Jump to content

sansho

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About sansho

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Subbing, as usual they never learn to settle early and pay less..
  2. subbing.. An appeal will definitely be given in your case. That judge would be wondering whether is was PMT or silliness that got the better of her on the day. How ridiculous Judges are becoming these days. A lot of them just believe you must be really poor and stupid to have this sort of case before the Court, whereby the chances of your summing up the costs factor to defend your right is very slim. I bet if you had the weakest lawyer you could find, the Judge would not have made such a flawed judgement. partly because the lawyer will be able to afford the costs of a subsequen
  3. Can someone recommend a decent law firm in the London area, that is good in handling consumer debt issues, unfair bank charges, DPA and default matters alike in this forum. Please any recommendations should be based on your own experience or from people close to you.. My friend is relocating to Romania, and would like to pass his court case over to a good solicitor/barrister to continue the court action whilst he is over in Romania. His claim is allocated to the fast track and he will most definitely win... Any names?? Thanks
  4. Here is the OFT018 document you were looking for.... oft018 - Cancellable Agreements.pdf
  5. Corrections "What I meant by my brief statement in Post #80 has been raised in your defence at paragraph 31. See the defence by Pt2537 above regarding Deed of Assignment." Sorry my brain is a little fried this morning..
  6. Corrections "What I meant by my brief statement in Post #80 has been raised in your defence at paragraph 33. See the defence by Pt2537 above regarding Deed of Assignment."
  7. Gonnagetem, What I meant by my brief statement in Post #44 has been raised in your defence at paragraph 33. See the defence by Pt2467 above regarding Deed of Assignment. You must stress on seeing the Deed of Assignment at the Court Hearing. Do not let up or allow the case to proceed during attendance at any hearing for this case until this document is tendered before the Court. It is important that you see the Deed of Assignment and verify whether both the rights and duties have truly been assigned to the DCA (Claimant). If only the rights but NOT duties then you can ask the Cou
  8. 5. The rights and duties of passed to the Claimant pursuant to an assignment dated ***** notice of which was given to the Defendant on ***********. Have you seen a copy of the Deed of Assignment yet, in order to verify the above statement. It is important that you ask or seek for this, as it is integral to whether the case in question has been properly brought before the Court to start with, there are a number of threads about. In my opinion, only 1% of assignments to these DCA's are absolute !!
  9. Hi all, did any of you read the first page of the application form containing the personal details properly. My eyesight is not that good but somewhere in the application form in the section titled "Barclaycard Visa Card / Mastercard" there is a written statement as follows "....you have read and agreed to the Bsarclaycard Conditions, especially condition 15 which is about how we use your information..". It is quite odd, I cannot find this "condition 15 - how we use your information" in the two other documents that are supposedly the Terms and Conditions. Am I going blind ... surely
  10. ... unless of course they have bought the debt back from Cabot and Cabot have then served you with a notice of assignment back to the Original Creditor. Then the Original Creditor is entitled by all means to set-off against your claim. Anyway if you truly owe the debt, then a refund will help you pay it off. The idea of Cabot not being entitled to set-off does not make this a supposed loophole for escaping the debts you truly owe and should pay. If there is money by way of refund then you pay them off and feel free as air afterwards.
  11. Duncan_Disorderly, Put simply... Cabot cannot ask for the refund of charges to be paid to them. The Original Creditor has to pay the refund of penalty charges to you and NOT Cabot. Remember the penalty charges being refunded to you is occurring after notice of assignment and is not subject to the assignment itself. The only way Cabot can collect the refund of charges is if you 1) Make them a co-defendant in your bank charges claim that you file with the court 2) You sign an agreement with the Original Creditor and Cabot (all three parties signing the document) that they can set-
  12. The cross-claim is related to the position of the DCA recieving payments meant for you. The bank in paying the DCA have acted as if they are agents of the DCA. So it would appear that the DCA had a cross-claim or lien against the bank charges that was being refunded to you. This of course is wrong as the claim (contractual breaches) you have against the bank is totally different from the claim the DCA would likely have against you. Besides the DCA cannot be entitled to your payout which occurred after the debt was assigned to them. The bank's claim (acting as agent of DCA) in this re
  13. Remember the FOS are not legally savvy in all areas. Even if they knew you had a loop hole it would'nt be appropriate for them to show you what it is. As they will always like to keep their necks stiff and straight, and cater for the companies bankrolling their existence. Case law is there to help with the arguments you can use about set-off rights. The bank cannot set-off the money they are supposed to pay you to a third party without your express permission. If you have'nt given them express permission then you have'nt been paid, it is that simple.
  14. Tifo is correct... The bank must pay you and NOT the DCA. I had this problem with GE Capital who claimed that they had paid the penalty charge refunds to CL Finance, even when I insisted that I want it paid to me directly. The County Court Judge was riding along with them, the banks legal rep until I stopped them all dead in their tracks with the legal definition of set-off and the rights thereunder. I won the argument hands down and got paid a wasted costs order on top. Here are excerpts of some arguments to use ..... Set-off is only available where the following criter
  15. I believe you can sue Cabot only if they were strictly the legal owners in accordance with s136 LPA 1925 for both accounts at the time you paid them off. Remember it depends to a large extent on what remedy or damages you are after... data protection, bank charges, extortionate bargain etc However, I believe 95% of debt assignments are equitable, as many obligations/duties cannot be transferred without the consent or permission of the borrower. If the assignments were equitable then you can sue Cabot as the lone party if your primary cause of action is based on data protection and in
×
×
  • Create New...