Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ski1382

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Sorry, did not realise you were mortal enemies, thought we were all in this for the same outcome - to fight unfair practices?? Anyway, enough said.
  2. Hi guys, following a very successful fight with Coward Howen (with the assistance of MANY CAGers) I thought I would share another experience with you all. Two weeks after returning from a holiday in the South of England, I received a "Parking Charge Notice to Owner" from ParkingEye. I had been in car park in question for less than 15 mins as I was dropping off my wife and children. After they had been dropped off I then went and parked on a side road location. Having been stopped (but not parked) for such a such a short period, the idea of paying for an hour + of parking never entered my
  3. Hi guys, sorry its all been quiet on here but I thought I would share the end result of this case with you. Having initially ignored the consent (Tomlin) orders from Cohen they eventually made contact with us again shortly before it was due to go before the court. They were prepared to accept a settlement of about half of the alledged outstanding balance over a period of just shy of 7 years. Considering in the first instance we were prepared to pay the full amount demanded over 4 months which they refused (3 months was the maximum they would be prepared to accept) we considered this to be
  4. Thanks for your comment, hadnt really considered that possibility as in the letter they have stated that all further action will be terminated, however I know that they are pretty unscrupulous and will be taking this on board! Anyone else got any thoughts?
  5. Hi all, All been a bit quiet of recent, was supposed to be in court a couple of weeks ago but we all agreed to an adjournment as we could not make it on the set day, then out of the blue, a letter arrives from Cohen's. They have offered a 'Consent Order' for an amount considerably less than their original claim (though still more than I feel is appropriate). They state that this would prevent further court action being necessary and would avoid the risk of a CCJ being registered against us. I don't doubt that this is true but do wonder if some sort of negative information would be pl
  6. OK, a brief rundown of events upto now: N1 claim form received for a debt owed to GE / Santander, purchased by CL Finance and legal proceedings issued through H Cowen on same day (November 09) No DN received No notice of assignment from either the original creditor or purchaser CPR31.14 sent to Cohen demanding copies of the agreement the default notice referred to in the N1 notice of assignment [*]Letter received (eventually) from Cohen stating that they do not hold the documents but were obtaining them Also offered us to 'grant a further 14 days to file a defen
  7. Certainly will, just have to eat then will get onto it!
  8. LoL. Am I being over confident here do you think??
  9. The "true copy" is still non-compliant so I am rather inclined to believe that this is the genuine wording in use at the time. Ultimately though, I have it in writing that it is a "true copy", let Cohen's prove it isn't (after I have torn theirs apart)! Am reluctant to upload a copy of it, simply because like I have been told before, Cohen's do like to view these boards and I would hate to give them the correct wording to use in future cases. If you wish however, I will gladly email you a copy if you PM me! Indeed, this is the point - how did they obtain a copy of the DN when
  10. Hi Andy, in a very similar position (my wife too BTW). Take a look at my thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/237134-mrs-ski-howard-cohen.html it is quite long but covers everything right from the moment you are at now and identifies many of the arguments you can use in defending the claim. Without viewing the court doc I am certain there will be statements that say something along the lines of 'a default notice has been issued' and 'pursuant to clause 7' blah blah blah Cohen's like to play games, fore warned is fore armed. Have a look at the threa
  11. Right, received a letter today from Santander - they were very helpful indeed both on the telephone a couple of days ago and have followed it up with a lovely letter (from our point of view anyway) So, this letter poses an interesting question for Cohen's. If the original creditor is not able to produce a copy of a DN, how can they? :-? It also clarifies that the DN that Cohen's are reliant upon was in fact settled and the account 'removed from the collections process'. So, how can they be relying upon this "DN" to demonstrate that the correct procedure was followed? They also
  12. Going to need some help to put together another statement, needs to be in by 25th May
  13. Foolish, we do not hold THE original DN, only AN original DN. It relates to a different account and different date. This is the reason I am wondering how to continue. Although I know it to be a recon, proving it is slightly more problematic. If i could find a letter from GE on a letterhead dated before the recon DN we would be laughing as we could show how their letters were formatted before and after the date of the recon DN. Hope that makes sense.
  • Create New...