Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5864 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

Thanks for the warning ukaviator, however judging by what I have seen so far giving incorrect advice on this site is the norm so perhaps you should concentarte on that, I on the the other hand would prefer to provide those in need with a practical and workable solution, I am aware of the impliactions of providing personal information so you can rest assured about that. I assume STB is upset that he has been exposed as quite useless in the advice field hence the message you have sent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I know that some of the advice given is wrong and I would hate to see you make fools of yourself just by blindly following it.

 

How could you possibly know that?:confused:

 

 

giving incorrect advice is the norm on this site

 

:|that is an offensive and incorrect statement, and you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

Most of the people who offer support and advice on this site not only know what they are talking about but have been through this themselves.

If you had bothered to read the hundreds of threads previously you would know that.

 

It is fair to say that some advice given is questionable, but on this forum in particular such advice is well meant and usually gently corrected by those of us who know better. We don't all agree, we are not a big happy family, but we generally sing from the same hymn sheet.

 

So, since a reasonable person would not make the statements that you have based upon the available facts, there must be some other reason for your anger.

 

I hope you resolve whatever it is that is upsetting you, but please don't muddy the waters for the many people who need help when they come to this site.

 

If there is some comment you don't agree with, then say what it is, and why you disagree with it - no matter what you've said so far we'll be glad to correct it, or acknowledge a valuable contribution.

 

nuff said I think:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fair to say that some advice given is questionable, but on this forum in particular such advice is well meant and usually gently corrected by those of us who know better. We don't all agree, we are not a big happy family, but we generally sing from the same hymn sheet.

 

I think you have probably answered your own point here

 

nuff said I think:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris600uk

 

Originally Posted by The Chunchmeister viewpost.gif

giving incorrect advice is the norm on this site

:-|that is an offensive and incorrect statement, and you clearly don't know what you are talking about

 

You will only find this satement offensive if it is true and the fact you state it is incorrect is errenoues, read my responses carefully and you will find that I do actually know what I am talking about. This site is about telling people the truth and not what "you think they want to hear"

 

As for the angry bit I am not sure where you are coming from, it annoys me that so many people can say what they like and pass it off as the "gospel truth" to be blindly followed by the innocent without providing any sound evidence or proven method. The fact that they may have been through it themselves does not add any weight to the credibilty or accuracy of what they say, sometimes the reverse..

 

Prove me wrong by all means and if you provide a reasoned argument I will listen, however please bear in mind that I am, as you are, entitled to my own opinion and to suggest that I am not a reasoanble person is without foundation and factually incorrect.

 

Please read my comments, they may be controversial but you will struggle to prove them wrong and surely that is what this site is all about?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think whats people are trying to do here is say what they have been thru and not what the person should do .lets not all forget one thing here . people are asking for help.and dont what to hear if this one is right or that one is right . many people give there accounts here . but what may work for one may not for another so what im trying to say for all who are trying to help the one in distress keep up the good work and if the odd interfering mr perfect comes along and thinks he or she know it all then just carry on as if hes not writing a damn thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

can we now try and get this back on topic please.

 

MissConfused Have you had any response from the Council today?

 

I have had a letter from the Councils Solicitor, they dont seem to like the threat of legal action.

 

David O'Connor-Long ( Councils Solicitor) wanted me to confirm if i was going to take legal action or allow the council to investigate more into the complaint

Link to post
Share on other sites

but u was right people come on here to help people who are distressed and u always get a big head who know it all .and nobody wants that we are all here for the same reason somewhere along the lines

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more, I've been there myself.

 

I have had a letter from the Councils Solicitor, they dont seem to like the threat of legal action.

 

David O'Connor-Long ( Councils Solicitor) wanted me to confirm if i was going to take legal action or allow the council to investigate more into the complaint

 

Well you could ask them how long they think they will need, and it would sound more reasonable if you do end up in Court, which I always think is to be avoided wherever possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more, I've been there myself.

 

 

 

Well you could ask them how long they think they will need, and it would sound more reasonable if you do end up in Court, which I always think is to be avoided wherever possible.

 

 

My response was

 

It’s clear we have a legal problem here which needs to be addressed by the council.

 

With regards to the Solicitor, I have a meeting with Susan Curl on 31-03-2008 regarding the case with the council, If however the council are able to complete the complaint with an agreement to all parties involved, then I will cancel the meeting with the Solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the angry bit I am not sure where you are coming from, it annoys me that so many people can say what they like and pass it off as the "gospel truth" to be blindly followed by the innocent without providing any sound evidence or proven method. The fact that they may have been through it themselves does not add any weight to the credibilty or accuracy of what they say, sometimes the reverse..

 

Prove me wrong by all means and if you provide a reasoned argument I will listen, however please bear in mind that I am, as you are, entitled to my own opinion and to suggest that I am not a reasoanble person is without foundation and factually incorrect.

 

While I don't disagree with what you say, I am sceptical in as much as the advice given, which you claim is wrong/misleading etc, is at least posted on the forum for everyone to see and is therefore open to challenge with reasoned arguement.

