Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: 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. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 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 21/12/2022. 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 Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. 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: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
  • 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

Bailiff assaulted me - Case closed .. I WON


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4679 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 am fuming now!! Just recieved a letter from the council and they are refusing to comment further on the complaint against Drakes Group. Not even a reason why they are not commenting or what they are doing about it. My questions have gone unanswered etc. so Im now filing a complaint with the council ombudsman. Seems to me they are just going to sit back and hope it will just go away.

 

I think its a standard tactic when they are up against the wall !

 

They hope the matter will "go away" and that you will give up and stop persuing them.

 

IF they had an answer - you WOULD have received it !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

"quote" Once a debtor has opened the door to an enforcement officer effectively the officer has secured peaceful entry...

 

Is this correct, can someone please enlighten us.

Of course I will pay you everything you say I owe with no proof.

Oooh Look....Flying Pigs

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the legal position regarding Bailiffs and steel security gates? The area im living in is not the best of places, though not the worst in the city, and the house came with a heavy steel or some such black gate/grill that covers the front door, so steel gate THEN front door, do they have the lawful right to carry out what presumably would be a pretty expensive job and remove the gate first THEN the front door lock? When our landlord had the gate locks changed on moving in, the gate had to be open, and was basically a welding job to get the lock out, change it then weld the lock back into place, so pretty secure. Or is there a nice loophole that they couldnt break through at large expense through 2 doors?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the legal position regarding Bailiffs and steel security gates? The area im living in is not the best of places, though not the worst in the city, and the house came with a heavy steel or some such black gate/grill that covers the front door, so steel gate THEN front door, do they have the lawful right to carry out what presumably would be a pretty expensive job and remove the gate first THEN the front door lock? When our landlord had the gate locks changed on moving in, the gate had to be open, and was basically a welding job to get the lock out, change it then weld the lock back into place, so pretty secure. Or is there a nice loophole that they couldnt break through at large expense through 2 doors?

they will just charge you for doing it no doubt

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the legal position regarding Bailiffs and steel security gates? The area im living in is not the best of places, though not the worst in the city, and the house came with a heavy steel or some such black gate/grill that covers the front door, so steel gate THEN front door, do they have the lawful right to carry out what presumably would be a pretty expensive job and remove the gate first THEN the front door lock? When our landlord had the gate locks changed on moving in, the gate had to be open, and was basically a welding job to get the lock out, change it then weld the lock back into place, so pretty secure. Or is there a nice loophole that they couldnt break through at large expense through 2 doors?

 

I'm assuming that "front door" (in the law) applies to the "outer door" which normally prevents entry (and seals the property).

 

When the new Bill becomes law I assume they will be authorised to force entry to this, as it is preventing them from accessing your "front door" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

****UPDATE*****

 

Received a letter from drakes this morning and boy am I not surprised at what they have written. They are now telling me that a letter was hand delivered to my address 7 days before the incident, well I can assure them that I did not receive any such letter, but they say they have the proof to back this up, which I would like to see, and will ask them for this proof. I wont be surprised if i dont get it though. Mr ***** is still denying that any assault took place, but lucky I have this proof in way of hospital records and photographs of my injuries. Drakes still claim that Mr ***** gained peaceful entry because I opened the door, and this sentence I really dont understand.

 

As you prevented our officer from carrying out his duties by denying him access to the property he was unable to seize goods and therefore no walking possession took place.

Im a bit cross that the form 4 I have sent has been sent all over the place and not to the correct court, it has been sent to my LC and to drakes and now has come back to me, I sent it to the magrastrtes court by mistake, seems to me no one knows where the county court is in ipswich, so I will be sending that off later today again lol, but here is some thing interesting, Drakes has told my LC that mr ***** was certified in January 07 when infact he was certified in march 07, I will certainly be passing that information on. its nice when you get proof handed to you like this ;)

any way back to the letter writing, I dont know how my sanity is going to cope with all this. But they arnt going to get away with this an assault is an assault full stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought about them not responding to your complaint... Why not hit them with a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)? Hopefully this'll turn up their internal discussions about your complaint...

