Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Amex Solicitors Playing Games?


Maurice1977
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6098 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Summary of situation:- any advice/comments appreciated:

 

2 Amex credit cards - defaulted due to redundancy

Debt passed to NCO for collection (not assigned)

Paid them for 12 months following new job

Charges and interest kept increasing, Amex would not respond to letters and NCO were useless and ignored every letter.

 

Found this site and requested CCA's from Amex and NCO also did SAR on both

 

Both Amex and NCO defaulted on CCA's - so I stopped paying NCO.

 

Amex then produced just one application (lacks prescribed terms) for one account and a set of T&C's for the second. Data controller confirmed that was all the documentation that they had in relation to both accounts!

 

NCO got very upset (even told me that they would lose their commission!) then passed the debt back to Amex who then instructed their solicitors.

 

Amex solicitors issued threat of court action, I reminded them of my CCA request, said they would locate and send "applications" for both accounts.

Solicitors added £3,000 in "collection charges".

 

Amex solicitors suggested settlement, I offered 10% for both accounts

They counter-offered with 50% for both accounts

I counter-offered with 20% for both accounts

 

Solicitors then sent same application as Amex had sent for one account only and now only make reference to this one account. Also made no comment in respect of counter offer and again attached their letter requesting 50% settlement, no timeframe. Also requested acknowledgment of letter. Seems very odd?!

 

I am not sure if I should:- (i) respond to their letter with one further counter-offer or (ii) leave them to issue court proceedings before issuing a counter claim given that they don't have the docs and about 50% of the debt relates to charges or (iii) request all information held on me by Solicitors under S7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldn't offer nothing yet. until they can prove they have the original CCA form. with everything as it should be.

if they have failed in the first instance to send correct information when you sent CCA request.

 

the £3000 charge is way out of line. how much was the original debt. for them to add £3000 in collection charges. totally disgusting.

 

they cant collect anything from you till they have proof. also Amex know they shouldn't be passing this matter on if you CCA was sent to them and signed for by them recorded or special delivery.

 

sure someone else with more knowledge will let you know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope they cant use that to force you to pay. it is as it says at the top of it application form.

 

not forceable in a court case.

 

they havent failed in responding, they have just failed to produce the original cca.two ways of going at it. send them letters and make complaints about it to relevent TS to the area. or sit back and do nothing. they know they have failed to supply the cca.

 

one trick some are trying at present. is to issue a court claim. which you have to respond to in 14 days of issue plus 5days. this is also nothing to worry about. there is plenty of help if it gets that far. if you dont respond though they can then win by default. a ccj is slapped against you. even though it isn't really lawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

Trading Standards told me that they no longer deal with consumer issues and that I should contact the FOS. My experience with them is not very positive and I feel that they would be of little use in what is now potentially a legal interpretation of what rights Amex have to enforce an application for a credit card. Given other threads and outcomes I would be surprised if the Amex lawyers would try to go with what they have.

 

I would prefer to settle and get the default removed.

 

I have spent a lot of time reading all the relevant threads and think the best approach is to now wait and see if they issue legal proceedings on the first account. I am convinced they don't have anything on the second since the Amex data controller has stated this back in June.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading Standards are wrong, they are responsible for enforcment where a creditor fails to comply with a cca request and then commits an offence. the FOS deals more with compensation for the behaviour of these creditors

 

thats my understanding anyway,

 

now on my understanding, an application form is unenforcable under S59(1) CCA 1974 and if it does not include the prescribed terms then they are doubley screwed.

 

it would be interesting to see them try and take this to court

 

 

regards

 

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Paul

 

I wrote to my TS and they are quite adamant, their position is that they will not deal with consumer credit issues at all. They do not believe it is their responsibility and refer me to the FOS.

 

I have read all the treads on CAG and there is a "regional lottery" with respect to TS and their "services".

 

My view is to let it take its course and I am prepared for the next stage(s)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading Standards told me that they no longer deal with consumer issues and that I should contact the FOS

 

They are Wrong.

 

Trading Standards Role Quick Facts - BERR

 

I would contact them and tell them if they do not act for you, that you will report them to your MP.

 

HAK

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They are Wrong.

 

Trading Standards Role Quick Facts - BERR

 

I would contact them and tell them if they do not act for you, that you will report them to your MP.

 

HAK

 

Here is the exact wording I recieved from my TS:

 

"My understanding is that the Financial Ombudsman should still be able to assist at least for the reason that any breaches of the 1974 Act by Amex are ongoing and certainly from early April. Consumers sign credit agreements often many years prior to any problems arising and so I think that you will be ok.

I hope that the Ombudsman will be further able to assist with the technicalities of your complaint.

Regards"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maurice

 

The fact sheets says it all.

 

Its there job!!

 

Call them tommorow and speak to a manager and tell them to do the job the goverment have instructed them to do.