 

On the other hand, while vehemently disagreeing with that advice, you only seem prepared to offer help by PM.

 

That makes me extremely suspicious of both your arguement and your motives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My response was

 

It’s clear we have a legal problem here which needs to be addressed by the council.

 

With regards to the Solicitor, I have a meeting with Susan Curl on 31-03-2008 regarding the case with the council, If however the council are able to complete the complaint with an agreement to all parties involved, then I will cancel the meeting with the Solicitor.

 

sounds good to me:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael I am obliged for your partial vote of confidence

 

While I don't disagree with what you say, I am sceptical in as much as the advice given, which you claim is wrong/misleading etc, is at least posted on the forum for everyone to see and is therefore open to challenge with reasoned arguement.

 

On the other hand, while vehemently disagreeing with that advice, you only seem prepared to offer help by PM.

 

That makes me extremely suspicious of both your arguement and your motives.

 

My only reason for dealing with issues by PM is that of confidentiality in that there is likely to be some information of a personal nature involved.

 

You should note that where I have vehemently disagreed I have provided evidence, VAT on Bailiff fees etc, so my responses are not without some foundation.

 

It is not being "big headed" as suggested, there are just too many people on here giving the wrong information which has got to be a bad thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Screw The Bailiff

 

On the other hand, while vehemently disagreeing with that advice, you only seem prepared to offer help by PM.

 

That makes me extremely suspicious of both your arguement and your motives.

 

And I'll second that. Trolls and those touting a counselling service come & go. For all we know it could be the same person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Screw The Bailiff
My only reason for dealing with issues by PM is that of confidentiality in that there is likely to be some information of a personal nature involved.

.

Theres no need to discuss personal data to get advice on how to deal with bailiffs. Its not good enough to say 'send me a PM with the bailffs name and we'll check our database'. That database is public information and its called the HMCS Public Register of Bailiffs & anyone can check whether a bailiff is certificated. Its merely a ploy to start PM dialog and exchange phone numbers and tout a commercial service or an 0901 template download service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My only reason for dealing with issues by PM is that of confidentiality in that there is likely to be some information of a personal nature involved.

 

Not convincing. Posting on the forum is for the communal good, not just the OP.

 

Are you saying that any advice you offer is completely free? Please bear in mind that PM's are not as secure as you might think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Screw The Bailiff

Moderators cannot read a users PM messages. Administrators can if they know how to read an SQL database on the server. Mods can see a posters IP number and can see what usernames share that IP number (except AOL & cable and shared IP pooled services). It doesn't tell them very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not convincing. Posting on the forum is for the communal good, not just the OP.

 

Are you saying that any advice you offer is completely free? Please bear in mind that PM's are not as secure as you might think.

 

Another fair comment, yes to free advice and I will keep it on here, however I make no apologies if people do not like my comments or responses so don't go bleating to administrators just because you may not like it, thanks for the advice about PM which I will now avoid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody - this thread seems to have gotten slightly out of hand, ever since our friend The Chunchmeister - joined in....do you think we can get this back on track now??

 

Benwell - No, I haven't heard anything back from the Council, but then I'm not really expecting to, because the lady I spoke to seemed quite happy with the attachment of earnings! As they would, because they'll get their money, which is fair enough.

 

Have you had anymore responses from the Council as yet?

 

Chunchmeister - everybody is entitled to their opinions, but if you are so clued up - then why not post your advice on here, so that we may all benefit from it? I don't see what you have to loose.......unless of course you are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friday, I had an email from the Councils Solicitor, i Replyed to this email and now today i received the below

 

Mark Sandhu, Head of Customer Services, in our Strategic Resources Department. He will investigate your complaint and will write to you by 31 March 2008.

 

I agreed with there solicitor to hold any legal action until 31-03-08

but advised, if no response was given by 31-03-08 my solicitor would then take over the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Theres no need to discuss personal data to get advice on how to deal with bailiffs. Its not good enough to say 'send me a PM with the bailffs name and we'll check our database'. That database is public information and its called the HMCS Public Register of Bailiffs & anyone can check whether a bailiff is certificated. Its merely a ploy to start PM dialog and exchange phone numbers and tout a commercial service or an 0901 template download service.

 

 

As I believe that I am the only person who offers to "search our database to establish whether or not a bailiff is certificated" then I assume that this dig is meant for me. If so, PLEASE be assured that I most certainly do not use this to "tout a commercial service".

 

The truth is that I have personaly.....and without any charge have helped endless people on this forum....and will continue to do so. If ANYBODY wants access to download any documents from our website then a password is provided to enable them UNLIMITED access.

 

As for the comment that the Bailiff Register is available to the public...that is correct and so it should be. But until such time as bailiff names are recorded on-line, a search can only be undertaken between 10am and 5pm Monday to Friday. Great for bailiffs.....but not the public !!!

 

These comments are NOT helpful in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...