Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. 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. 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 written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s 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. 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. 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. 4. Point 3 is noted. 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. 5. 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. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. 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 *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. 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. 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. 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. 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 it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

zhanzhibar vs Amex/AIC/Newman/ Brachers Solicitors


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4733 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

  • Replies 658
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Re their argument that Clause 16 (2) allows them to terminate, which they claim negates the need for the DN to be correct..

what does clause 16 (2) of the T&C's actually say, Zhan? What process does it state should be followed, and did they ACTUALLY follow that process?

If not then surely they have chosen to terminate for breach, and must still follow that course if they haven't taken the required contractual steps to terminate under "clause 16 (2)"

Just a thought...

 

Elsa x

 

Hiya , clause 16(2) of the T&Cs

 

CCF23092010_00000.jpg

Edited by zhanzhibar
Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm, but it doesnt give any indication of why they would end the agreement, If it were executed correctly of course.

there are certain rules in the statutes, so i think this clause might be negated within the CCA. and thus, will be an unfair term if my mind is working correctly today

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nail on the head Baz

 

14 Unfair Relationships

 

14 .1 New regime to replace extortionate credit bargain regime

 

On the 6th April 2007 the 2006 Act replaced the extortinate credit bargain regime with the new regime of unfair relationship.A bargain was extorinate if ,at the time an agreement was made, it required the debtor to make payments which were grossly exorbitant or otherwise grossly contravened ordinary principles of fair trading.

 

14.3 Transition

 

After 6th April 2008 a court may:-

 

A. Find a relationship to be unfair by reference of events or conduct predating predating the regime.

 

B. Order the repayment of payments made before the regime

 

 

14.4 Unfair Relation Test

 

Under the Unfair Relationship regime a court may find a credit agreement to be unfair to the debtor due to any one or more of the following:-

 

A Any of the terms of the agreement or any related agreement

 

B the way in which the creditor has excercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or related agreement

 

C any other thing done (or not done) by or on behalf of, the creditor either before or after making the agreement.

 

In some cases unfair contract terms may be sufficient to give rise to unfair relationship

 

14.7 Burden of proof

 

If the Debtor alleges that the relationship is unfair its the Creditor to prove the contrary,the burden of proof is on the creditor.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Zhan, hopefully as Shadow says it should be hypothetical, but just in case, did they ever write to you quoting termination under clause 16 (2) prior to issuing proceedings? If not they can't use that excuse (IMHO) as they did with Brandon.

 

Hiya, OK I am not eaxctly sure what you mean by them writing to me about the clause 16(2). I did receive this though

CCF23092010_00001-1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is relevant to point 31 in their witness statement as they are trying to twist the facts by stating they did not cancel in a default situation, when clearly they did. Trying to get you the same way they got Brandon. If his appeal fails you'll need to counteract that with the above.

 

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must just join in to say as soon as I read this garbage on her WS re Gregorian etc my jaw dropped and the wonderful expression WTF fell from my lips. Just who, anwhere in the world, in any line of business uses the 204th day of whatever when writing a date. in either a personal or a commercial sense.

 

Complete and total hogwash but Ill give 'em a couple of points for a fresh approach at hogwasherry.

 

Yup and I too would be slightly suspect re a single poster but then Im just paranoid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow a load of us all pitched in at once with comments at the same time last night. I totally agree that s140 of the CCA is a powerful argument. amex is trying to pretend or hoodwink you into believing they can undermine the CCA. Just because they are a US company. They think they can avoid their responsibilities but Parliament intended UK citizens to be afforded protection from unscrupulous lenders - not that you'd realise that from some judges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zhan, just been having a shufty through her WS, now on point 31, they deny that the act is relevent.

Has the 'agreement' copy youve got, showing any period of duration? it doesnt have to be a fixed date, just go through it and see if there is anything that states for instance, 'this agreement will remain active blah blah,'

Or is there THIS statement? The Consumer Credit Act 1974 lays down certain requirements for your protection which should

have been complied with when this agreement was made. If they were not, we cannot enforce

this agreement without getting a court order.

 

OR This, English law governs this agreement etc.

AND general law (for example, about banking or consumer protection) applies to this agreement.

