Jump to content

dun wi debtin

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About dun wi debtin

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Haggis 1894 and Site Team, Good job! Well done. And credit also to Simon Read. Now, if we could just get our message out on the Radio 4, Money Box programme and other such, what a difference it would make. With Cartel's failings on the national news agenda, there must be scope for promoting the empowerment of individuals (through this site) to use the law, as is each person's right, to have sight of original loan/credit agreements against which payments are being made. As has been pointed out, if there is no enforceable agreement, no corporate entity answerable to shareholders would make payments amounting to millions of pounds because of a "moral obligation". I never miss an opportunity to direct everyone and anyone to this site and recount what a difference it has made to my life to have taken control of my financial affairs away from the organisations of institutionalised theft. I do not subscribe to theories of conspiracy in these matters. Or other matters, come to that. Everyone is responsible and nobody is to blame. Well done again to Simon Read. Let's hope the new owner of the Independent and the Independent on Sunday will allow and encourage its journalists to investigate and publish articles according to conscience and facts.
  2. I have received a second 'Notice of Discontinuance' from Howard Cohen & Co on behalf of their client C L Finance Limited for the case which didn't leave the Northampton CC Bulk Centre. Marvellous! Let's hope Lewis Debt Recovery don't waste too much paper sending me offers of great repayment discounts (they started at 50%!) on these non-existent credit agreements. I'm just grinning from ear to ear as I write this message. Thanks CAG.
  3. Hi Jet83, My letter to Debt Managers Limited dated 19th February has received no reply. However, I did suggest to them in the letter that since the account was in dispute the matter ought be returned to Barclays for resolution otherwise I would be obliged to report their further correspondence to the various regulatory authorities relevant to their business activities. I received a letter from Barclaycard dated 2nd March with no reference to specific correspondence from me but purporting to be in reply "to the letter whereby you note non receipt of requested documents in relation to a request made under Section 77/78 of the CCA 1974". The letter was generated by Grant Lake at Barclaycard Customer Services, (I assume) when Debt Managers Limited returned the account to Barcalycard on receipt of my letter. The Barclaycard letter contained all the usual blather about having fulfilled their obligations and their interpretations of CPR and other guff. The Barclaycard letter failed to mention that nothing they could bring before a court to enforce their claim was forthcoming from their files in response to my SAR. I will not be replying to their letter. I will not reply to any letters Barclaycard sends regarding any of the three accounts they hold in my name unless to advise them that I am registering a complaint against Barclaycard with one or more of the regulatory bodies concerned with their business. If Barclaycard would like to pursue their claims through the court I will consider the evidence on which they base their claim and proceed accordingly. I am emboldened in my resolution to act as described above for having recently obliged CL Finance Limited to withdraw from two separate claims against me issued through the Bulk Centre at Northampton. The first claim went to my local county court before CL Finance Limited issued a 'Notice of Discontinuance' and the second claim was not pursued even as far as my local county court. Without an original agreement containing all of the prescibed terms no claim stands much chance of getting as far as a court hearing. Good luck, Dun
  4. The claimant has issued a 'Notice of Discontinuance' with regard to the case before my local County Court. In the case still with the Northampton CC Bulk Centre the Claimant has failed to contact the Court within 28 days of my submitting my intention to defend the claim against me so the case is stayed (strictly speaking the Court is a bit behind in its workload so this is not certain). However since both 'alleged' debts have been passed on to another DCA to collect on behalf of CL Finance with an immediate offer of a 50% reduction to settle matters, I think it's fair to assume that CL Finance have given up on these accounts until such time at they get hold of the appropriate paperwork. There is a third account, much smaller in nominal value than these two, also with CL Finance for which the agreement cannot be produced and I assume is therefore not enforceable. So I think is is safe to say the final score with this little lot is: Dun Wi Debtin: Three CL Finance Ltd: Nil Excluding all the court and other costs incurred CL Finance Ltd is down £15,927.67 - but of course, CL Finance Ltd didn't part with that sort of money in the first place. Nonetheless, thanks to CAG, I have learned how to stand up for myself in these matters and seen off these sharks as a result. A donation to the site will be forthcoming by the month end with my heartfelt gratitude.
