Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by clarity99

  1. Is there a problem with this thread- I cannot see the full thread and Mantis Shrimp's posts are missing?
  2. thank you for taking the time to look at it all- I'm just in from 12hr-shft, so will need couple hours to process.. So a simple defence of no DN and S87 so I shouldn't need to bother with my original plan of CCA1974 S75 protections and CRA 2015 s55 and s56 to cancel out the debt as repeating was no longer convenient to consumer so full refund..... C
  3. it is Mantis- I needed help understanding whether it applied in this instance, as you'll see from the redacted documents I'm about to put up.... The Claimant says not.... I thought otherwise....
  4. thanks Mantis - it was my error all along. It should always have read as s75a not s75 as this is a linked credit agreement! My apologies to all ...... C
  5. this was a telephone customer service representative- instead of the usual complaints he gets, he says he really enjoys cancelling PCNs. Made out it was an Aldi policy, so hats off to them.
  6. Edit- Oh dear- just re-read the Subject Access Request file from Original Creditor and it produced copies of "Sums in Arrears - 09072018" and a "Notice of Default - 07092018" - none of these were received.
  7. So my bulleted defence is: i) No Defualt Notice served on Defendant by Original Creditor ii) failures by Original Creditor renders the assignment defective? iii) Service never provided by Provider... now liquidated iv) Claim should be dismissed any more than that?
  8. OK- so I now see that s75 applies to credit cards and there wasn't any payment made by credit card.......so no protection there. There is the linked agreement I posted that provides similar protection....... Andy- are you saying there is NO defence to an assigned debt? C
  9. Hope so Dave and especially if Google picks up this thread - I'll keep looking for the original PCN, and post it up if I find it. I could post up my Appeal, but as it wasn't even looked at it probably has no value. C
  10. 75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier. (1)If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor. I'm confused, if this is a CCA retail finance agreement used to purchase a training course and the course wasn't provided, how can Assignor chase debt but not be required to meet their s75 obligations? Monday
  11. Thank you Andy Definitely no Default Notice from Assignor or the Assignee... so that's a one line defence, thank you So with s75 as Shrimp is being sued for the full loan paid direct to Provider, if they're expected to pay then the Assignor/Assignee should provide a suitable alternative ie they're responsible per s75........ have I got this wrong and s75 will only apply if the Assignee is successful in Court and Shrimp has to pay and is then in loss? As it is the Assignee who is suing..... can any of the defects with the Assignor be used in my Defence? Does the Assignee also need to serve a Default Notice?
  12. Thanks Andy Easily corrected without re-issue? Then can I rely on my "embarrased defence" to produce a robust defence? I haven't produced a WS yet, only ~80 pages of correspondence which probably now won't form the WS. There is a financial statement from Assignor which is how I know when the default occurred and assignment took place. A SAR produced lots of correspondence most of which is for the first time and includes a statement from the Assignor dated a week ago, that also hadn't been received. I genuinely appreciate you spending your time on this, and happy to accept criticism and pointing out what I've got wrong but it isn't the same as helping direct me to what I need to change to get it right............. do you agree with Mantis Shrimp's suggestions?
  13. Sorry Dave, I cannot find the original PCN, but here it is cancelled. This was an over stay, double dip as 2 trips made to same store but 90 minutes apart. The cameras only recorded first entry and last exit. Also the terminals in store didn't recognise the license plate, but the PCN that came through clearly showed it front and rear. I appealed this online with Parking Eye as soon as it was received - full on appeal, provided a statement, bank records, copies of the ALDI receipts from the 2 trips made within 2 hours and submitted it all electronically. Part of my defence was the terminals hadn't recognised the plate and their equipment was defective. Straight after pressing submit, I telephoned ALDI customer services to ask about whether their terminals were working on the day (as it hadn't recognised the licence plate) and he simply said, "it's no bother, I'll just cancel that if you can give me a moment"... and he did. I logged back in to Parking Eye and it was cancelled. No messing about- said he usually gets angry calls, lets them get it out, calms down and simply says "we'll cancel it". It's a shame other landowners don't apply the same common sense approach with legitimate customers.... C Aldi Cancelled - 24122021 - redacted.pdf
  14. At that stage of a preliminary hearing and bundle to produce, hence my late call into the group. If as DX has said, I'm on the wrong route, what would be the best way of dealing with this with the limited timeframe? My plan before my post was: i) struck out for suing non-entity (accepting they may simply re-issue) ii) claim Section 75 'protection' - from Assignee BUT as the Assignee has claimed rights and benefits but not obligations as per Mantis suggestion also now go for a seperate filing against Assignor. If I'm completely way out, please say and if you can give any direction that really would be great. C
  15. On the plus side its allowed Shrimp to put money aside each month in case he ends up losing (which I'm hoping he doesn't but now fearing he might without this site's help?)
  16. Thanks Mantis, would be grateful for any suggestions on how best to address the claim being issued against Shrimps' 1st names? C
  17. Totally agree, all correspondence is about the threat of a CCJ when is Shrimp pays within 30 days, it isn't recorded (?). So would you suggest issuing a claim against the Assignor? Or somehow incorporate this into a witness statement and defence? C
  18. as in better chance of successful claim? I also thought not Mantis, until the Assignee claims they have no obligation to provide the goods/service unlike the Assignor (who from the agreement do and they accept they do) so other than the Court fees, the Assignee has nothing to loose.
  19. I totally agree it isn't great- but 11th hour and a genuine expectation it would be re-issued, or more to the point a hope that the defence would disuade them from persuing the debt! clearly a fail
  20. Context So Shrimp took out a loan for a training course with a Provider in May 2018. The Provider completed the loan application forms online and Shrimp digitally signed. In June 2018 when Shrimp contacted Provider to undertake Training they went dark. The Provider liquidated in Sept/Oct 2018 and Shrimp never had his Training. OmniCapxx (Lender) were chasing payments but Shrimp refused, made no payments and had cancelled Direct Debit. Lender defaulted the agreement in September 2018 and ended it December 2019 when it was assigned to JCI aqusitions (Assignee). Shrimp made Assignee aware of dispute and again refused to pay as no goods/services were provided and he hadn't (directly) received any monies. Assignee issued proceedings in his Christian names (first, second) but Shrimp acknowledged service anyway (!) Contacted Northampton Bulk Clearing who said claim was defective and should be reissued - that was basis of defence....... yes it is a rather poor defence, but it was to meet the deadline and it was expected Assignee would re-issue. The agreement with the Lender is attached and it provides for suing the Lender and/or Provider. I asked whether the Assignee should also assume those obligations..... Omni Agreement - redacted.pdf
  • Create New...