Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

The Test Case: where it all went wrong


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5041 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

Aequitas, I am going to ask what so many have asked, but you never answer: Why are you here? All you have ever done is try to put people off, pour derision and scorn on any of the legal arguments which didn't fit your beliefs, and now crow about how you were right and we were wrong in a none too subtle manner. Have you actually applied that legal knowledge of yours to try and assist people instead of trying to discourage them? Wouldn't THAT be a better use of your time, energy and legal knowledge? :-?

 

I think I have answered your question on more than one occasion. Indeed in my very first post, which was in this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/92975-bank-charges-penalties.html I said "I think they [the points in red above] bear examination and that is why I signed up." Also, in post 41 of the same thread I said: "When I made my first post it was with the very specific purpose of suggesting that concentrating on insisting that bank charges are penalties is not the best way forward to get bank charges reduced, and, with that end in view, explained why I did not think bank charges were penalties."

 

I also said in my first post "I am against the high level of charges made by banks." I have had to repeat that constantly and there are no doubt still some who do not believe it.

 

Since I am human, and particularly after being vilified by of some Caggers, I freely admit that I could not help feeling some satisfaction when the legal arguments I put forward back in May 2007 were endorsed by the courts. I do not think though that I have engaged in any triumphalism. If you knew me you would say I was one of the least arrogant people you knew. If any arrogance has come across in any post I have made I would suggest, with respect, that it is imagined and arises from the reader's understandable annoyance that I was after all right.

 

I have freely conceded that my observation that any first year law student could have worked out that bank charges were not contractual penalties was ill-advised. Thinking about it I ought to have said: the idea that bank charges are contractual penalties was worth looking at, but anyone who knew the relevant law and considered the idea would have concluded it was untenable. If I made the observation it was out of frustration which I have often felt when trying to discuss the law on bank charges on this forum when few seemed willing to give even a moment's consideration to the points I was trying to make or, with one notable exception, to concede, however grudgingly, that I may perhaps after all have been on the right track.

 

And that is all I have ever tried to do: to engage people in a purely legal argument. People, rightly seething with justified indignation at the unfairness of it all, were however unwilling to consider that their view of the law was open to question.

 

If I had nothing positive to offer it was in part that I was concentrating on urging people to consider whether the legal arguments they were advancing were sustainable, but mainly because I could see no clear way forward for individuals to challenge bank charges. I did however suggest, as did Lady Hale, that the answer may lie in the fact that the consumer has no real choice. Whether the CCA has the answer I do not know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An answer to post 23 would be nice !

 

I thought I had answered it in post 26. :) I think the only thing I can add is that, despite what people may think, my aim is to the best of my ability to explain the law the way I see it. That sometimes involves slaying sacred cows. I soldier on even where that makes me unpopular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(e) it is argued that the Supreme Court got it wrong?

 

No, I think at this point, the conspiracy theorists got the upper hands, (not so much "wrong" as "wilfully gave the banks the victory they so badly needed), but it is generally accepted, at least where I have read so, that the SC may have made the right decision, at least on that very narrow issue of 6.2 of the UTCCR. Where they DID get it wrong is in deciding that the charges were part of the core terms, but if that is accepted, then their decision re 6.2 was correct in that the OFT can not assess fairness of core terms.

 

Remember at the last hurdle the banks amended their argument.

 

If it had remained that their charges were "reasonable administrative costs" would they then have been able to argue that they were a "a core part of their business" - I don't think so, as one appears to contradict the other.

If admin costs are so large I would suggest that they are doing something wrong.

 

It was only when they declared that these charges were a "cross subsidy" could they claim the "core part" argument.

 

so both of the above quotes may be wrong in IMHO as it was the banks moving the goal posts again and as I implied here this could be a real mistake for them.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2786301.html

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone any proof that the Banks made Witness Statements stating that their charges were for Admin Costs?

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Witness Statements ( and signed as Statements of Truth) that were submitted to the Courts BD, not letters. :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Witness Statements ( and signed as Statements of Truth) that were submitted to the Courts BD, not letters. :D

 

Would they really be in the public domain? I think only the courts and OFT would have that. The question is - can other courts access it?

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to find out?

 

Anyone? ;-)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the difference. I was simply saying what I (and many others) do have - and HBOS etc. can't hide behind the fact they were "just" letters and not proper Witness Statements. They should still be truthful an dnot misleading.

 

I believe Glasgow Sheriff Court will get HBOS to put up or shut up regarding this in June. I can't wait!

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry BD if my tone came across as a bit off-ish, wasn't mean't to be....aoplogies :D

 

Indeed you're spot-on, and this is where our argument is now heading.

 

I was hoping that if someone could answer the above question then I think we all have a strong case insofar as the Banks have commited perjury!!

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't access my files at the moment because I have DD sleeping in what is normally my office (long story), but I know I have a witness statement from an ex-employee attesting that the costs were due to elaborate manual intervention and therefore a true reflection of the actual costs.

 

The bad news is that this was in my FNMF case, a long-absorbed finance company which was at last appearance owned by Abbey, so don't know how much of a use it would be to the general public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Booky

 

Unfortunately it needs to be from the High Court / Appeal Court submittances of the OFT Test Case.

 

Still.....how old do you think it is?

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think OFT might cough up a sample if we ask nicely lol :rolleyes::D

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

"Remember at the last hurdle the banks amended their argument.

 

If it had remained that their charges were "reasonable administrative costs" would they then have been able to argue that they were a "a core part of their business" - I don't think so, as one appears to contradict the other.

If adminlink3.gif costs are so large I would suggest that they are doing something wrong.

 

It was only when they declared that these charges were a "cross subsidy" could they claim the "core part" argument.

 

so both of the above quotes may be wrong in IMHO as it was the banks moving the goal posts again and as I implied here this could be a real mistake for them."

 

Amended thier argument? Is that REALLY what happened? Cos to me it looked very much like theier lawyers were arguing the exact opposite of what they had been saying for YEARS.

 

They CHANGED the terms and conditions, therefore WHY do those charges stand? And why hasn't there been a case about that?

 

The simplest way I can express how ridiculous the current situation is is found below.

 

The Office of FAIR Trading CANNOT rule on what is essentially an issue of fairness.

 

I know that sounds absurd, but that's where we're at. Something has to change, and if nothing does the Government has to step in.

 

Otherwise what they're saying is ok kids its ok to lie, and cheat (you can see this rewarded in sports to), so long as you get away with it the rewards a great.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...