Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm ready to reject Hermes offer and issue the letter before claim. I've registered on the MCOL website and filled in my claim with the below particulars.   Should I tick the box to send the particulars directly to the defendant?   Should I also tick the box for the right to claim interest. If so do what date would I put for when the money became owed,  what is daily rate of interest up to the date of judgment?    Thanks again      
    • you mean you paid the mortgage off that the policy protected and financed it with another policy from elsewhere...??? so why have you been paying for life insurance on a mortgage that has not existed since 2009?   surely the policy was to protect the mortgage is was taken out for and no longer has any benefit whatsoever to you and no-one will get anything out of it should you die?   what does it state it protects and who gets what ?
    • Actually, no, or at least not with RBS. I changed to a different provider in 2009.
    • He is also trading under James Marshal cars on eBay - same details.
    • Hi all,   Lowell sols have responded to my cpr with exactly the same documentation as Lowells sent through. So still no valid agreement!   Defence due Friday by 4pm.   I have updated my defence below based on your points Dx. Many thanks.   Would you and Andy mind having a scan over before i send off on Friday please?   Cheers in advance as always     Particulars of Claim    1.The defendant entered in to a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreement with Vanquis under account reference xxxxxxxx ('the agreement')   2.The defendant failed to maintain the required payments and arrears began to accrue   3.The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 27/09/19 and notice given to the defendant   4. Despite repeated requests for payment the sum of xxx remains due and outstanding.   And the claimant claims a. The said sum of xxxx b. Interest pursuant to s69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue accruing at a daily rate of £0.610 but limited to one year being £222.65 c. Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the  particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought to seek clarity from the claimant.   2. Paragraph 3 is noted. I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   3. On receipt of a notice of acting letter sent from Lowell Solicitors, the Defendant sent for on the 12/11/2020 via royal mail a section 78 request to Lowell Portfolio Ltd pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This for a copy of the agreement. The claimant has partially complied and disclosed various documents however they were unable to comply with disclosing a valid full copy of the executed agreement on which their claim relies upon.   5. The claimant disclosed various screenshots taken from  the originators software of the application and also confirms on their covering letter the relative legislation The Electronic Communications Act 2000 with regards to wet signatures and the requirement of a tick box to validate the application.The screenshots  are devoid of any tick box or any authenticity of IP address conformation check.Therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and pursuant to section 78  6 a of the CCA1974  the claimant is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.   6. On receipt of this claim form I sent a CPR 31.14 request on the 11/2/21 via royal mail to Lowell Solicitors and again the claimant only disclosed exactly the same documentation. The claimant therefore after a second attempt by the defendant remains in default of said request.   7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement ; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   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.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

County Court Judgements - charges and fees

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5467 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Apologies for misposting this originally..it was not intentional. Anyway...here goes again hopefully in the right place this time!!


I just had a court judgement against me in respect of a credit card default. I deliberately did not defend the claim despite the fact that it includes a number of late payment and overlimit fees.


I am now intending to ask for a variation order but will also explore the possibility of having the judgement set aside on the basis that the judgement debt includes monies that has been unlawfully charged.


Effectively the County Court will now have to make a decision on the legality of the charges?


If the judge agrees to set aside the debt he is effectively ruling that the charges are unlawful.yes??


Or am I missing something crucial..any help would be appreciated in respect of the legal argument


I am also inyterested in hearing from anyone who has had a judgement enforced by a charging order on their home. The point is raised in another post but has anyone defended a claim where an unsecured loan has effectively been securitised in this way. I can't quite believe that this is indefensible given the obviuous unfairness..particular in view of the fact theat the lenders could have offered a secured loan in the first place and have charged an interest rate on the basis of the additional risk involved in the laoan being unsecured.


thanks pauli

Link to post
Share on other sites

A variation order would only vary the payments. how long ago was the judgment? But probably the only approach would be to start a new action on the amount you dispute but on the new grounds.

Eben this might cause probelms.

Read up "Res judicata"


Setting aside a judgment does not indicate that the judge agrees with your legal analysis - only that he thinks that you should have a chance to defend.

Were a judgment to be set aside, a likey order would be judgment set aside, dfence within 14days or judgment restored in default.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that..my understanding of "res judicata" is that it does not apply to the appeal process..I am in the process of appealing against the original judgement. Admittedly on the grounds of varying the original forthwith order to one that allows me to pay over time..but can I also introduce an argument against the inclusion of unlawful charges in the judgement at this stage. I am assuming an argument could be made that had I known of the unlawful nature of the charges I would have defended the claim originally?


I guess though, in terms of the main point regarding legallity of charges. The fact that the judgement is set aside does not imply a ruling on the legality of the charges so gets us no further forward. Presumable though if I am allowed to defend and the claimant contests my argument that the charges are unlawful a decision to exclude the charges from the new judgement debt in my favour would be a positive ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smudge against Nationwide is in the middle of doing just that. Thee is a hearing to set aside a jdgment dated 14th dec - fixed for 22nd March


What does become interesting is that if it is set aside, then a defence will be put in. The the bank will have to prove their charges. Normally where they are merely defending, they don't have to do too much.


So on the same basis, if you can get leave to defend, just watch the wriggiling. You can put them to proof. Have you been defaulted? If you have, then i would amend to include an inaccurate default as prt of your case. - by way of counterclaim.


With the banks as claimant and shoiuldering the burden of proof, there is apossiblity they will withdraw. They wil consider it, anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent..I will follow that..another interesting aspect is that the claimant is not the original creditor.


The card was taken out with another US bank who were aquired by Citfinacial in 2002. Either the debt has been assigned or sold to the claimant Hillesden Securities (who also appear to be a part of CitiFinacial).


I have made a DPA request that I suspect they will have difficulty in complying with as the original data will be with Citifinancial and before that the original credit card company. That should muddy the waters a bit.

I wonder what happens if they cannot provide the information that allows me to calculate the total value of the unlawful charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites



Got the same problem with a debt to MBNA which is now owned by Link Financial.


They have told me that they have the information I am requesting or can request it from MBNA if required.


Can't see a problem since if they were unable to provide data to back up their claim, then I doubt they could pursue you in the courts for it.


Only my opinion though.



Just another 21 Banks to go......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5467 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...