Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 24/02/20 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    #########Defence'########## The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Capital One. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have therefore sought clarity by way of CPR 31.14 and section 78 request. 3.Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of what account the claimant refers to. 4.Paragraph 3 is denied I cant ever recall receiving any Notice of Assignment from August 2012 or ever having being approached pre litigation with regards this alleged debt. 5.It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has yet to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (c) show and evidence the service of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87 (1) of the CCA1974 (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 6. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77/78 for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. The claimant has yet to comply to my section 78 request and remain in default and with regards to my CPR 31.14 request. 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 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.
  2. 1 point
    you should have sent BC and sar 2yrs ago. dx
  3. 1 point
    by mentioning Excel and the BPA you give away how long ago that was. Things are not set in stone so you must get aquainted with the current state of play with these bandits. the importnat thing is that VCS get caned every time they try this no stopping claim on at airports and have even tried to get the airports to apply for a change in the law so they can collect the money they so desire but that fell flat so they rely on LIES and bullying to collect some money. when enough of these cases have been dismissed Trading standards may creak into action but until then we all have to do our legwork
  4. 1 point
    It's GDPR now, not DPA, not that Simon would know anyway. Cut out the bit about SRA as that applies to solicitors. Simon doesn't employ solicitors any more to lose his court cases, he's quite capable of losing them himself.
  5. 1 point
    your situation regarding old data, shall we say, sounds very much like someone close to me. as you were 15 at the time, your old school or it's local education authority will also hold all your information . I did an sar upon their behalf and got everything back to primary school days inc all the statemented statements too. this allowed them to get paid for sheltered housing by the new LA. she is now 35 and thriving well. hth dx
  6. 1 point
    Hey, I cant thank you and Bankfodder enough for this service. Will be sharing it with people at uni as well as work! I will be taking your advice on board and hopefully Surrey Childeren Services get back to me soon. They said they would by the 8th of March and through Coram they have accepted my claim.. so good news on that front! I will defo be in touch if anything else arises but for now, thank you and Bankfodder and everyone on this platform for providing us this service. Best wishess, KM
  7. 1 point
    It's all a bit academic but to what end are you doing this? You mention "I did not realise asking for a photographic evidence would mean i would incriminate myself". What makes you think that it does? The issue surrounding keepers of vehicles being asked to name the driver at the time of an alleged offence was settled in 2007 when Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran took their cases to the European Court of Human Rights. That court ruled against them and determined that keepers and drivers do have an obligation and that such an obligation does not fall foul of the Convention on Human Rights. If you believe the Information Commissioner is going to rule that police forces have an obligation to disclose their evidence under GDPR when they already have such an obligation under the Criminal Procedure Rules I think you may be out of luck.
  8. 1 point
    Just had a quick look at this having come in a bit late (been away). If you defended this matter you would almost certainly be convicted. The only possibility of acquittal that I can see is a fatal administrative error and nothing you have said indicates that one might exist. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no need to consider the individual elements of the allegation separately. As explained, the charge is careless driving. The witness statement explains the officer's opinion quite clearly. He has evidence that you were speeding (measured by an approved device). He has evidence that you performed an overtake in a controlled area (his observations of the event). His evidence is that speeding on the approach to a pedestrian crossing together with overtaking in its vicinity puts your driving below the required standard. There is no need for the prosecution to bring expert testimony as to what constitutes careless driving. It's written in the statute and it is up to a court to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented to them. You don't seem to have a very clear recollection of the event and your post at 8:25 on Saturday seems to confirm this. Compare this to the witness statement which details the event quite clearly and you might hazard a guess at which version the court might accept.
  9. 1 point
    I have created 2 new topics one for each BC debt with link please now post on those threads with any releveant updates to each from now on dx
  10. 1 point
    i'm still not happy that BC did not default the debt before or at the time you entered the DAS you could complain to them but you'll need to sar them 1st
  11. 1 point
    Correct me if I'm wrong but you bought the car for 16K and Hastings have paid you a write-off value of 15.3k? (16k valuation - after some argument - less £700 excess). If that's correct I'd be inclined simply to take the payment and buy another car. I understand that you would prefer to buy the car back and think you could get it repaired cheaper than Hastings are saying (are you really sure of that?) but like BankFodder I don't see the point of taking the risk that the car might be more damaged than you think. Hastings may have acted questionably here, but in essence they appear to have written off your car and to have paid you a reasonable market valuation for it. (To be honest, if you bought it for 16k I'm a bit surprised that they've agreed a figure that high as a valuation. Perhaps you got a very good deal when buying it which may be why you don't want to lose it now).
  12. 1 point
    Okay, I hope you won't mind me saying that what we have here is that you have received the insured value for the vehicle and now you are hoping to buy it is a wreck and to make a profit from it. I don't have any problem with this – it is completely legitimate. However, apart from Hastings rather suspicious handling of it, I can't see that you suffered any particular disadvantage or that they enjoyed any particular advantage – other than they hope to make a bit more from the car at auction than they might otherwise have done. The most important thing which concerns me is whether you have lost out – and it seems to me that you haven't lost out at all in terms of the insured value. I gather I'm correct in saying that you insured it for £16,000? If you confirm all of this then it seems to me that you don't have a problem and there is nothing more to say. So what you are really saying now is that Hastings have a damage car for sale – and they have offered it to you for a particular price – and you are interested in buying it but you would like to reduce the price and is it likely that they would give you an opportunity to inspect the car first. I can't imagine that they would refuse you the opportunity to inspect the car if they think they are going to sell it. You should certainly inspect it and you should have it inspected professionally – particularly in terms of examining the geometry of the car. However you are still taking the risk – but hopefully you know what you're doing.
  13. 1 point
    FOS wont do anything with your credit file they'll write too if they do decide things
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    Surely the statements you have from BC must prove das payment As that would be a strange figure each month
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    why not simply ring BC and ask if they ever did default the debt first?
  18. 1 point
    then simply write to link with copy proof of the original Barclaycard default give them 14 days to remove the account on all credit files else you'll raise a complaint with the ICO and seek financial compo
  19. 1 point
    so BC defaulted it before sale have you not got all the details already from an sar to marry this up and check there wasn't a previous one? dx
×
×
  • Create New...