Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
    • oh no just logged in and it says a judgment was issued literally 2 hours ago! see attached Screenshot 2024-04-29 214754.pdf
  • 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

Bank claims may resume in courts, BBC News, 05/02/08


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5927 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

I think that the reason is that some courts imposed a stay until February and some until the judgement of the court. The question of when this will be interpreted, ie Judge Smith's decision or the final final judgement after the appeals process is not clear. Another issue as to the advice for the County Courts that the Judge in the OFT test case may have to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. But considering that the reason for the stay was to bring clarity and uniformity to the SCC system (allegedly :rolleyes:), it would make no sense for them to be allowed to resume now before the whole issue has been decided. If claims are allowed to be unstayed now, it would show the whole thing to have been nothing more than a stalling tactic, as what is there now that is more helpful to a county court judge than was 6 or 8 months ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you clarify SCC?

I think you are saying that it was done to bring uniformity to the County Court system in terms of judgement. Right?

If they then allow cases to go ahead we then have the same situation as 6 to 8 months ago when one judge may have one judgement and another one may think differently. Right interpretation of your post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

SCC = Small Claims Court, yes, sorry. :-)

 

And correct interpretation, yes. I know the current case is about whether the UTCCR apply and therefore whether the OFT has jurisdiction, but in reality, I'd take a bet that very few judges will be prepared to move on this until the UTCCR, the declaration and the appeals are all done and dusted. :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO.

The courts system and the D.Js. have been in total despair re the bank charges re-claims and it would serve absolutely no purpose at all to re-start the claims hearings, (Claims should of course carry on being filed) until after ALL the hearings and appeals have been spent. D.Js have come no further forward and would not make an individual decision until after appeals etc. BANKS however could negotiate to settle out of court honourably and morally, but what has honour and morals to do with the way the banks have been behaving with OUR monies. BOOKWORM I accede to your guidance and wisdom. "EXEMPLO DUCEMUS"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not personally see how they can lift the stays when no decision has been made. Justice Smith has clearly stated that he has no reason to lift the stays nor any jurisdiction over county courts continuing with a claim if they felt it warranted the hearing before the result.

 

Lets look at the evidence:

 

Not lifting the stay

1. Banks remain in control of the cases

2. FOS refuse to take cases further

3. Banks keep all that money being squirrelled away for the repayments, making more money in interest

4. Banks are going through a rough time :rolleyes: with "problem customers" and "sub prime borrowers" and money has been lost through deals with both classes. If they have that money left in the coiffers a little while longer (lets remember the banks use the money to investand earn money) then they can recuperate some of those losses.

5. District Judges can be better guided on the whys and wherefores of the claims leading to correct outcomes

 

Lifting the stay

1. It restores the justice balance and allows the courts to possibly making the wrong decision

2. Banks will return to "defending claims" paying GWG then placing pressure on claimants during the lifetime of the claim by stating their charges are lawful as no true decision has been made (putting the number of claimants who do not continue after recieving this info from the banks)

3. Deluge of claims being processed leaving many waiting for a hearing possibly for as liong as the OFT hearing decision is made public.

 

Just my honest opinion. I wuld sooner the stays stayed in place and get this argument over with once and for all!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...