Jump to content

Gilbert Osullivan

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Quick update. Claim dismissed on the 27th January, informed by letter today. To recap, I defended on the basis that the arrears claimed on the DN were vastly overstated thus inaccurate. Thanks to all for help.
  2. To be fair to EDF this is out of their hands somewhat. Zog only appointed administrators on the 9th December and it is they who will transfer the balance. Your money is protected no matter.
  3. Re the tyres, tyres up to 5 years of age can still be sold and regarded as new. Just checked Kwik Fit website and this is confirmed by themselves. So they're talking nonsense. However, you only really get to have a good look at your tyres once the car is up on the ramp. One time I had to replace 3 tyres in one go at MOT as there were nails and screws in the tyres in areas that couldn't be salvaged, and the fitters showed me, yet I never knew by just visual checking them and driving. But then this is not the reason Kwik Fit gave.
  4. I'll see what I can dig out. Erudio settled as soon as they received the court papers so no hearing. What was central was that they were demanding things like an accountants report if self employed in order to defer and that wasn't a condition to defer, they made it one, and I did my own books being just a cab driver at the time so straightforward, essentially same costs and fares week after week with some peaks and dips. So, basically saying my tax return from HMRC wasn't good enough as evidence to defer!!
  5. I had terrible trouble with Erudio re a student loan, like you I was just a year or so from having it written off in 2018. I sent them the required paperwork to defer for the final time but they refused it and demanded to agree to repayments for all the debt, it was only about £700. They actually refused official documents from HMRC being self employed. I'd heard about Erudio and their sharp practices via Martin Lewis, especially how they would make life difficult for those nearing write off and like the previous poster said, making up their own rules re deferment which was not in the legislation. I wasn't going to mess about with them and sent a LBA which they ignored so eventually filed a County Court Claim and they immediately settled and wrote off the debt about 8 months ahead of the actual date. They really are lowlifes and the government should be ashamed for selling the loan book to these ****.
  6. Hello Thanks for that. Wasn't there a court case in the past few years though that said an assignee has the same rights a the original creditor and can issue a DN? I'll see if I can dig up the case.
  7. Hello Victory but could only be short lived although it could get very complicated going forward. I'm useless with tech so will copy part of the Judgment below- Conclusions 7 The action premised on the Default Notice fails. A Default Notice is an opportunity to pay, it is essential the correct figure is quoted. However, this is a short term win for the Defendant. It concerns me that the Claimants can issue a new Default Notice based upon current default and add further interest. Accordingly, this Judgment is issued in Draft. There has been too little argument about this. Equally, the Defendant should have an opportunity to agree a repayment structure with the Claimants to resolve this matter. The parties may be able to file a consent order. The Claimants would lose costs but could use this claim as a vehicle to resolve the matter. 8 If no consent/tomlin order is received within 3 weeks of the date of this order (10/01/2022) or the Claimants show cause why (Lowells failed several times to come to the DN alleged arrears total during this action) the calculations (in the bad DN?) are wrong this action will be dismissed. 9 I have never heard an argument like this so I am open to further argument. (The Judge stated during a hearing it was most interesting consumer credit claim). Raises many questions now- 1 Can Lowells now issue a new DN DURING THIS CLAIM? Or will they have to start another claim from scratch? 2 A new DN will have to account for 5 YEARS of missed payments and interest, I am only in this position due to Vanquis issuing a bad DN, terminating and selling the account to Lowells. Surely I could then raise unfairness s140? My account was never in arrears. I breached no agreement. 3 The Vanquis ROP scandal has now come to the fore. I knew nothing of the ROP scandal until I discovered it researching for my defence. Vanquis credited my account after terminating it but didn't inform me. The Court has stated the interest charged for ROP was hidden. Is this now deliberate concealment? As in Canada Square v Potter. Lowells may have inadvertently opened the floodgates now for action against Vanquis for customers. Even though they have refunded the interest of ROP, they haven't refunded the sums paid for ROP principle sums. From what I gather, any customer who threatened Vanquis with proceedings re ROP refunds were refunded to avoid court action. The FOS decision re ROP was in March 2018, well within Limitation and, in any case, deliberate concealment effectively does away with claims out of time. I await Lowells next move. Any thoughts?
  8. It was a 2 hour hearing cut short to just 30 mins as he said he wanted written submissions from Lowell within 7 days on what basis they (Vanquis) terminated the account. Maybe he wants to be certain it was via issuing the DN, not a clause in the t&c's, so that I can then argue that the DN arrears amount are completely inaccurate. Can't see why we didn't just focus on the arrears amount first though. First hearing was adjourned as Lowell didn't have all their paperwork and then this.