 

Its obviously going to have the standard regulated by the cca 1974 stuff

 

If you do not cancel your Agreement, your Account will remain open until your Agreement is ended in accordance with this Condition ( THIS is from an Egg CC)

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, re the one post comments, don't worry, am on another site talking with Zhan about same case, just spotted the confusion about the gregorian/julian etc and thought was best to clear it up here lest it become an issue, even registered especially lol. xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently preparing my schedule of issues and summary of case which i will put up here later for feedback please but having read again ms Fiona WS I am getting slightly worried that I missed the date to asked to see evidence particularly what she said on para 28 on the abridged terms signed by me. I have never seen it & this is only came up in this fsattrack proceeding, so am I too late do you all think? I don't actually know what this abridge T&Cs is & how they got my signature... Worried now..very worried...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Zhan, hopefully as Shadow says it should be hypothetical, but just in case, did they ever write to you quoting termination under clause 16 (2) prior to issuing proceedings? If not they can't use that excuse (IMHO) as they did with Brandon.

hmmm, but it doesnt give any indication of why they would end the agreement, If it were executed correctly of course.

there are certain rules in the statutes, so i think this clause might be negated within the CCA. and thus, will be an unfair term if my mind is working correctly today

14 Unfair Relationships

 

14 .1 New regime to replace extortionate credit bargain regime

On the 6th April 2007 the 2006 Act replaced the extortinate credit bargain regime with the new regime of unfair relationship.A bargain was extorinate if ,at the time an agreement was made, it required the debtor to make payments which were grossly exorbitant or otherwise grossly contravened ordinary principles of fair trading.

 

14.3 Transition

After 6th April 2008 a court may:-

A. Find a relationship to be unfair by reference of events or conduct predating predating the regime.

B. Order the repayment of payments made before the regime

 

14.4 Unfair Relation Test

Under the Unfair Relationship regime a court may find a credit agreement to be unfair to the debtor due to any one or more of the following:-

A Any of the terms of the agreement or any related agreement

B the way in which the creditor has excercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or related agreement

C any other thing done (or not done) by or on behalf of, the creditor either before or after making the agreement.

 

In some cases unfair contract terms may be sufficient to give rise to unfair relationship

 

14.7 Burden of proof

If the Debtor alleges that the relationship is unfair its the Creditor to prove the contrary,the burden of proof is on the creditor.

 

Hi all, Thanx for the input. As this is only came up in the WS, is this sthg I can use in my summary of case? Or shall i just wait till skeleton argument which I belive I need to prepare nearer the trial date. Is my understanding correct or is summary of case & sekeleton argument one & the same?

Edited by zhanzhibar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zhan, just been having a shufty through her WS, now on point 31, they deny that the act is relevent.

Has the 'agreement' copy youve got, showing any period of duration? it doesnt have to be a fixed date, just go through it and see if there is anything that states for instance, 'this agreement will remain active blah blah,'

Or is there THIS statement? The Consumer Credit Act 1974 lays down certain requirements for your protection which should

have been complied with when this agreement was made. If they were not, we cannot enforce

this agreement without getting a court order.

 

OR This, English law governs this agreement etc.

AND general law (for example, about banking or consumer protection) applies to this agreement.

 

Its obviously going to have the standard regulated by the cca 1974 stuff

 

If you do not cancel your Agreement, your Account will remain open until your Agreement is ended in accordance with this Condition ( THIS is from an Egg CC)

Hiya, this is what it says on the blank T&Cs. I can't say what is in the abridged one they been referring to in para 28 of the WS (that has my signature) as I don't have a copy of that..

 

img001.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

I am trying to get this argument re Clause 16(2) in my head in simple English. So am I right in thinking that

 

a) in para 20 of their WS, Clause 16(2) of T&Cs give Claimant the power to end the agreement by giving notice to the defendant and vice versa.

 

b) we are saying that Amex cannot do this because CCA is the regulation overriding here specifically s87/88 CCA 1974 so without a proper default under s87 they shouldnt be able to terminate the agreement early.

 

c )so what we are saying is that the Clause 16(2) they relied upon from their T&C is void i.e invalid/ cannot be used becoz of S173(1) (as above)

 

d) we are saying that the insertion of Clause 16(2) in the T&Cs is unfair and under the Unfair Relationship regime the court may find a credit agreement to be unfair to the debtor due to any one or more of the following:-

 

1) Any of the terms of the agreement or any related agreement

2)the way in which the creditor has excercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or related agreement ( this is the one applied to my case i think!)

3) any other thing done (or not done) by or on behalf of, the creditor either before or after making the agreement.

 

 

Is this the argument re Clause 16(2) of the T&Cs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here is my case summary

 

img003.jpg

 

 

 

img004.jpg

 

 

 

 

img005.jpg

 

I need to do the listing questionnaire together with Summary of case & schedule of issues and submit yo court by 14th Oct; can anybody/somebody let me know whether

 

a) the way I do my schedule of issues above is correct and perhaps give me a few pointers what else to write there

 

b) whether my case summary above is the way to do it or whether case summary=skeleton argument hence I need to put all issues now

 

c) whether I need to say sthg about the application to stay in the listing questionnaire part A?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

can somebody explain to me why miss fiona said in para 31of Amex WS that the agreement "did not have a definite duration" hence s98 does not apply?

 

Ok, Ill give it a go :-)

 

[First part of para 31]

As we know the CCA 1974 says that to terminate an agreement they HAVE to give a default notice giving you 14 days to rectify the default. Amex are saying that because their terms and conditions state they can terminate at any time this overrides the CCA1974...[Hogwash!! Amex]

 

They have used this in Brandon and it is probably the key point appealed on so this is a clear connection between your case and Brandon and strengthens the case for a stay.

