Jump to content

Wolfy

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Wolfy

  1. Wolfy

    Wolfy V Smile

    This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  3. I totally agree with what Nicklea has posted with one exception. As the only "whole blood" sibling your friend is entitled to 100% of the estate under intestacy rules. See attached for a more detailed explanation http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/civil/probate/why_will.htm#chart She needs however to contact the Probate Registry to prevent the half-sibling obtaining letters of administration, she can do this by entering a caveat against the estate. The Probate Registry will be able to advise her on what she needs to do.
  4. Thanks Rebel but I need DN's from around July 2006. I know that the term regarding debit cards and cheques was in there in at least September 2008 but need something earlier than that to see when it was added.
  5. Has anyone got a copy of an Egg default notice from around July 2006 or can point me in the right direction to view one. I have been sent templates of letters which I am sure do not show what they actually sent but need ammo. When did Egg add the paragraph about debit cards and cheques taking varying amounts of time to clear on the account? Has anyone else just had template letters back from Egg re DNs and what version numbers were they. This is very very urgent as court date is tomorrow.
  6. Bamboo I don't want to give away to much as no doubt someone will be looking at this thread on Monday morning but be assured I am well prepared.
  7. I have seen a copy of the agreement, which yes is illegible ( see page one of this thread), however until now they have always said that they have the original agreement but refused inspection. As this is now before a circuit judge, which is only one down froma high court judge, I am hopeful that they will have the experiance to see through Cohen.
  8. The order says The claimant do produce the original of the agreement made between the Defendent and Egg Plc on XXXXX (and not referred to as a copy in the claimants disclosure statement) at the trial on 19th October Also just found out this is before a circuit judge rather than a DJ and they have moved the trial to a court 15 miles away.
  9. Just to add this in my opinion differentiates PPI from default charges. With PPI the rules are clearly set out as to what the vendor needs to do in order to comply. If they don't follow these clear rules or choose to ignore them then its their choice. Everyone knows it illeagal (ok mixing civil and criminal law here) to use a mobile whilst driving. People still do and going to court and stating "well your honour everyone else was doing it" isn't going to get you very far.
  10. But it does help that Egg were fined in excess of £700,000 by the FSA for deliberate mis selling of PPI policies and forced to compensate their customers. Just because something may be widespread doesn't make it legal. The rules were in place to cover the selling of PPI, just because everyone broke the rules doesn't change the fact that the rules were broken.
  11. I am sorry but I disagree. If this were true then the courts would not have the power to reopen the agreement were any terms unfair. What this might be referring to is the Rankine judgement where Judge Brown said that " In my judgment, it cannot invalidate a default notice if elements of the sums claimed in that notice are subsequently found to be irrecoverable by virtue of other legislation, such as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The obligation imposed on the lender is to state the sums due on the face of the agreement. To impose any other requirement would rem
  12. If the PPI was lawful then why did Egg refund the money to you? If the policy was mis sold to you it was a deliberate act by Egg to enrich themselves at your expense. Sounds pretty unlawful to me.
  13. Yes but those two monthly payments must be for the wrong amount as they included mis sold PPI and interest on that PPI
  14. Another thought for you it also renders any DN issued invalid as it would have overstated the amount that you had to pay to rectify any breach. Lord Justice Kennedy in Woodchester v Swain "If a sum of money had to be paid it needed to be specified and if the figure given was more than the sum which the giver of the notice was entitled to demand the notice was invalid."
  15. Just another random thought but this also means a HC employee filed a false disclosure statement. Methinks an application to the court for contempt of court may be called for.
  16. What I really need is information on how to counter this at trial when it will be brought up for the first time
  17. Sorry just to add this is in spite of telling a judge in a cmc that off course they have the original agreement
  18. Ok quick update. Please forgive the above I was feeling a bit low. There is now a court order ordering that the orignal copy of teh agreement be present at the trial. Just spoken to HC who state they haven't got the original only copies. Trial is in a few days so I need help quick to deal with this. What defence can I offer?
  19. Not sure if this has been brought up before but it would appear that there has already been a case on defective default notices and unlawful rescisson. Found this on LexisNexis. It would appear to be permission to appeal against a judgement but I can't seem to find what happened next LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : CHADWICKAppellant - and - LLOYDS TSB BANKRespondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
  20. Bamboo thanks for the words of encouragement but I am starting to feel that no matter what I say or can proove it won't matter. "oh mr creditor that default notice is invalid, well don't worry about we'll find for you anyway. No deed of assignment, well thats a bit silly but we'll ignore it just for you" Getting to the point that I am thinking about not even turning up for the hearing. Justice isn't blind its dead!!
  21. Well matters have moved on. A trial date is looming next Tuesday. Today I attended a hearing for Specific Disclosure that I had made in respect of the Deed of Assignment. Despite four letters requesting disclosure and inspection of the deed (of course it didn't appear in their disclosure list) all they have ever sent me is a fron page saying basicaly this is an agreement between Egg and C L Finance and we agree to be bound by the terms of the agreement and a second page showing signed by and some signatures. Evidently everything else is commercialy sensitive and this is all they are required t
  22. Under Equitable Assignment a DCA can claim nothing in their own name. Any court action would have to be taken at the very least by the original creditor and the DCA.
  23. Yes but if the DCA is taking you to court in their own name claming to have absolute asignment this could assist in proving that they only have, at most, equitable assignment and therefore cannot sue in their own name even if they have fully complied with the requirements of the Law of Property Act
  24. Just to add a wrinkle for peoples consideration. Most of the DCA’s purchase books of debt under Fast Flow Agreements. These agreements will normally stipulate that an account must fall within a certain category in order to be assigned to the DCA such as in default and immediate payment can be requested. Most Deeds of Assignemnt make reference to the Fast Flow Agreement and the terms in it. If, for example, the original claimant had served a faulty default notice and consequently sums were not immediately payable then I would suggest that it could be argued that the account fell outside the
×
×
  • Create New...