Jump to content

hunni2006

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

hunni2006 last won the day on November 26 2009

hunni2006 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

19 Good

About hunni2006

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. so...... is there a meet or not a meet.... that is the question.
  2. Consumers should be aware that there is a lot more to the green deal than meets the eye.... it may yet in fact turn out to be yet another failed government scheme. Although it appears to be aimed at helping people improve the energy efficiency of their home by getting improvements like new windows and solar power, the fact is, that the interest rates on the loans provided, and the terms of the loans are being pretty much left to the providers to set, you could end up with a very costly loan that is with the property for 15+ years to come, long after the 'products' you have installed have becom
  3. well for a start, It's not swapping one creditor for another.... its swapping a creditor for a debt purchaser who claim to have transferred the rights but not the responsibilities. secondly, if the debt was still with the original creditor they would need to issue a default notice before taking action, if the default was rectified then the line of credit would be restored and things would go on as before. In this case, no default or termination was issued by the OC, the debt was sold without notification to this 'debt purchaser' who does not acknowledge any obligations under CCA, so as a d
  4. The original agreement included the clause:- “We may transfer our rights and benefits and our obligations under this agreement at any time without telling you first provided that this does not detrimentally effect your rights and obligations under the agreement” but if they have sold it on to a debt purchaser surely that affects my rights....?
  5. ok, so what happens when the 'debt purchaser' issues proceedings for a credit card debt without being joined in action by the OC? is there a relevant section of law that states that they have to be joined with the OC, or that they cannot persue proceedings?
  6. If a DCA buys up your debt from a credit card company but claims NOT to be a creditor but a debt purchaser, and then issues legal proceedings, are they not obliged to be joined in proceedings by the OC? I was under the impression (maybe wrongly) that only the creditor can issue proceedings to recover the debt. clarification would be good before I go for the throats!!
  7. well I wouldn't call it a success, I still lost the original case.... but have not given up trying to find an inexpensive way of having another go at that, will let you know if I come up with anything.! lol One thing to note.... In my case at the hearing and in their evidence, Cabot claim not to be the creditor... they claim to have all the rights but none of the duties. I tried to argue if that was the case then they had no right of action without being joined by the original lender but didn't get anywhere with the Judge. In one of my oh's cases, they have got the agreement & it's
  8. Sorry it's taken so long to get back, no computer for a while! At the hearing the rep for Cabot withdrew the application in light of the points made in my defence, namely that they were being sneaky by applying for an order whilst at the same time giving me a 14 day time limit to come up with repayment offer (which they had accepted) but they went for the order anyway. Judge told them....I should think so too and congratulated me on a "marvelous defence of my propery!" lol I enjoyed that bit! I asked at the hearing about the removal of the interrim charge order, and was told that I didn't
  9. quick update. had my day in court. gloves off this time, no more nerves, no more being bullied by the big guy. NO charging order, Interrim charge order removed. no costs.
  10. Hi Beau, there was a discussion at the hearing as to the wording of the judgement, and Morgans solicitor said that there was no need for a 14 day stipulation as they would be in touch to arrange suitable repayment, so the judge made an order WITHOUT any stipulation as to when it should be paid by. Also, on leaving the hearing their solicitor said they would be in touch, so I waited to hear from them. The 1st contact from them was this letter giving me 14 days, ( which they dated friday 18th but was not received until tues 22nd) they then didn't bother waiting for a response an
×
×
  • Create New...