Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • 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

Marlin and Remus


remus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5437 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

Great news and thanks for the PM. It so similar to mine, and BTW the court told me that Marlin requested the extension and then failed to put the AQ in on one case and put one in on the other so I,m up in November and really looking forward to it. Hopefully the court will send me a similar letter. Well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi All, Can you tell me what CPR 3.3(4) covers? (OK I have looked it up, and it is the Courts own initiative without either party being present).

 

Claim is struck out as being an abuse of process:p:D

 

Their POC and a letter sent to me and copy to the court being totally inconsistent:eek:

 

 

What do I need to do now?

What implication has it on my 'relationship' with Marlin/Phoenix etc etc and how should I go forward?

Not forgetting Marlin have defaulted me on this account and I have a stayed claim for charges with HSBC started in april 2007, (same court and I did mention it on the AQ:rolleyes:).

 

Can't wipe the smile from my face!:D:D

 

Well, well, well...

 

I can't help but think this strike out has came as they have failed to comply with the AQ submission dates.

 

As it's strike out, rather than stayed, they will have difficulty bringing another claim on the same basis. They can but they need the Court's permission, which they probably won't get because they would have to explain what the delay in submitting the AQ was. They may get one, however, so I'd still be chasing them for CCA/S.A.R.'s you've sent them so you're prepared if they do. Imagine they can't send you anything, try to start the proceedings again and then you turn up to the application hearing to show they have failed to comply with these requests - surely that would mean they can't start again, or the chances of that happening are severely reduced, IMHO.

 

The default issue. For me, you need to decide how you want to tackle that one. Is the fact they can't continue with this claim against you enough for you, as they can't claim the debt against you - and you have a decent argument for avoiding paying via a DCA - or do you really want to achieve default removal as well? If you do want the default removed, you may have to take action against them in Court, which could put you back at square one and give them a chance to counterclaim on a different basis, which wouldn't need an application to start over from their side, as they are just counterclaiming your action. Tough call!

 

On the other hand, if they can't substantiate the debt in Court, you may want to consider a FOS/I.C.O complaint, as they may well come a cropper there and you could avoid the Court thing altogether. ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Car,

the reason the Judge struck it out pursuant to CPR 3.3(4) is the poc (post 48) and the content of Mortimer Clarkes letter to me, copied to court (post 68) was totally inconsistent.

When I received the letter I thought exactly the same and didnt bother replying, just sent my AQ.

They still have 7 days to set aside vary or stay.

 

the only response to my cpr18 was the letter they copied to court, with my current account statements, which asked me if I wanted to continue my defence as it was.

They have merged a loan into a current account (as they seem to have done with a lot of people) and then saying current accounts are not covered by the cca.

 

light bulb moment, have they done this so it doesnt go to court????

have they realised I mean buisness and would have gone all the way,

revealing what under hand tricks they are using?

 

Are they really that stupid? or not?

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the posts I refer to which are being cagbotted are between 48 and 68

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't they just going to say that the overdraft and loan debts were sold off and amalgamated in to a single outstanding balance, which is now being enforced?

 

The difficulty for the Court will be applying interest under the agreements/overdraft contact as the debts are now one lump - I can't see this stopping enforcement, IMHO, though.

 

It's a bit of creative accounting, admittedley, but writing off debts in bulk is a well established process - if they can show the balances claimed are correct on balance of probabilities, they will probably still seek enforcement.

 

I reckon you are going to get an application notice from them seeking the variation of the order striking the claim out and seeking permission to amend the POC. If you don't get this within that period, then you're on a winner, but I wouldn't count your chickens just yet. (Says the voice of reason...) :rolleyes:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris, voice of reason;)

 

just rang the court, nothing from Phoenix/Marlin and their 7 days are up.

 

:D

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 9 months later...

Hi all,

marlin are now ringing daily for me to contact them, after noting my comments re only contacting in writing!

 

Cca'd back in March re the HSBC credit card, they are waiting for HSBC to forward the relevant document (still waiting).

 

Also the letter states "Please be aware that once a credit agreement has been terminated the obligation to provide a copy agreement in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ceases to apply. There is no penalty for our being unable to provide the copy agreement and, more particularly, the debt remains enforceable against your client."

Are they correct in the above?

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Please be aware that once a credit agreement has been terminated the obligation to provide a copy agreement in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ceases to apply. There is no penalty for our being unable to provide the copy agreement and, more particularly, the debt remains enforceable against your client."

 

Proves how stupid they are!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...