  9. Thanks all. I was none too convinced by the Judge anyway. My main point was the alleged arrears are vastly overstated on the DN. The Judge focussed on the overall balance and we could all see how that accumulated but my point was not about the overall balance, it was the alleged arrears amount. Briefly, (monthly repayments on last day of month) missed 28th Oct payment of £120 missed 28th Nov payment of £130 Paid £200 to account 07/12 missed 29th Dec payment of £120 missed 27th Jan payment of £130 Paid £250 to account 03/02 missed 27th Feb payment of £120 DN issued 09/03 alleging £480 arrears. Missed £620 of repayments but paid £450 to offset them. Leaves £170 arrears (£60 of which late payment fees) Vanquis internally bill accounts at the beginning of the month, send out the bill to pay at the end of the month. Vanquis included as arrears on the DN of the 09/03, £130 March repayment that wasn't even due until the 29th March. Plus another £12 fee. Even in this scenario, including a payment as arrears not even due until 29th March, the total arrears would have been about £312. There was no way I was £480 in arrears. My balance was £3570, £70 over limit. I argue the correct course of action should have been an over limit of £70, an arrears of £170 on the DN date of 09/03. Even including March's payment not yet due the DN arrears still remains inaccurate.
  10. Hello, thanks for replying. I'm not too tech minded and don't understand photobuckets and the like. Could you not comment on just a general point raised by the Judge? ie He said a DN doesn't entitle termination, as issued under 87(1), a DN is just issued if a creditor wants to terminate, it isn't the DN itself that allows termination as Lowellls said it did. The judge said the basis for a termination reason must be detailed in the agreement t&cs. He just cannot find it in the Vanquis terms.
  11. Hello Can't find anything regarding this which happened at a remote County Court hearing on Monday. Briefly, Lowells (old Vanquis card) v Myself. I've defended on the basis of inaccurate arrears amount on DN. Plus Vanquis' general administration of my account with ROP scandal, essentially inflating debt etc. Anyway, I raised the fact Vanquis terminated my account for not paying alleged arrears on DN. Judge asked Lowells solicitors what entitled them to terminate account. Lowells said s87(1) of CCA. Judge said no, s 87(1) simply entitles a creditor to issue a DN, not to terminate. A DN is the step that needs to be taken in order to terminate an account if that was their aim. The Judge then said to Lowells where in the t&c's is the clause to terminate written as he could not find it. Lowells fumbled about. At first they said it's under 'Missing Payments,' but it isn't, that simply says missing payments could have severe consequences, nothing else detailed. They then picked out another clause which simply says failing to pay the Minimum Repayment may result in arrears and default information being recorded. At their third attempt Lowells stated another clause 'Closing your account' and that says for any reason but must give at least 30 days written notice. The DN was issued, account terminated within 15 days. Judge had enough and said to Lowells he is giving them 7 days to provide written submissions as to where in the t&c's termination is detailed and under what circumstances ie do the terms allow for termination on missing payments at all or, if so, is it for 1, 2, 10 etc missing payments. I've checked other card t&c's and I can find no clauses specifically re termination. Any thoughts on this?
  12. What is the claim for – 1) The Defendant entered into a Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulated agreement with Vanquis under account reference xxxxxxxxxxxx 2) The Defendant failed to maintain the required payments and arrears began to accrue. 3) The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 27/09/2019 and notice given to the Defendant. 4) Despite repeated requests the sum of £3, 413.10 remains due and outstanding. And the Claimant claims a) The said sum of £3,413.10 b) Interest ... being £270.06 c) Costs What is the total value of the claim? £3,948.16 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? na Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Yes When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. debt purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears” or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No Why did you cease payments? self employed and reduced hours to care for father thus reduced income What was the date of your last payment? 03/02/2017 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Yes Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Phoned them to say any payments would be sporadic for a few months due to reasons above and would be late with payments. I made no attempt at a DMP.
  13. Hello Couple of questions regarding Lowell's legal action against me re a Vanquis CC debt. 1 Once an account is terminated can the creditor add on another month's interest and late payment charge a month later? Eg the DN states £3500 balance on say 5th March 2021, terminates on the 28th March but then increases the balance owing to £3700 on the 28th April due to Aprils interest plus a further late payment charge on the same date? 2 It appears Vanquis say they follow the FCA guidelines before issuing a DN, ie at least 3 months missed payments as arrears. Mine has about 1 months missed payment but the second missed payment was 7 days late, rather than completely missed, yet included on the DN as part of the total arrears amount. Eg I missed Oct, Nov, Dec, payments due at beginning of each month, but paid one large sum later in December to cover those three months, missed Jan, Feb but paid a sum that ALMOST cleared it all save for about £50. Was late for 1st March repayment, received a DN indicating by the arrears amount on the DN that I was about 3 months worth in arrears on the 8th March. Should March have been included as it was so recent? Is it not just late, rather than actually missed? As in the next months repayment, April, wasn't yet due? Thanks for any help.
  • Create New...