Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

MMF/moriarty claimform - old Quid Quid PDL Debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2174 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,

you’ve helped me out in the past so I’m hoping you can help me again.

 

Like a lot of people I got caught in the payday loan trap,

a lot of these have been cancelled by the companies themselves due to the fact they shouldn’t have loaned me the money in the first place

 

however, just recently I’ve been receiving letters from MMF chasing a pounds to pocket payday loan.

Maybe stupidly I just thought they were trying it on and so ignored them,

 

today though I’ve now received court papers from Moriarty Law.

 

The strange thing is I’ve checked my noodle report and not only are MMF not on any of the lender lists

but the pounds to pocket ones that are there in both the open and closed accounts don’t match the amount claimed nor does the date that the claim form states the agreement was made match any of the dates on my credit report.

 

So my questions are:

1) Do I still send of the court papers to defend my case?

 

2) If MMF aren’t on my credit report can they still chase the debt?

 

3) Why is the amount claimed and the agreement date different?

 

4) Could I still try and get the amount owed written off as an irresponsible loan as my others have been?

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Name of the Claimant Motormile finance uk LTD (MMF)

Date of issue – 12 Jan 2018

 

What is the claim for –

1.The defendant owes the claimant £370 under a regulated loan agreement with casheuronet LLC T/A Quick Quid dated xx/xx/xxxx and which was assigned to the claimant on xx/xx/xxxx and notice of which was given on the xx/xx/xxxx (debt).

 

2.Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay and the claimant claims £370

3.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 8.00% per annum amounting to £30

 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Not sure

 

What is the value of the claim? £370

 

Is the claim for - Payday loan

 

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

 

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. The debt purchaser

 

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

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not sure

 

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

 

Why did you cease payments? Couldn’t afford them

 

What was the date of your last payment? Not sure as the date and amount from MMF don’t match any on my credit report

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Borrowed from DX

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimformicon

.

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 Requesticon running to the claimant

leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed

.

get a CPR 31:14icon request running to the solicitors

.

don't sign anything

 

your defence is due - by 4pm 13/02/18

Link to post
Share on other sites

when you copy and paste

remove the word ICON added to the above words in red

 

then you get the black handcuff links to work as well

that point to the required templates to send

 

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 start 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.

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

get those 3 things done pronto

 

do NOT miss your defence filling 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

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi guys,

finally got a reply back from one of letters.

 

It’s from MMF and it’s just a copy of the agreement even though I asked for any other documents relating to the account.

 

It really doesn’t tell me a lot, it’s just 20 pages of agreement blurb with my name and address in the signature box.

 

What is strange though is on the accompanying letter from MMF where it says Your Balance the amount there is about £200 more than on the claim form,

 

also the date that’s in the agreement signature box doesn’t relate to any dates on my noodle report.

 

I’m still none the wiser which debt they are claiming for as none of the amounts that they are claiming for are on my noodle report and MMF are not named on any of them either, could my noodle report be wrong?

 

It’s getting near for me to submit my defence as well and I haven’t got a clue what to put down

 

so any help with this as well would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are numberous MMF/moriarty threads here already in this same legal forum with example defences

you should have already been using your self help time to look at them.

 

scan up what they have sent to ONE multipage PDF please

read upload

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

use another provider.

 

read upload you can use a phone or a camera

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

A tablet should have a camera,

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this look for my defence.

 

What is the claim for –

1.The defendant owes the claimant £370 under a regulated loan agreement with casheuronet LLC T/A Quick Quid dated xx/xx/xxxx

 

2.Which was assigned to the claimant on xx/xx/xxxx and notice of which was given on the xx/xx/xxxx (debt).

 

3.Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay and the claimant claims £370

 

 

4.and further claims interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the county courticon act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8.00% per annum amounting to £30

 

 

 

 

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. Paragraph 1 is denied .The Claimant claims £370 is owed under a regulated loan agreement with Casheuronet LLC T/A Quick Quid on xx/xx/xxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 77 request who are yet to fully comply.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is denied 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 01/12/2016 from either the Claimant or Peachey.

 

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 Claimants particulars 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.

Edited by Andyorch
Particulars added
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few edits...you have still to reply to their point 3....point 4 you can ignore as its at the discretion of the court and if they actually get judgment.

 

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

due Tuesday by 4pm

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

use the search CAG box of the top red toolbar

 

moriarty claimform

 

100's there with exactly the same POC

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

PS that's not your POC you've put in post 15?

 

you must reply to the POC from your claimform as in post 3?

 

if you look it just has an extra para number inserted that's all

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

so what you put in post 3 is sort of wrong and what is in red in post 15 is the correct wording of the claim against you?

 

your defence must be against the wording of YOUR POC [particulars of claim from the claimform YOU got]

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

To be honest with you I haven’t got a clue what I’m doing really,

even after reading the other threads it might as well be in a different language,

I just don’t understand it.

 

I thought I’d sort of got it right with my defence but I’m just even more confused then ever.

 

I understand that you are all very busy and trying to explain this to me must be very trying,

all I can do is apologise,

I’ve tried my best and I don’t want to waste anymore of your time.

 

Thank you all

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are not wasting our time at all

just you have to understand what and why you are doingthings your defence is ok

its simply you've aligned it to someone else particulars of claim numbering.

 

just change your ref's to which paragraph

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

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...