Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • 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
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • 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 xx/xx/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 xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/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.
  • 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

Welcome secured loans/charge - sold to Alpha/Prime -repo received - ***Claim Dismissed***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1693 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

tough luck on them then..

its only the judge that can force you to pay..and IMHO the whole debacle has not been addressed.

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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

DX - are you including charges applied to previous loans that are not part of the current chain? I mean, anything pre-February 2006? This being the date that one loan was settled, then a break of eight months was had before a brand new loan was taken out, and subsequently culminated in becoming the first link of the chain that the current agreement.

 

The charges and interest from the October 2006 loan onwards wouldn't amount to the full balance. You most likely know all Cruz's loans better than me, so I'd like to hear your views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you still that google drive link?

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

it was settled via a re-write with welcome.

 

more soon

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

sadly i'd lost the train of this..

no ..no link in a chain.

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

Loan 1 11/10/2001 For £7369.39 which had £1473.22 PPI and £130.00 Medicare added to it

 

Loan 2 rewrite on 10/06/2003 for £9809.68 and £1804.68 PPI.

 

Loan 3 rewrite on 31/03/2005 for £11423.67 and £1108.79 MIF. 17.80%@ £171.92 x 120 months

 

Loan 4 rewrite On 14/07/2005 for £13886.71 and £1352.87 MIF. 27% @ £272.06 x 120 months

 

Loan 5 rewrite on 29/12/2005 for £14792.00 and £1442.59 MIF 16.8% @ £189.11 x 180 months fully paid off in Feb 2006

 

New Loan no 6 taken out on 31/10/2006 for £8019.62 which had £1485.75 PPI, £180 life-care and £125 homecare with £2768.59 interest added to it.

26.5% @ £170.25 x 120 months

 

Loan 7 rewrite on 03/04/2007 for £14602.15 which had £2425.15 PPI and £175 personal accident plan with £3339.03 interest added.

22% @ £277.95 x 120 months

 

Loan 8 rewrite on 05/10/2007 for £26741.20 which had £4506.20 PPI and £10342.54 in interest added to it.

22% @£489.53 x 120 months

 

Loan 9 rewrite on 30/08/2008 for £30514.32 8.2% @ x £231.49 x 300 months. This is still running

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the other chain that was mentioned before was that they didn’t provide that linking loan in court which was

 

Loan no 7.

 

They provided info on loans 6, loan 8 and 9.

But they didn’t provide 7 for some strange reason in all their exhibits. Seems a bit bizzare especially as they tried to show an application for further advance but missed the linking one 6 into 7, 7 to 8 then 8 into 9!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what their reasoning was, but I recall the charges that were applied to that particular loan being the worst of all.

Maybe that was the reason for them excluding it, or maybe it was just an oversight.

It's not relevant now anyway.

 

As I see it, let's just agree which charges and fees can be legitimately offset against this balance, then hit them with the revised balance and tell them they'll not be receiving a Penny more.

 

Furthermore, tell them that as they've chosen to ignore your constant complaints on this specific matter, that you have no other option but to advise them of your position and that they are welcome (pardon the pun) to, finally, engage with you on the matter.

 

The side issue is the monthly repayment amount. I'd like Andy's view on this.

 

DX - do you have a view on what Cruz should be paying each month, assuming there is a balance after fees and interest have been removed?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was Loan no 8 the fees and interest were the worse.

 

Sorry...I mean in terms of the size of them and number relative to the short term. I recall it only lasted a few months before the next rewrite, but they blasted you with charges in that time. The cumulative total of charges on other loans were probably higher, yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dx in middle of composing a letter with shams help.

 

The basis of the letter is deducting all fees but what we need to be sure of is wether I start from first loan in 2003 right the way through 8 loans. Or start at Oct 2006 onwards to last loan 2008 (4 loans) as there was a break of 6 months without a direct rewrite from Feb 2006 to Oct 2006.

 

As you can imagine There is quite a bit of difference between putting all the loans in. But I can’t go after welcome for the 1st 4 pre 2006. Due to the scheme. But as you know from your calculations there is sums outstanding there.

 

We are working out the balance and need to get this correct. As I don’t want to be in **** if it goes back to court. However I understand it’s prime who would have the prove the link/ no link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check in later

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

working on getting lots of newer email stuff over to the google drive

i'll get there.

 

might give us a better idea when done..

 

in all the stuff.. is there clear proof the last loan before the gap and this chain resulting in this litigated loan number WAS paid off by was it a mortgage or something...??

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

:thumb::thumb:

 

clear break then

thought id not lost the plot that much.

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

On all the ones before 2006 a new legal charge was applied each loan with the previous ones being removed . The land reg doc new charges were Changed to date of charge being exactly the same as dates of newer rewrite

 

But from Oct 2006 charge applied on that date but the further loans/charges were not amended date wise on Lr. So in 2007 2006 Charge should have come off and registered charge should then have been April 2007 then Oct 2007 then Aug 2008

Link to post
Share on other sites

think that tallies with the changes around that time

and I think andyorch has previously related to this if not here elsewhere.

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 know that too. But just seems strange welcome didn’t do what they done on the last 4 that they consistently done on the first lot.

 

last loan legal charge was not witnessed and not signed in the presence of anyone it was left blank. Plus the signature on that one is well dodgy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun and games with these again. I’ve recieved 2 arrears letter 10 days apart.... so that means I’m 2 monthly payments of 231.49 in arrears in less than 2 weeks.

 

Loan agreement states money is due a month after agreement date and every month after that. Agreement date is 28th of the month. So I’m presuming they were closed for 2 weeks over Xmas hence the date 4th of jan instead of 28th of Dec.

 

But how on earth can there be another month of arrears on 13th jan? When payment not due till 28th jan? I can count shame this muppets can’t..

 

Plus on the back of their letter they list their fees which are £51.60. But there’s £61.60 on these arrrears statment so extra £10 a time going on there 😂💦

 

Even in court the last judge said I’m paid up to July 2019 on 231

 

Prime are saying

Nov arrears 74.83

Dec arrears 231.49

Jan arrears 231.49

 

Total arrears £599.41

Prime 4 +13th Jan .pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...