Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just to clear it up, sorry I don't make sense sometimes. I have paid £4000 £1200 of that was suppose to clear the £1200 debt.   Meaning I have sent a extra £2800 on top of my normal mainternance money.   Thank you
    • Try CPR 31.15 Possibly but a party is not compelled to disclose any documents pre allocation
    • Hi, I shown my key worker a letter that was sent to me saying that I owe £1200, she setup a standing order around 2021, this was to pay back money I owed, with my mental health status I have had complex issues to deal with and I just simply forgot about this standing order so it has been running for about 3.5 years acording to my key worker, anyway I'm not worried about the money that was sent that I call a overpayment, it went towards supporting my child's household so I am just happy with that, I am a little sad that I am being told I still owe this £1200, I have sent bank statements over 3 years worth but they have not taken away this £1200 bill and still say I owe it   Thank you
    • She did try contacting EON in the early days of the debt but they refused to speak to her because she could not pass the security checks. She didn't know the answers on an account she hadn't opened?   I also saw this article recently which could be what has happended here: Debt collection agencies in the UK are using fair means or foul to link people to an address where an unpaid debt has been run up, sometimes years after they have moved out The Guardian Anna Tims Mon 22 Apr 2024 The letter from the debt collection agency arrived out of the blue, and it was intimidating. It informed Joshua Simpson* that he owed £2,212 to Octopus Energy, and accused him of ignoring previous requests to settle the bill. If he did not stump up within 14 days, he was told, further action would be taken to recover the money. Simpson checked his Octopus account – it was in credit. Then he noticed the address where the debt had been accrued between 2022 and 2023. It was his childhood home – which his family had sold 18 years previously. "Since I was only 16 when we left the property, I was astonished that they'd linked my name [to it]," he says. "The debt collection agency insisted I provide a tenancy agreement to prove how long I've lived at my current address. I couldn't, since we bought our home. "They are now actively pursuing me for this debt, causing me a huge amount of stress. We are about to remortgage, and if this debt prevents us switching to a better deal, we will face real financial hardship." Simpson had been sucked into the shadowy world of "identity tracing", whereby investigators recruited by creditors seek to locate individuals who have moved home without paying their bills. It is an unregulated sector where anyone can set up as an agent in a back room without a licence, or scrutiny, and use fair means or foul to identify debtors. Reputable companies join a trade association that operates a code of practice, but membership is not mandatory, and mistakes are common. Last year, a teenage boy was chased for a debt of more than £900 by debt collectors acting for the energy company Ovo. A "trace agent" had somehow linked him to the debt because his parents had previously rented the property in question. An investigation by the Observer established that the debt had been run up by a subsequent tenant. The consequences of mistaken identity can be catastrophic. Individuals who are erroneously linked to a debt face, at worst, court action, bailiffs and a ruined credit rating. At best, they can endure weeks of stress and paperwork in order to prove they are not the debtor. It is estimated that 20m identity traces are made in the UK every year, many on behalf of companies that are owed money. Personal data is often obtained from credit reference agencies, which record applications for credit, and details are supposed to be verified with several different sources before being used for debt enforcement. In practice, however, this does not always happen. Simpson's details had been passed along a chain of intermediaries before the demand was issued. Octopus had given the unpaid account to a debt collection agent, which had contracted a tracing service, GBG, to find the debtor................ Full Article: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/04/a-cry-for-help-energy-providers-play-the-villain-in-dramas-to-chill-the-blood ..............The Financial Ombudsman Service, which investigates complaints about financial firms, states that debt collection agents have to produce convincing evidence to link an individual to a debt, rather than rely on names, addresses and birth dates. According to the trade association, the Institute of Professional Investigators, an unknown number of investigators and trace agents are operating below the radar. Many more are merely inept, as data protection compliance training is not mandatory. "We have been campaigning for many, many years to try to get all private investigators regulated," says secretary general Glyn Evans.
  • 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

First Post by Newcomer


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6298 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

Hello to everyone.

Been viewing this site for a while and it seems loaded with good advice from some decent like-minded people.

I've started a case against RBS for £1200 as follows.

Initial letter sent 15th Oct. Reply was sod off with the lovely condescending footnote of 'Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to us'

LBA sent 14th Nov. Reply was offer of £672 providing I accept all future charges and that they were right to take my money etc, ect.

Claim filed online 14th Dec. Served 19th. Defence filed 16th Jan (last possible day)

The defence is the most wordy piece of legal gobbledygook I've seen, basically saying I have to furnish them with information as to 'How much their charges should be', why I think each section of law applies in each and every case and goodness knows what else.

Has anyone else had a defence like this?

I would really appreciate some advice

Good luck to everyone on this site

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the defence I have received. I'm posting it in the hope that its not held as contempt of court in any way.

I will post the request form as soon as i've typed it out.

 

Btw. I gave all the correct info on the Moneyclaim form as suggested on this site.

DEFENCE

1. This defence is filed and served without prejudice to the Defendant's case that the Particulars of Claim do not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Claimant to recover the bank charges (and interest thereon) referred to in the Particulars of Claim or any other sum(s). In the event that the Claimant does not properly particularise his claim then the Defendant will apply to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgement in respect of the same.