 

If they still refuse got there name and write to your loal MP. Trust me when the MP replys they will have to act.

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading Standards won't get involved because Amex have complied with your Section 78 request with what they consider to be a copy of the executed agreement. There's now no point mentioning S78 again, apart from the lack of t&c's that they should have supplied.

 

You now need to write back to them, thank them for supplying what they confirm to be a copy of your executed agreement, and inform them that this is completely unenforceable under S127 of the CCA 1974.

 

Therefore, you will be making no further payments to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before contacting your MP, why not take it up with a District or County Councillor; after all, TS are funded by council tax.

 

Dear SP

 

I can't see TS being of much use, most don't seem to have any expertise in this area and tend to be very judgmental.

Link to post
Share on other sites

consumer issues and trading standards even though it is within their remit to act (you have a right to forward you complaint to the FOS and also your local council concerning TS but phone them you are doing this see what happens),but as pointed out this isnt something you need worry to much over as the agreement is an aplication and no forwarding contract is there to back it up ,and as for the excess charges i would nt worry about that this is just a nonsence and if they have sent this under section 78 they are obliged to provide you with a ‘true’ copy of the credit agreement and a statement of financial information relating to the account

all you have is a demand and silly charges..in excess of the origional agreement/aplication i notice you have a transfer of monies from is it barclaycard perhaps this is where some of the extra charges have come from...if possible can you forward anymore detail it surely was nt just this single sheet then perhaps peter or rory can look at the legalities of this correctly

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

I am afraid the TS have developed this game of ping pong with comlainants who first they refer them to the FSO who in due turn either ignore the compaint or try to refer it back meanwhile the customer gets so sick that the just gives up.

The thing to remember is to be sure of what you want when you first contact them to complain.

The FSO have no remit to prossecute creditors for breach of the act and can only act in mediation,so if you want to report a creditor for breaching the act do it to the TS it is there remit to enforce.

What they will try and do is get you to say that you have a dissagreement with the creditor,you do not,you are reporting them for breaching section 77 or 127 or whatever of the act and you require them to enforce. If they refuse gert the name of the person you are talking to and report them to their central office your MP and anyone else you can think of.

Only by doing this are we going to start getting the service from them that we are entitled to.

Any way off the soap box and back to the job at hand.

 

It seems that the creditors are clearly on the back foot here since they have admitted they have no agreements the will not be able to enforce.

 

Try to keep the above in mind at all times when dealing with them as they will try and intimidate and threaten but it is all without subtance.

 

Fistly i would not make any offers of settlement and certainly not in writing, if you have already it is not a fatal error but they will undoubtably say that you have confirmed the existance of an account by making an offer of repayment. If they do this you response could be that you were reacting to their unlawful harressment and have since taken advice.

 

I would write to them and say that, they have still not produced a copy of any agreemnt on either account and they are required by the act to get an order of the court in order to enforce as per section 78.

Remind them that whilst the agreement is in default they should not attempt any action which would be deemed as enforcement and to do so will result in them being reported for possible prossecution under the Administration of justice 1970 section 40 and Protection from harressment acts.

Also inform them that any agreement they produce must conform to the requirements of section 60 of the act in that it must be in the required format and contain the terms as prescribed by the agreement regulations SI1983/1553.

If they do not it will be unenforceable without the order of the court(section 65), and if missing the prescribed terms as required under schedule 6 of the regulations the agreement will be totally unenforceable under section 127(3).

Also mention that before comnencing any such action they are officially requested to supply all documentation to be presented in court in compiance with pre court protocols and that any action will be rigourously contested and may involve a counter action for charges and costs taken unlawfuly in order to credit an improperly executed or none existant agreement.

 

Regarding the removal of defaults. It has been my experiance that creditors very rarly remove defaults from that credit file unless they have to ,they may say that they will but it usually comes down to them marking them as satisfied.

There are effective methods for getting defaults removed but i would concentrate on getting the agreements accepted as being unenforceable first.

If after reading this you dicide that you want to take the offensive and take them to court for charges then we can go into that option,there are many on here that will be wiling to help including myself.

 

Best regards

Petr

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done peter nice write up explains a lot

i have just gone onto that free credit report and its the first time i have ever checked my credit ...geuss what 37 defaults all for the same debt MORGAN STANLEY i have approx 42 letters fron 16 DCAs that they sent over the past five years,,,now i am angry i knew i should nt have looked,trouble is i am not in a position to begin this proccess till i come out of hospital i am in next mondy ,be in for two weeks the re habilitation for 8 weeks then if fit enough i am to have my heart by pass and another six to 8 weeks...gggrrrr im getting overheated now,,just wait till i am fit ggrrr lost for words

never mind really cant let this idiot company bother me i sent their hoppos (GOLDFISH)a notice last week if they want their dough take me to court FORTHWITH?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...