Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • we dont get N157 because its new OCMC but no court dont have evidence either.   Just seems a bit of a pointless wait but oh well
    • Post #9 suggested some options to avoid or put off having a smart meter. Post #12 a simple solution to your complaint about the ay they handle fixed monthly DD. It's not really clear why you posted if you're going get irate when members "jump in" with suggestions. You can see what I'm referring to on "gasracker.uk" to allay your suspicion that I was lying in Post #16 which was made to correct ther misinformation shown in your Post #15
    • Back to octopus from the smart meter/tariff salesperson. Octopus have now said just ignore the letter - I dont have to have one despite there letter implying (at least) it was required, but that i will HAVE to have a smart meter if current meters stop working as 'their suppliers dont supply non smart meters any more'. They also say they do not/will not disable any smart functionality when they fit a smart meter I am of course going to challenge that. Thats their choice of meter fitter/supplier problem not mine
    • Point taken that we should inform new Caggers that the £20 option is there in wrong registration cases.  Well, supposedly there, who knows what the PPCs would do in practice.  Anyway, the option is allegedly there with both the BPA as you say, but also the IPC (I've just checked). However, there's a danger here of baby, bathwater. The two easiest types of cases to win are (a) residential - due to Supremacy of Contract and (b) wrong registration - due to "de minimis".  Indeed until recently we has been boasting that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing. We simply can do nothing about a terrible judge.  The judge seems - I say seems because we haven't had all the details - to have ignored "de minimis",. got fixated on a sign and awarded unreasonable behaviour costs.  A totally bizarre judgement.
    • You mean your witness statement 
  • 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

MMF/Moriarty claimform - old Mr lender PDL***Claim Dismissed***


dave466
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2158 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

Name of the Claimant ?Motormile finance ltd

 

Date of issue –29th November 2017

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?

 

1.The defendant owes the claimant £525 under a regulated loan agreement with PDL finance Ltd t/a Mr lender dated 05/07/2012 and which was assigned to the claimant on 16/11/2012 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 16/11/2012 (debt).

 

2.Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay and the claimant claims £525 and further claims interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the county court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to £42

 

What is the value of the claim?£697

 

Is the claim for a current account (Overdraft) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? PDL

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? After 2007

 

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 MMF

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I believe i did

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I believe i did.

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? Not too sure.

 

Why did you cease payments? Not sure

 

What was the date of your last payment? Not sure

 

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? I don't believe so no.

 

On my credit report it shows default as 05/07/2012

Account start date as 05/07/2012.

Default balance £350

Satisfied

 

So next it will be

 

1. Acknowledgment of service

2. Send CCA Request section 77?

3. Send for 31.14 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

yep...

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CCA Request running to the claimant

leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

.

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

 

 

there are 100's of like MMF/moriarty claims here already well ahead of you to follow

 

dx

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

no read post 2 again

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

well let them mess up then...

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

cor I wouldn't of wasted recorded on them

all you needed was 2nd class with free proof of posting from the PO counter

you only have to prove letters were sent.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

uploads merged thread tidied

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

  • 3 weeks later...

not due till/by 4pm Monday 1st

 

plenty here to base your on

post it here 1st

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 what basis would it be though mate as mmf have sent copies of cca

 

Also whilst I have looked through the agreement where it says about being legally bound

it says by inserting my surname, mothers maiden name and my ip address I agree to be bound by them.

 

My mother's maiden name nor my ip address is in that box??

 

Therefore is that agreement null and void

Link to post
Share on other sites

well they might have sent the agreement and T&C

but where is the:

 

default notice

statement of account

notice of assignment?

all of which are fatal to a claim

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

Thanks dx, how's this.

 

1.The defendant owes the claimant £525 under a regulated loan agreement with PDL finance Ltd t/a Mr lender dated 05/07/2012 and which was assigned to the claimant on 16/11/2012 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 16/11/2012 (debt).

 

2.Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay and the claimant claims £525 and further claims interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the county court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to £42

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. I have in the past had an agreement with Mr Lender but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 77 request which the claimant is currently unable to comply with and therefore unable to prove its basis of claim pleaded within its particulars

 

I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the*consumer credit Act 1974.

 

I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1).

 

3. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and;

b) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87.1 CCA 1974.

c) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

 

4. As per Civil Procedureicon 16.5 it is expected that the Claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

5. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive inserted the POC above you need to align with that re para numbers

find an MMF/moriarty claimform thread defence reply that inc's the fact they've supplied the agreement but not the DN/NOA

you'll also need the sentence re failure to abide by PAP. [pre action protocol.]

unless you did receive it before you came here

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

1.The defendant owes the claimant £525 under a regulated loan agreement with PDL finance Ltd t/a Mr lender dated 05/07/2012 and which was assigned to the claimant on 16/11/2012 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 16/11/2012 (debt).

 

2.Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay and the claimant claims £525 and further claims interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the county court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to £42

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. The Claimant claims £525 is owed under a regulated loan agreement with PDL Finance T/A Mr Lender. I did not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a Section 77 and CPR 31.14 request who are yet to fully comply.

 

3. The Claimants statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served on the defendant from either the Claimant or PDL Finance T/A Mr Lender.

 

4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

(b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice

© show how the Defendant 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;

 

5. On receipt of this claim I requested, by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77 request, copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant's particulars in order to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant solicitors, Moriarty Law, have failed to fully comply with this request.

 

6. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

7. 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 82 A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

8. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

point 1 is not a numbered point but is generic to everything below

 

move point 8 and make that point 1

 

you also need to mention the failure to provide a default notice re section 87

 

good work to date

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

1.The defendant owes the claimant £525 under a regulated loan agreement with PDL finance Ltd t/a Mr lender dated 05/07/2012 and which was assigned to the claimant on 16/11/2012 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the 16/11/2012 (debt).

 

2.Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay and the claimant claims £525 and further claims interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the*county court*act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to £42

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a*letter of claim*pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. The Claimant claims £525 is owed under a regulated loan agreement with PDL Finance T/A Mr Lender. I did not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a Section 77 and CPR 31.14 request who are yet to fully comply.

 

3. The Claimants statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served on the defendant from either the Claimant or PDL Finance T/A Mr Lender.*

 

4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and

(b) show any evidence of any cause of action and service of a Default Notice

© show how the Defendant 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;

 

5. On receipt of this claim I requested, by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77 request, copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant's particulars in order to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant solicitors, Moriarty Law, have failed to fully comply with this request.

 

6. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

7. 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 82 A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

8. 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

b}show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...