 

2. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimant's bank account.

 

3. The Claimant refers under paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim to having provided the Defendant with a copy of his list of charges. The defendant has not yet received a copy of this list.

(in fact I have provided them with 2 copies)

The claimant is therefore put to to strict proof of each and every charge the subject of the claim and must identify in respect of each charge (a) the date the same was debited, (b) the amount of the same and © the description applied to the charge.

 

4. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977') and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 ('the Regulations') and/or the common law, the claimant is required to identify:

 

4.1 (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

(b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 and © the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable and

 

4.2 the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant allege are invalid by referrence to UCTA 1977 and/or the Regulations.

 

Until such time as these sections/regulations/provisions are identified the Defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in paragraph 4 above. The Defendant therefore reserves its right to plead further to the allegation once (and if) the Claimant identifies the relevant contractual information.

 

5. In relation to the case of the Claimant that the charges are unreasonable within the meaning of section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 ('SGCA') the Defendant pleads as follows:

 

5.1 The Claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section 15 SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant which mean that pursuant to SGSA section 15 there is an implied term that the Claimant pay a reasonable charge for the service under the contract.

 

5.2 Further, the Claimant is required to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonable; (b) all facts and matters relied upon by the Claimant in support of this case and © what charges would have been reasonable.

 

5.3 In the circumstances no grounds are disclosed for a claim that the Defendant has acted in breach of SGSA section 15.

 

5.4 In the circumstances (save as appears below) the Defendant is unable to plead to this allegation beyond denying that it has acted in breach of SGSA section 15 as alleged or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to plead further to this allegation once (and if) the defects in the pleaded case referred to in paragraphs 5.1-5.3 are addressed.

 

5.5 It is the case of the Defendant that the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the servicewould be determined by the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and (b) was not left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealings between the Claimant and the Defendant.

 

6. The Claimant's claim for costs not being suffiently particularised, the Defendant is unable to plead and reserves the right to plead upon further particulars.

 

7. To assist the Claimant with the proper particularisation of his claim(s), the Defendant serves with this defence a request made pursuant to CPR Part 18. If the Claimant fails to provide the particulars requested in the time stipulated and/or the defects with the claim(s) (referred to in paragraph 1 above) remain then Defendant will apply to the Court for (among other things) an order striking out the claim.

 

8. Pending the proper particularisation of the claim(s) the Defendant is unable to plead to the Claimant's claim(s) beyond at this stage denying that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Claim or at all. The Defendant reserves its right to ammend this Defence to plead further to the Claimant's claim(s) once or if the Claimant properly particularises the same.

 

9. Save as hereinbefore appears the Defendant joins issue with the Claimanton his claim(s) and denies that it is liable to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, here is the request form. Thanks again for taking the time to read it.

 

Basically the court says I have to respond in accordance with CPR part 18 by 30th of Jan. It is in accordance with CPR Rule 27.2(3)

 

The Request

 

1. In your claim you state 'Claimant claims (the) return of the amounts debited of £1207

 

2. Please provide the following particulars in support of your claim.

 

2.1 In relation to each charge, please identify (a) the date when the charge was charged; (b) the amount of the same; and © the reason(s) given for the charging of the same.

 

2.2 In relation to each charge; please clarify the following, (a) is it the case of the Claimant the same should not have been charged? (b) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged? © If no is it the case of the Claimant that the same should not have been charged in this amount; (d) If yes; please explain why the Claimant contends that the same should not have been charged in this amount and identify the sum the Claimant contends should have been charged. (e) If no; please state the claimants case.

 

3. In your claim you state that the charges are 'unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law' and 'they must be reasonable under s15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

 

4. Please specify all of the facts relied on by the Claimant in support of the contentions in paragraph 3 above, and in particular please identify (a) the section(s) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ('UCTA); (b) the regulations of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Regulations 1999 (the Regulations); and © the principles of common law relied upon by the Claimant in alleging that the contractual provision(s) referred to are unenforceable. Please also identify the contractual provision(s) that the Claimant alleges are unenforceable by reference to UCTA/the Regulations.

 

Phew. It seems like they are asking me to be the Claimant, Defendant and Judge as well.

 

Hope this can be made sense of. Best Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ian

 

I will get it moved for you.

 

Uk

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello to everyone.

Been viewing this site for a while and it seems loaded with good advice from some decent like-minded people.

I've started a case against RBS for £1200 as follows.

Initial letter sent 15th Oct. Reply was sod off with the lovely condescending footnote of 'Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to us'

LBA sent 14th Nov. Reply was offer of £672 providing I accept all future charges and that they were right to take my money etc, ect.

Claim filed online 14th Dec. Served 19th. Defence filed 16th Jan (last possible day)

The defence is the most wordy piece of legal gobbledygook I've seen, basically saying I have to furnish them with information as to 'How much their charges should be', why I think each section of law applies in each and every case and goodness knows what else.

Has anyone else had a defence like this?

I would really appreciate some advice

Good luck to everyone on this site

 

I have to file my POC in a few days time. I would really appreciate some advice as they are trying to get my claim struck out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...