  5. Thank you, Cerberusalert, for pointing to that excellent and very useful letter by 42man. That'll go in the post tomorrow.
  6. Hi Jet, I received a letter from Debt Managers Ltd. today. It is the first time I have heard anything from them. They say: "We act as agents for Barclays Bank PLC trading as Barclaycard." There is no indication in the letter that the debt has been sold to them. The letter continues: "Monthly statement will no longer be sent to you on this account and interest will be charged on the outstanding balance at a rate of 1% per month." I will ignore the letter for the time being although I am tempted to drop them a line and thank them for helping to save the planet by stopping the monthly waste of paper that is my statement. Barclays holds three accounts in my name (two of their own and one bought from Morgan Stanley). Barclays keeps adding interest to the accounts and writing to me via their in house debt collection agencies (Debt Management may be another one for all I know or care). They can write all they want (they even sent Stan from Power to Contact around to my home - he left his card). I have placed the accounts in 'serious dispute' and won't correspond with them further except, in due course, to send copy correspondence of the letter I will send to the OFT. If Barclaycard had agreements worth the name on any of these accounts they would have taken me to court so I suspect they have no such pieces of paper in their files. If they ever produce an enforceable agreement I will make an arrangement to resume payments on the account concerned, otherwise, I consider that the accounts are closed. I am not going to waste time and money on pointless correspondence. Good luck, Dun Wi
  7. Tisk! Okay then. I'll think for myself. The following has been deliverd to the Court: Dear Sir/Madam Re: Order dated 3rd February The above mentioned Order was attached to a notice sent out on 11th February and was received on 13th February. I do not know what to do. I have asked repeatedly for the documents upon which the Claimant relies in this case. Without sight of said documents I am unable to submit a proper defence, unable to prepare the necessary papers for disclosure and unable to prepare witness statements as directed. I do not understand why I am being penalised in this way. Am I not entitled to see the papers on which this claim is based before being required to submit a full defence? Therefore in accordance with point 8 in the Order I look to the Court to rectify this injustice and submit again a request for directions in line with my needs at this stage in the proceedings and would ask that it be considered by the Court or that the Court amend the current Order is such manner as would put me in a position whereby I might fulfill its timetable. Yours faithfully, In the County Court Claim No. XXXXXXXX Between Debt Collection Company Limited - Claimant and Dun Wi Debtin - Defendant Draft Order for Directions 1. The Claimant shall within 14 days of service of this order file and serve the following: * Copies of the Credit Agreement and any documents referred to within it which complies with the consumer Credit Act 1974 and all subsequent regulations which the Claimant seeks to rely upon, * Default Notice compliant with s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) as amended, * Document, contract or deed of assignment, * Notice of assignment, with proof of service of the same compliant with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925, * Copies of any statement or other document relied upon. If the Claimant fails to comply with this order, the claim will be struck out without further order. 2. The Defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve the following: * An amended defence sufficiently particularised in response to the documents supplied by the Claimant. If the Defendant fails to comply with this order, the Defence will be struck out without further order.
  8. Bumping for attention ... anyone in a position to advise me? 2. Disclosure of documents shall be dealt with as follows: a) Both parties shall give to each other standard disclosure of documents by serving copies together with a disclosure statement by 4pm on Wednesday, 3rd March 2010. What might I disclose if the Claimant has not submitted documentation in support of the claim that would allow me to submit a defence?
