure there's a tax break somewhere, and also that others may be tempted to sell overseas as well eventually.(particularly if GAGGERS continue to beat the existing debt buyers so they lose interest in buying any more dodgy 'debts' LOL. New, gullible buyers would be needed lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting info hefty,

unfortunately for Varde even though the alleged debts are now owned by an international company, they are still covered by UK law. So if they ever took it to court in the UK they are still bound by the CCA 1974.

 

If the debts were absolute assignment they need to produce evidence of delivery of said notice this is "Law of Property Act 1925 s136". Basically you need to be served said notice by registered mail prior to the sale by the original company. If its served in this way basically is an equatable assignment only, if this is the case both Varde and Mbn@ have to take you to court.

 

The facts are the alleged debts have no valid CCA, no valid DN and are unlawfully rescinded they can chase all they want but they cannot collect. If they decide to take anyone to court they are fools they will lose before they enter the gate. And knowing old MBN@ peoples alleged debts are £5k+ and hence cost quite a bit to take to court.

 

I don't believe anything can make it go away until they are statute barred.

 

Too be honest Exspurto are either very inept or are just collecting off lots of poor souls that don't know differently. From their current track record Exspurto cannot be bothered to chase people in the know so to speak, they cannot even be bothered to answer letters.

 

Safely store and scan your documents.

 

Pumpytums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too be honest Exspurto are either very inept or are just collecting off lots of poor souls that don't know differently. From their current track record Exspurto cannot be bothered to chase people in the know so to speak, they cannot even be bothered to answer letters.

 

Never hear from them - they just ignore me now :D

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo
Interesting info hefty,

unfortunately for Varde even though the alleged debts are now owned by an international company, they are still covered by UK law. So if they ever took it to court in the UK they are still bound by the CCA 1974.

Yes, I make the point above that they are still bound by the 1974 Act

 

If the debts were absolute assignment they need to produce evidence of delivery of said notice this is "Law of Property Act 1925 s136". Basically you need to be served said notice by registered mail prior to the sale by the original company.

Yes, that's been said by some, and disputed by others. I can't find anywhere where the requirement to serve by recorded delivery is stated. If recorded delievery was a requirment, that would mean hand delivery by server was not allowed - personal service is usually the most favoured/reliable method but isn't widely used because of cost.

 

The facts are the alleged debts have no valid CCA, no valid DN and are unlawfully rescinded they can chase all they want but they cannot collect. If they decide to take anyone to court they are fools they will lose before they enter the gate. And knowing old MBN@ peoples alleged debts are £5k+ and hence cost quite a bit to take to court.

 

I don't believe anything can make it go away until they are statute barred.

Yes, standard CCA and contract law

 

Too be honest Exspurto are either very inept or are just collecting off lots of poor souls that don't know differently. From their current track record Exspurto cannot be bothered to chase people in the know so to speak, they cannot even be bothered to answer letters.

No diferent from any other DCA, except if they don't pursue people who know the law, maybe they're not that inept, so maybe their ineptitude should not be taken for granted?

 

What you say is generally true, its all standard law. The point I'm making is that my interpretation is that a company based in Europe can pursue debts in the UK. Previously it's been stated that that is not possible. I think it is, and simply wanted to put an interpretation of the law based on actually reading the legislation in this arena to counter the other point of view that seems to be based on speculation and interpretation of other laws rather than legislation aimed directly at this scenario.

 

This legislation appears to override certain aspects of the CCA1974.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo

I don't want this thread to be dragged off course about standard things dealt with elsewhere but would like it to be concentrated on the possibility of Debts being sold overseas.

 

However, the argument is that s196 says that sufficient service can be achieved by sending a registered letter. It doesn't say that ordinary post is not sufficient service. If the intention was to require registered post v ordinary post, the Act would say that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Hefty back on track,

check out the following link

 

Channel Islands Stock Exchange - Listed Security Detail - VPRSSNRN - VP Resi Ltd Details

 

Details of Registration - Data Protection Commissioner - Ireland

 

this is VP vesi LTD same address as ViiL (varde) and listed on the Channel Islands Stock Exchange.

