Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 13/08/12 in all areas

  1. Carlyx, Just very briefly, what the police meant is that the DEBT is a civil matter. Threats to kill are something very different indeed, as evidenced by armed policemen turning up. A conviction of making threats to kill will often end up with a prison sentence - even in the magistrates court - especially if there are aggravating factors. Aggravating factors include:- repeated threats:- did this person threaten to kill you more than once? vulnerable victim:- you say that you were previously sexually groomed by this much older man when you were 18 victim needed medical help or counselling:- you say that you have not worked for 3 years due to a severe anxiety/depression disorder. Is this related to the activities of this person? All of the above factors make the crime ''worse'' and make the person likely to face a tougher sentence if they are convicted. I would reiterate what phaitun said above in post #73 With regards to costs, I don't know if it's been mentioned above, but you can claim your legal and other costs when you set aside a SD. The reason for this is that it is NOT done in the small claims court and so the rules of the small claims court do not apply. There are specific rules that you need to follow to claim costs, but since you have a solicitor involved he will be well versed in this - although maybe just check with him that he will be claiming the costs. Again, don't know if it's been mentioned above, but if you get costs awarded and the person doesn't pay them then it is useful to use a High Court Enforcement Officer to collect the debt - they can do a lot more than court bailiffs to collect money.
  2. ok will email it on the understanding that will post up when there is a result. Dont want to give Barclays any heads up at this point.
  3. right well i'd not bother playing letter tennis with the dca's anymore prob part why you still get letters...dont pull the dogs' tail... now the PPI. i have one like yours [mine s 26yrs old] whereby under their 'resonable approach' the FOS Omb s says the same thing. how can i possibly remember after 26yrs !!! TBH i fnd that insulting. you CLEARLY remember that the rep ticked the box you clearly remember not wanting or being told you must have it or being 'led to believe' you would nt get the credit without it the bottm line here is it was a commission sale by the rep...nice little earner huh! i think it is very poor for the FOS to judge on what p'haps people do/do not remember i's right back clearly stating the box WAS ticked by the rep the rep said i must take it out PROVE otherwise. dx
  4. 6 years is plenty long enough to find someone and to try and collect payment. Keep at it
  5. Crazy Diamond: Tut, tut, tut, you're so unfair to the media. They're probably waiting for some guidance from Caxton House, like the rest of us. Concerning this particular conundrum; I've had a freedom of info request into Work n Pensions since 20 July. Sent a copy of Mr Grayling's parliamentary written answer, dated 17 July, with a copy of the Atos statement and asked for clarification. Thus far, their silence on the issue is deafening. Atos are happy for work capability assessments to be recorded?? You could've fooled me. Margaret.
  6. DEFENCE: 1. Paragraph 1 is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering in to an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with MBNA International Bank Ltd (now MBNA Europe Bank limited) 2. Paragraph 1 (Viii) is denied with regards to the Claimant issuing a demand dated 15th April 2011. 3. Paragraph 1 is 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 with the Claimant; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; Original debt amount £7060.80 MBNA, Claimants amount original Particulars of Claim dated 27th September 2011 £7834.08 and amended Particulars of Claim dated 19th July 2012, £7965.08.It is averred that the total claimed contains unfair charges and interest above the recommended guidelines of the OFT findings are unlawful at common law and © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 5. On the alternative, if 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. 6. On the alternative, the Agreement referred to in paragraph 1 was improperly executed contrary to Section 61(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('the Act'). (a) The only document which was signed by the Defendant in or around the date that the Claimant alleges that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with was an Application with MBNA International Bank Ltd (now MBNA Europe Bank limited) ('the Creditor'). (b) The Agreement mentioned in paragraph (a) of these Particulars, stated that the Total debt outstanding was £7834.08, consisting of a premium for a policy of Payment Protection Insurance ('the PPI'). © The Defendant was required to purchase the PPI as a condition of the Creditor entering into the Agreement: on or around 21st January 2001. (d) The said premium for the PPI was an item entering into the total charge for credit as determined in accordance with the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980, and was therefore, by reason of Section 9(4) of the Act, not to be treated as part of the credit even though time was to be allowed to its payment. 