Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've given it a try, I expect alot of work required so will give my eyes and brain a rest as I'm getting word blind.. and I'll come back later following your initial bashings Thanks IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;   I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. 4. The Claimant claims a Notice of Assignment was served on the 22/02/2022. This is denied. 5. The Claimant claims a Default Notice was served on the defendant. This is denied. 6. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 7. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. 8. Point 3 is noted and denied. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 9. Point 5 is noted and disputed. 10. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked *** The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 11. Point 11 is noted and disputed. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. 12. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** (dates are wrong) 13. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 14. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. Conclusion 15. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 16. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 17. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter into settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter into such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment. Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • eh?...no you are simply telling them you have moved...
    • I agree with you. You and the company are separate legal entities so the company property that you damaged is third party property as far as you are concerned..  Get the company to write to you holding you formally responsible for the damage to their fence with the quotations for the repair. Send it by post (proof of posting) to Prima and ask them to confirm they will deal with the the third party directly. Best that someone other than you writes on behalf of the company! I suspect this is simply lack of knowledge by staff on customer service desks who don't understand the concept of companies and their shareholders being separate legal entities. If Prima still make difficulties use their formal complaints system until either they agree to cover the TP claim or issue a deadlock letter. You can then go the FCA.
  • 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

Moorcroft Debt recovery


loubyb
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4998 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

Hello jed told you to watch this space. Got letter which is now stating agent will call round rather than pre court division. They are running scared now. Threatened to sue them for harrassment & demanding money with menaces. Sent them copy of my last letter as they chose to ignore it first time round. Once again watch this space.

 

I'm watching, I'm watching.:D

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lightning,

 

Good to see Moorcroft have demoted your case, that has to be worth something and maybe tell you something as well, i.e. they don't have legally supportable docs?

 

They are still trying it on with one of ours and have escalated to "Notice of Intended Litigation", full of all the usual ifs, buts, maybes and please call us to talk it over. Ho b****y ho!. The others they have sent to DML now who are even funnier.

 

regards

oilyrag.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching, I'm watching.:D

jed

Hi Jed. Latest letter from moorcroft now from their compliance dept hoping for a speedy solution. Told them how flawed their letter was. They assured me that they are acting for a client but still do not offer any proof. They still want me to send a letter to their client for the relevent documentation but I put them straight on that one telling them where the responsibility lies. Waiting eagerly for their reply ha ha. Catch you later

 

Regards Lightningd

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Jed. Just got another letter from moorcrofts compliance dept. They say they have assisted me in every possible way & have once again asked me to send £1 to Citibank for a copy of the original agreement. Told them the onus is on them not me & have no intentions of contacting Citibank. They also say they take harrassment & bullying seriously so I have sent a letter back asking why they send out threatening letters. Told them I now intend to ignore them until I get these documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Oily. Last letter from Moorcroft asking me to send £1 to Citibank for copy of agreement. Told them not my responsibility but theirs. They say they have assisted me in every way so Ive told them why havent they complied with my requests. They say they take harrassment & bullying seriously so Ive asked them why they send out threatening letters. Catch you later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi Jed. Quite some time since i have contacted you. Moorcroft seem to have handed things back to Citibank. These sent out documents of t&cs but said due to the act of 1998 they do not have to send a signed & dated copy. Wrote back & basically laughed at them.

Catch you later.

Lightningd

Edited by lightningd
spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lightningd, I've just read this thread again from start to finish, and what a difference a few months make!

From being not too sure what to do, you have gained in confidence in how to deal with these clowns.

You say they 'seem' to have handed back to Citi, have they wrote and told you this? They normally do.

I would not do anything now, just wait to see what happens. I'm pleased to see you are in control and not them.

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jed. Just received letter from capquest saying they will accept reduced figure or start legal action on or around aug 25. As amount now is only £175 from £300 plus, might offer £10 per month or call their bluff. Undecided at present but it would get them off my back. Will report them though to oft &ts. Will also threaten them that if i find they have broken any laws will start legal proceedings against them. True to form got letter today (sat).

Catch you later when i have decided.

Lightningd

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its entirely up to you lightningd, what you decide to do, but if it was me, I wouldn't give them a penny.

This 'reduced figure' thing is their final pathetic attempt at getting at least something off you to pay for the

letters and time they have spent on sending you this drivel. Its looks like they are not going anywhere

near a court to me.

Good luck.

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jed. Thanks for reply. This concerns an account with cap1 who brought in capquest to do their dirty work. Already got a letter to post to them mon calling their bluff.

Still awaiting reply from citibank having told them of moorcrofts antics.

Will keep you informed on both fronts.

Regards

Lightnind

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jed. Ha ha. Sorry for laughing(no i`m not). Just had a letter from those nice people at Capquest. They have told me that they are now taking my account off their company system. Please wait until i wipe the tears from my eyes(tears of joy). They say they did not know about the dispute with Cap1. Funny I told them that in my first letter which they chose to ignore. So they have gone from going to put it in the hands of their solicitors to thanking me for trying to resolve the matter. A bit of knowledge goes a long way or perhaps they didn`t want to wait for the reply back from the Financial Ombudsman. Cap1 will have to deal with me themselves if i so choose.

 

Catch you later,

 

Lightningd

Edited by lightningd
grammar correction
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...