Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

Please Advise Cobbetts defence (I've been blinded by science).


red1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6273 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

Received today from Cobbets, could someone please advise.

 

DEFENCE

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

 

2. On allocation the Defendant invites the court to direct that there be a case management conference in order for the Court to consider the making of of appropriate orders to give the claimant the opportunity to properly particularise the claim.

 

3. No admissions are made as to what charges have been debited to the Claimants bank account.

 

4. In relation to the allegation that the contractual provisions pursuant to which the charges have been applied are unenforceable by virtue of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA 1977) and/or the Unfair Contract Terms in ConsumerRegulations 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 (UCTA 1977),

(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; and

 

4.2 the contractual provision(s) that the claimant allege are invalid by reference to UCTA 1977 and?or the Regulations.

 

Until such time as these sections/regulation?provisions are identified the Defendant cannot (save as appears below) plead to the allegation referred to in pragraph 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 (SGSA0 the defendant pleads as follows:

 

5.1 the claimant is required to plead and prove the necessary factors (referred to in section SGSA) concerning the contract between the Claimant nd 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 reuired to plead and prove (a) that the bank charges which have been debited are unreasonabel; (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 above are addressed.

 

5.5 It is the case of the Defendant that the contract between the claimant and Defendant does not fall within SGSA section 15 because (a) the consideration for the service would 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.

 

^. If, which is denied, the Claimant is entitled to the return of the amounts debited in respect of charges, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to claim interest at a rate of 29.80 %.

 

This letter frightens the life out of me. What should I do now???

Thanks inadvance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

I am sure somebody with more information will be along soon but my understanding of this is that they want you to identify why you believe the charges are unreasonable and state why you are charging them compound interest.

 

Somebody wll be able to advise you better but it might be worthwhile if you post a copy of your actual claim text.

 

Kind regards

Gemspan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Red.

 

DON'T PANIC

 

Read this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/10582-mcuth-rbos.html because it has all the elements you need to respond to that defence, which seems to be fairly normal.

 

Have a look at the defence I received also http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/28596-hydra-rbs.html. I haven't responded yet but will be using some of MCuth's work (after he grants his permission, naturally) to add to excellent work done by GlennUK and some of my own....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...