7. The Agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant without an order of the court by the reason of the fact that it was improperly executed as set out above and by reason of Section 65(1) of the Act.The Application is barley legible. 8. Further, by reason of the fact that there is no document which has been signed by the Defendant containing a correct statement of the amount of the credit under the Agreement, and by reason of Section 127(3) of the Act, the Court has no power to make an enforcement order in respect of the Agreement because a term stating the amount of the credit is a prescribed term for the purposes of Sections 61(1)(a) and 127(3), prescribed by the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, regulation 6(1) and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6. 9. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, and the Claimants failure to comply with the DJ Mr xxxxxxx order dated to supply all relevant information and true copies of any agreement and to supply all data of how the account was conducted and figure claimed to be verified, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Ok HWTH Edit to suite and check the details. As you are Emailing this defence you will need to add the header (Claimant v Defendant case number etc) and also add a Statement of Truth. Regards Andy
  7. Hi all, Sigma red and Sigma SPV 1 Ltd are all the same company. Sigma SPV1 Ltd is a Jersey "Front" for Sigma Red. (Offshore Company) Sigma Red & Sigma SPV 1 Ltd was financed by "CYRUS CAPITAL" as from 6th September 2011 with up to 20 Million to spend on Delinquent debt portfolio purchase. It is a 5 year contract. Tim Freeman (Sigma Red) set up the deal. If you google "CYRUS CAPITAL" you can read all about it in a credit today review. The Sigma group consists of Sigma Red/Sigma white/Sigma SPV1Ltd/HL legal & collections and of course HL solicitors. Its all "Smoke & Mirrors" in order to confuse people. The bottom line is its all HL legal & collections. (Redditch) Same faces just different names. Hope that helps.
  8. I doubt any concern you have regarding a simple wax type treatment of your car would be deemed an acceptable reason to return the whole car. A charge of £299 for such a treatment through a dealer is fairly standard although if you had contacted one of the car valet companies in your area I am sure you could have got a similar treatment for around £100 - £130 direct from them. As there is a "warranty" with the treatment, then of course you should have received some validating documents, however, I suspect, as is usually the case with after market mechanical warranties, should you try to claim for a bodywork defect, then your claim would be denied because:- a) you haven't applied the car care products properly b) you haven't applied the car care products often enough c) you haven't washed the car often enough d) you haven't had the bodywork inspected by the dealer once a year e) it's a Friday and we don't accept warranty claims on a Friday f) etc g) any other reason we can think of to make up
  9. You can look here to see if the court nearest to you handle bankruptcies / insolvencies - http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/hmcts There is a drop down list of courts, find the nearest one to you and see if they do indeed handle these cases (bearing in mind a number of courts have closed / transferred cases to those which aren't closing. I presume it isn't statute barred, have you sent off the CCA request ?
  10. What tasks do you do in relation to the mother in law and the casual lady? Would you say that you carry out broadly similar work, and are those people on the payroll, or effectively working for nothing? If the MIL and casual employee are paid members of staff and carry out a broadly similar function to your own, then IMO they should go into a redundancy pool alongside your position and be subject to consultation too. To not do so could lead to a flawed selection and an unfair dismissal. Regarding the owner's boyfriend, the sticking point is the unpaid nature of his involvement (it may be unpaid, it may not and your difficulty is in proving it), for if he was on the payroll, then one could reasonably say that your position still exists, however if the work is just spread out amongst others, one of whom is working for free and also carries out other functions, then your dismissal would potentially be fair. I would suggest that you speak to ACAS in the morning to arm yourself with whatever information they might be able to provide. It does seem that the employer is being a bit canny here and is moving to stay within the law based on what you are saying, so it may be that in staying one step ahead she is able to get rid of you legitimately in the end.
  11. I was told to expect a payment card through the post to pay at a paypoint or post office I waited for the card to arrive which missed the due date for payment and was sent three letters telling me I had broken the arrangement and needed to pay all the outstanding amount otherwise the bailiff would come round to seize my goods and i can bet you have been charged a van/attendance fee on one or both accounts because of this
  12. Here's the full Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1939/13/pdfs/ukpga_19390013_en.pdf Looking at the part you referred to i would assume it is designed to protect the vulnerable from quacks and snake-oil merchants.
  • Create New...