  9. Well, if someone would advise me here, I would be grateful. The Order is dated 11th February so as per point 8 below I must reply by tomorrow (unless it is already too late!). A date has been set in August for the case to go to trial. A month prior to trial each party must file a completed pre-trial check list and the claimant must pay a £100 fee and the claimant must pay an additional £500 hearing fee which is refundable in whole or in part if the court is notified in writing that the trial is no longer needed. So far, so good - although that the case is progressing at all is surprising to me. However, I have yet to receive any documents from the Claimant and the judge appears to have ignored my requests for directions (as detailed in previous posts). I am therefore still at a disadvantage and unable to file a complete defense, something I have stated clearly already. What should I do next? Are there any documents for me to disclose? Or has the Judge aimed this Order squarely at the Claimant? The Order states: 1. The Claim is allocated to the Fast Track. 2. Disclosure of documents shall be dealt with as follows: a) Both parties shall give to each other standard disclosure of documents by serving copies together with a disclosure statement by 4pm on Wednesday, 3rd March 2010. b) Any request to inspect the original of a copy document shall be complied with by 4pm on Wednesday, 17th March 2010. 3. Both parties shall, by 4pm on Wednesday, 31st march 2010, serve on each other the witness statements of themselves and of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom they intend to rely. 4. No party my rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this Order without further permission from the court. 5. Not more than seven and not less than three clear working days before the trial, the Claimant shall file at court an indexed and paginated bundle of documents which complies with the requirements of Rule 39.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the practice direction thereto, and shall serve a copy of it on the defendant. The parties shall endeavour to agree the contents of the bundle before it is filed. The bundle shall include a case summary of not more than 250 words and a statement of the issues to be decided by the Court. 6. Complete pre-trial check list .... 7. The Claim shall be listed .... 8. Because the Order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of this Order. Thanks in advance for your help
  10. Hi skint40, I more than agree with loobyloo85. For your day to day banking needs open a new bank account unconnected to any bank to which you owe money.
  11. A development. In the second claim (just issued) there is a novel development. The claimant's solicitor has acknowledged my CPR 31.14 request. Remarkable! Their letter continues: Please note that as a bulk issuer we are unable to store the necessary documents on site and we are currently in the process of retrieving the documents requested. Therefore, please accept this letter as our agreement to a general extension of time. Once we have provided you with the documents requested we will grant a further 14 days for you to submit your defence. Rich stuff methinks! Your comments are invited on my proposed reply. All criticisms greatly appreciated. Thank you for your letter dated 19th January 2010. The CPR 31.14 request was recorded as delivered to your office on 12th January 2010 and therefore the seven days' allowed for the disclosure and production of documents mentioned in your Particulars of Claim has now expired. The CPR 31.14 request stipulated that your request for an extension of time state a date by when you will comply with the request. No such date is specified in your request, therefore, your request for a general extension of time does not have my agreement. The documents upon which your client would rely in this claim were requested of your client by me in a recorded delivery letter dated 16th May 2009. Your client failed to respond to my legal request for the documents you are now seeking to obtain from them and they defaulted on their statutory obligation to supply me with the same at that time. Your client was reminded of their obligation to supply the documents in a recorded delivery letter dated 11th July 2009 and was advised therein of the consequences of their default. Your client effected a technical compliance with their statutory obligation on 23rd November 2009 but still did not provide the documents you are seeking to obtain from them now. Your client has already had a full eight months to supply these documents. Presumably, a telephone call to your client would have ascertained whether or not your client is in a position to supply the documents first requested of them on 16th May 2009 and mentioned in your Particulars of Claim. If your client is not in a position to supply the documents upon which they base their claim, I suggest to you that it is unwise of your client to have instructed you in this matter. This lack of preparedness on their part is insufficient reason for me to agree to a general extension of time at this stage in the proceedings which they have instigated. I will submit my defence based on the information to hand and within the time limits imposed on me by the court. Yours faithfully, Dun Wi Debtin
  12. Thanks EIE, The description of the mortgage states: We have set a limit on the SVR so that it will not be more than 2% above the BoE base rate. We can change the 2% limit but, before we do, we will give 30 days notice to customers who pay interest at SVR ... Those customers will then have three months to repay their mortgage if they want to, without having to pay the early repayment charge. In the mortgage conditions the description above comes under: I. Interest we charge I. n The following terms apply if, during any early repayment charge period, we are charging you interest at a rate which is equal to, or based on, the base rate I. n (x) We may change the marginal rate at any time by giving you 21 days' notice. The description is clear enough. The precise mortgage condition, too, is unambiguous. The condition I.n(x) was invoked in September 2008 to alter the marginal rate from 2% to 3%. No reason for the change was given and no reason is required to be given. Under the terms and conditions of the mortgage the marginal rate can be changed. The matter is straightforward. However, it strikes me as unfair. There is nothing to prevent the marginal rate being increased by 1% every quarter, for example, or to prevent the marginal rate being increased by 5% every September hereafter. How do I attack this situation? Am I right to assuming the condition is unfair? What validity is there in the argument that I could have refused to sign the agreement and taken my business elsewhere? I would be grateful for any thoughts on this circumstance and/or pointers to elsewhere on the site where the post is appropriate. Thanks.