 

So this is where MBN@ junk ends up.

 

Pumpytums

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want this thread to be dragged off course about standard things dealt with elsewhere but would like it to be concentrated on the possibility of Debts being sold overseas.

 

However, the argument is that s196 says that sufficient service can be achieved by sending a registered letter. It doesn't say that ordinary post is not sufficient service. If the intention was to require registered post v ordinary post, the Act would say that.

 

ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/ILPSchemeApril2009RH.pdf

 

 

Special Delivery Letter

A Letter sent using the Special Delivery service as set out in section 40 of this Scheme. Any

reference in any legislation or legal document to “Registered Post“ or “the Registered Service“ shall

be taken to be a reference to Special Delivery as it is the same service in all material respects

 

Sorry to drag it off course but this is important.

 

 

Pumpytums

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest HeftyHippo
Ok Hefty back on track,

check out the following link

 

Channel Islands Stock Exchange - Listed Security Detail - VPRSSNRN - VP Resi Ltd Details

 

Details of Registration - Data Protection Commissioner - Ireland

 

this is VP vesi LTD same address as ViiL (varde) and listed on the Channel Islands Stock Exchange.

 

So this is where MBN@ junk ends up.

 

Pumpytums

 

well there's probably a right tangled international web effectively exporting money through many tax jurisdictions.

 

doesn't really make any difference though does it? As long as they abide by the CCA and other laws here, my interpretation of the above legislation is that they can pursue debts here. Thing is, they're outside our jurisdiction, so if it comes to harassing behaviour, refusal to correct inaccurate data with CRAs, it won't be easy to take action against them, so we're left with the likes of the Data Commissioner, OFT etc, who can't even regulate debt collectors in their own backyard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Hefty back on track,

check out the following link

 

Channel Islands Stock Exchange - Listed Security Detail - VPRSSNRN - VP Resi Ltd Details

 

Details of Registration - Data Protection Commissioner - Ireland

 

this is VP vesi LTD same address as ViiL (varde) and listed on the Channel Islands Stock Exchange.

 

So this is where MBN@ junk ends up.

 

Pumpytums

 

I wonder where to next! this gets more complicated.

 

Has anyone come across VP Vesi before?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am not sure but i think under the ratification act in eu that has just been passed into uk law in the last two weeks touches on this ,but also they may/will need a uk consumers credit licence otherwise it may be subject to the money laundering act...

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/231293-help-defence-ws-required-24.html#post2714113

 

have a read through the thread it is a long one but well worth it to see what pointers you need for the asignments to be valid and for an overseas company to be able to prosecute vj nailed them so it is possible to tie this lot up in legal work ...good luck will keep my eye on this thread see if i can add anything

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 11 months later...
  • 5 months later...

Hi

 

Did anyone ever get anywhere with this?

 

I have received a court claim today from Varde for 2 MBNA accounts I have!

 

Threads here...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?205720-Cupcakes-Vs-Mbna-You/page2

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?198121-cupcake68-Vs-A-amp-L

 

I am searching the forums looking for relevant info.

 

Also not sure if they are allowed to add the two together like this and not sure if the fact the POC's are incomplete puts me in a strong position or not

 

Any advice gratefully received.

 

Just had a baby and my already mushy mind is true mush right now!!

 

Cupcake

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have just filed my defence in court for Varde the failed to turn up or enter a jughment I have a stay on my CCJ at the moment waiting for them to come back with a reply...I sent them a s78 request and CPR request forms they have as yet been unable to provide any documents??? Lets see what they can come up with>>>>

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

All those searching for an answer to MBNA SELLING debts to Varde Investments, try not that the debt has been sold,but the

 

right of claim has been sold. MBNA parent company is the Bank of America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...