 

[second part of para 31]

 

They are stating that the CCA974 s98 does not apply, this is correct as s98 is for terminations where there is no default...so where s87 allows them to claim all future monies due to a default, s98 allows them to claim only the things that are due at that point. So if this was a loan and had 60 payments, they could issue a claim after the 60 months without issuing a default notice as s98 allows them to terminate with no default and seek all repayments that were due AT that time as the loan period had ended.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TQ for that clarification, Shadow. I think I understand now.

 

So

Hi all

 

I am trying to get this argument re Clause 16(2) in my head in simple English. So am I right in thinking that

 

a) in para 20 of their WS, Clause 16(2) of T&Cs give Claimant the power to end the agreement by giving notice to the defendant and vice versa.

 

b) we are saying that Amex cannot do this because CCA is the regulation overriding here specifically s87/88 CCA 1974 so without a proper default under s87 they shouldnt be able to terminate the agreement early.

 

c )so what we are saying is that the Clause 16(2) they relied upon from their T&C is void i.e invalid/ cannot be used becoz of S173(1) (as above)

 

d) we are saying that the insertion of Clause 16(2) in the T&Cs is unfair and under the Unfair Relationship regime the court may find a credit agreement to be unfair to the debtor due to any one or more of the following:-

 

1) Any of the terms of the agreement or any related agreement

2)the way in which the creditor has excercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or related agreement ( this is the one applied to my case i think!)

3) any other thing done (or not done) by or on behalf of, the creditor either before or after making the agreement.

 

 

So the result of the points above being only the court can determine whether the agreement is enforceable?

So should I include this point in my case summary or shall I wait till I need to prepare skeletal argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites

TQ shadow. I am updating my case summary at the mo to include this. I am also preparing an estimate of costs and was going through what they sent me.

 

The cost they estimating is c £12k.

img006.jpg

 

img007-1-1.jpg

 

img008-1.jpg

 

Here is my estimate of cost

 

img009-1.jpg

img010.jpg

 

 

My £928 looks quite ridiculous next to their £12k, am I missing something here relating to fast track cost estimate? And what is that estimate costs re Defendant and his solicitor of £1000? Anybody familiar with these sort of thing?

 

Furthermore, am wondering why is Bracher's costs in there too as we already settled that costs following the SJ being thrown out. The cost that was granted to me then include everything from the filing of defense till the SJ hearing so I am actually not quite sure whether I am entitled to claim it all again. What do you all think?

Edited by zhanzhibar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checking my other e-mail address & Mr Chik of Mishcon has been contacting me. Here are the attachments to the e-mail

 

img011-1-1.jpg

 

 

img013-1.jpg

 

img012-1.jpg

 

Have to say looking at the issues, it basically sums it up but my brain is a bit tired as it is now 3.30 am. I have e-mailed Edwin & told him I can't give any answer till Wed 13 b4 10. Would appreciate some comments on these please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also noticed something when I went through Exhibit FT1 of Miss Fiona which consist of 100 pages of all sorts of documents tonight. Amongst these 100 pages, there are 3 sets of agreement with terms and conditions;

 

1st Set

a 12 pages long of T&Cs Clause 1- 25 (inc Clause16(2)).All the copies oft he agreement that Brachers gave me before is only up to Clause 8 so this is the first time I've seen Clause 16(2). No names, no signature ...all blanks

img001.jpg

 

2nd Set

is the set that Brachers gave with me with only T&Cs up to Clause 8. No name nor signature ( the signature page looks like above)

 

3rd Set

is I think the one that they called the abridged set that got my is my signature although

 

img014.jpg

 

a) I've never seen the agreement in this form before which I did argue in the SJ & my amended defense

b) it's still not ticked so its an unexecuted agreement as far as I know

c) on the first page where there should be my name as the cardmember is still blank..

 

My BIG question is, is this allowed in the court of law? Can they just do what they like & bring up evidence as & when they like and we can't say anything? If I have just accepted that I owe the money when they issued the POC,

a) that extra cost of £1,143 on top of the outstanding amount I will just paid it. Only just before the hearing of SJ that they decided to change their claim & take that out.

 

b) I would never know whether there is CCA between me & them, i.e an enforceable one at that. As at the moment, I still don't..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zhan, I've not followed all your thread thro' so forgive me if this is not appropriate but in respect of costs you might like to note the Ministry of Justice Part 46 Fast Track Trial Costs,

‘46(2) where the value of the claim is more than £3,000 but not more than £10,000 the amount of fast track trial costs which the court may award is £690.'

 

Re. costs incurred previously by them that have already been decided in your favour, IMO they are not entitled to claim again.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...