  13. Folks, Please forgive me hijcking your thread with a general 'mortgage' question. If there is a more appropriate thread for my question please direct me there. My ability to obtain a mortgage is restricted (in so far as the mortgage market is a restricted market for everyone). Obviously I am not 'forced' to sign up to a particular agreement. So what are the ground rules for claiming in retrospect that a particular condition stated clearly in the agreement is unfair? Thanks.
  14. Thanks again 42man. All help is gratefully received. The DCA's first claim is on the way to being struck out but I do not want to count my chickens before they are hatched. They have until 4pm on Friday to submit an AQ to the court an pay the £200 fee. The second claim is in its early days of due process and I am awaiting a response to my CPR 31.14 request. The second claim crossed in the post with copy correspondence from me to the data controller at the DCA. The recorded delivery letter contained a copy of my AQ submission and the details of two complains I had made to the OFT regarding their handling of my data. These are the first complaints I have made to the OFT. The copy letters to the data controller have elicited a swift response from a named individual, the Quality and Compliance Officer, at the DCA. It's a minor triumph to get a meaningful response out of this DCA. (It would be a major triumph if the DCA stops processing my data as the law requires.) Perhaps complaints to the OFT have a cumulative effect? I will submit a third complaint to the OFT if the first claim going through the court is struck out.
  15. Hi Monkquito, It's probably just an idle threat. And if it isn't an idle threat any caller at your door will have no authority to do anything except leave their calling card with you. I met one of these doorknockers at my door one day as I returned home. He was leaving a 'called while you were out' card which advised me to 'call this number without delay' or else ... don't if you want to get and maintain control of your financial affairs. I explained to the poor person whose job it was to shame me (I presume) that I only deal with my financial affairs by letter, not over the telephone and not on the doorstep, and that the DCA/bank which was paying for this door-knocking service was ignoring my letters. My CAG story: Having sent out my CCA requests I sat back and waited, and waited, and waited ... Plenty of letters arrived (and still arrive) threatening one thing and another, a few returned my £1 saying " we know we cannot enforce the debt but please pay us anyway" (these letters were a surprise!), some supplied reconstructed agreements, and some even sent legible and illegible copies of signed application forms from decades back (these were also a surprise). But not one single copy of an agreement landed on the doormat. So, slowly but surely I placed all nineteen accounts in dispute and some eventually in serious dispute for all the difference it made to the (mostly) rubbish I received through the post from the DCAs and banks. It does, I am sure, make a difference if one acts reasonably. The process of reorganising my finances by locating the original agreements can be a protracted affair and end up in front of a judge. If this turns out to be the case, all your reasonableness will be taken into account. If you are reasonable you will not end up in front of a judge because you will arrange to pay any creditor that produces an enforceable agreement. I have been so reasonable with my disputed accounts that I now feel justified in making formal complaints to the OFT about one DCA and more complains about other DCAs will follow in due course. I am also using the knowledge gained here to rebuff claims made against me through the court. To date, CCA requests and later Subject Access Requests produced no documentation i.e. no copy of an enforceable agreement, to support the county court claims. That's my story so far. So my advice to you is to keep on doing what you are doing and then don't worry, be happy. Dun
  • Create New...