Jump to content

vuk1958

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

1 Follower

About vuk1958

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I have written confirmation by CapQuest stating: We were not aware of any existing query when account was passed to us, therefore we are closing the account on our system. This is in 2008. As previously, I do not know whether BO&Scott had control or not but Halifax stated in their letter from 2006 that " they do not have any control over the debt management" and all communication should be addressed to BO&Scott. This is all confusing as it is unclear who sold debt to CapQuest??? Naturally, i wrote two letters to CapQuest - Recorded Delivery, second letter written as Letter befo
  2. This relates to debt from 2005 with Halifax. I was battling with them for 8 months in reference to Credit Agreement which they failed to produce. In 2006 they sold account to Blair Oliver &Scott. I disputed that transfer but was told by Halifax ( letter confirmation) that they do not own account anymore and all corespondence should be addressed to BO&Scott. I disputed BO&Scott their rights to handle this alleged debt and they simply vanish with no trace. In 2008, out of the blue CrapQuest appears as " legitimate owner" of the debt and they tried together with their "legal guns"
  3. Firstly, i have to congratulate consumer Forums for supplying to me a book Small Claims Procedure by Patricia Pearl which i purchased some months ago. This is not advertising to it - but it helped a lot so members could buy it and at the same time help this wonderful site running. I just completed Allocation Questionnaire and place the Draft Order ( as per consumer Forum expample) requesting all pages of document. It is worth saying that I (we ) are Claimant and we request that pursuant to s78(1) document to be produced. I(we) do not question the agreement/application being enforcable or
  4. OK, interesting development. HFC filed defence but used name of Defendant as: HFC BANK LIMITED T/A HILTON HHONOURS CARD This is surely false as HFC and HILTON HONOURS parted company in March 2008. As Defendant name is " false or misleading" or relate to nonexisting company should i use this to strike out the Defence. Aditionally, 4 pages of Agreement which contains 8 pages are supplyed with Defence ( although Particulars of claim request all 8 pages to be produced). Does it mean that Defence is not filed correctly. Any thoughts on these as i have to file Allocation Questionnaire and
  5. I received the following Credit Agreement ( Credit Application) as result of my request under s 78(1) As per my knowledge: 1. Agreement( Application) should have 8 pages in total but creditor sent only 4 pages. They claim that they do not have other 4 pages as these were submited via Internet( not true)and I should have them. I believe this is contrary to CCA1974 2. The subscibed items refer to various clauses which could not be found within the document . Eg. Total Charge for credit refers to clause 3f although this clause is nowhere within the document. 3. Page six contains my
  6. Got warrant paid. However, MBNA continues with payment demands. Shell I put the sam POC and start new N1 claim and at the same time pay their demands. In my case is reversal. I am taking them to Court for continuing acting on the account while in default/ofense, contrary to s78(6)(a) I believe they do not wish to appear in court defending such a low amount of money ( £150.00) as it probably cost them 10 times more to defend it or to appear in Court and even if i lose they do not get their costs paid.
  7. Yes, just received another leter from barclaycard sending the Barclaycard conditions and stating: Agreement between us ( Barclaycard centre Northampton) and you the person who signed the agreement ( as named on the covering letter). All 3 letters are sent on same date and other two letters indicating that agreement would be sent "under separate cover", so i believe this is the agreement - just copy of terms and conditions. I am completely shocked with this level of vioalation by BC. Furthermore, this is posted from their Northampton Centre. Why would they set aside the Application made t
  8. Yes, £75.00 i put them as Respondent I left Northampton address, I juist realised that could be a mistake. However, surely they should inform the Court of their litigation address - well, shell i wait and see what happens
  9. Yes, I stick N244 application. Initially the court clark at the desk refused to take it as "there was no claim going", but I had to reffer her to CPR23.2(4) so off she go to judge and after 10 minutes she is back accepting the N244. I sent 3 letters LBA to Barclays requesting the original documents under CPR 31.16 and warned them against costs. I stick all my correspondence with them to my application, dated and in order. I hope judge would read that - if?? Now, Judge can say - Barclays sent you documents under s78 and satisfied your request - why do you want original "agreement!". Is
  10. Started my thread under Barclaycard , BarclayCard - I filed an application under CPR 31.16 I spoke to court and they said judge is on holiday or so - I am worried that application could be refused. Also who would pay for this application hearing. i believe they should as I asked them 5 times to supply doecuments -they didn't. surely that is " no cooperation with pre action protocols".
  11. Quick question I filed an application form with Court re:Barclaycard to provide the credit agreement pursuant to CPR 31.16 as they failed to do so despite number of letters over the period of 2 months were issued with same request. They simply IGNORE and keep on sending the same crap. So far I haven't got any letter from court confirming any action and Barclaycard continues with payment demands. Also, no agreement from Barclaycard just letter stating that they do not have to provide me with it ( apparently regulations allows them that) and just usual irrelevant T&S Does anybody kn
  12. Problem is - that is Warrant for money which i already pay them before. The main question is HOW TO STOP THEM ACTING FURTHER, as they seem to be quite ignorant. They simply continue with payment demands as nothing happened and no reply to any leters - just complete silence. Offense in CCA 1974 is not criminal offense and there is no much to do about it ,appart from writing letters to various organisations who take 6 months to reply back and then just slap them on the wrist ( ICO).
  13. OK, this could be of interest to all members. 1.I gotMBNA on default/offense under s78(1), failuire to produce an Agreement. 2. I paid all their demands ( I believe this is cruicial or they simply deafult you) throughout their offense ( 3 months) 3. Then i stick N1 claim and included all their violations and requested money back +Interest 4. they filed Acknowlidgment of Service - but never defense 5. I got Judgement in Default 6. They didn't pay it so I issued Warrant - this is now pending 7. However, they completely ignored all that - and send another payment request + interest+
  14. Thanks, I throught of doing that but i was worried how court would look at that and i wasn't sure whether this is within Court protocols - same claim twice or more. However, if you had an experience with it - fantastic, off to court on monday. You are great, thanks for lightening the tunnel . just few more questions: 1. do i stick the same particulars of claims as with first claim 2. If they failed to produce defence on first claim , do they have a legal right to suddenly file the defence on new claim based on same particulars of claim of undefended one. 3. Can i legaly base my new
  15. Yes, MBNA simply ignored court judgement and continue with charging as if nothing happened. They didn't file defence - just complete ignorance. Warrant is issued and I am awaiting the result of it. However, the usual monthly statement with charges+interest +late payment penalty arrived again. So - what to do, I am absolutely stuck here. Do I pay then issue another N1 claim to get this money back or what. 2. Agreement is an application where they even state it is not clear in parts - means no legible. It is all style application form. My problem is if I go for "unenforcable" it would be Par
×
×
  • Create New...