I may do this but Im not really sure how I go about this

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are now telling me that a letter was hand delivered to my address 7 days before the incident, well I can assure them that I did not receive any such letter, but they say they have the proof to back this up, which I would like to see, and will ask them for this proof. I wont be surprised if i dont get it though.

 

I'll bet they have a "witness" (another bailiff) who will "back him up" (and he can "return the favour" one day)?

 

If the bailiff was not certificated at the time - he had no authority whatsoever - full stop !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

TW - the only authority he did not have was to do a levy. IYSWIM - so the point here would be if he was here to do a WPO, then it would be invalid as he was not certified.

 

With your Form 4 I would include a paragraph at the bottom, to include new evidence eg the proof, and question why this was not forthcoming earlier.

 

You also need to send it to the county court where the bailiff was certified not your local county court.

 

SFx

Link to post
Share on other sites

TW - the only authority he did not have was to do a levy. IYSWIM - so the point here would be if he was here to do a WPO, then it would be invalid as he was not certified.

 

With your Form 4 I would include a paragraph at the bottom, to include new evidence eg the proof, and question why this was not forthcoming earlier.

 

You also need to send it to the county court where the bailiff was certified not your local county court.

 

SFx

he was certified when he came to me on the 29th of may but was not certified between january and the end of march, but drakes have told my local council that he was issued with his certificate in january . I cant believe that Drakes have actually lied to the council. I shall be adding this to the form 4 statement. Just shows that MR ***** was working for the council UNCERTIFIED naughty boy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting - their should be a copy of all the levies that were done in the time he was uncertified, I wonder how you could find this information out - maybe when you complain to the ombudsman, he can get this info.

 

 

SFx

I shall mention it to the council ombudsman and my mp who is going to look into this maybe he can get some answers

Link to post
Share on other sites

TW - the only authority he did not have was to do a levy. IYSWIM - so the point here would be if he was here to do a WPO, then it would be invalid as he was not certified.

 

I don't quite follow your point here.

 

It appears that he was certificated when he called (in March) - but if he had not been (during the Jan - Mar period) then he would have had no authority (or rights of a bailiff) at all, as ONLY certificated bailiffs can carry out this work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am trying to say is that they only have to be certified to Levy goods, they can deliver letters etc - threaten to levy but only have to be certified to actually levy goods. I am not saying that there are not uncertified bailiffs who do levy, hence, why the first question is have you checked the register.

 

SFx

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am trying to say is that they only have to be certified to Levy goods, they can deliver letters etc - threaten to levy but only have to be certified to actually levy goods.

SFx

 

Ahh ! I think we are agreed !

Without certification they have none of the rights of a bailiff - merely the rights of a postman?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no point in an uncertificated bailiff delivering letters because no charge can be made for doing so. A bailiff can only call (and leave a letter if no one is in) with "the intention of levying distress" If the bailiff is not certificated then he cannot have this intention. He can visit and leave you a letter but cannot charge for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no point in an uncertificated bailiff delivering letters because no charge can be made for doing so. A bailiff can only call (and leave a letter if no one is in) with "the intention of levying distress" If the bailiff is not certificated then he cannot have this intention. He can visit and leave you a letter but cannot charge for it.

 

So they are merely postmen !

 

I thought occurred to me, many people have complained about bailiffs arriving at unreasonable times (eg 6am) - would it not be a good idea to refuse to deal with anyone calling at that time anyway, as you would not be able to check Certification until normal office hours?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they are merely postmen !

 

I thought occurred to me, many people have complained about bailiffs arriving at unreasonable times (eg 6am) - would it not be a good idea to refuse to deal with anyone calling at that time anyway, as you would not be able to check Certification until normal office hours?

thats a good point, apparently so Drakes have informed me that mr **** delivered a letter at 8.30 in the evening. Their proof is that he has GPS records to say he was in the area, well my argument to that is that he works this area so of course he would be in my area, no proof to say he delivered a letter here. which he didnt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine is a lady!!!!!

 

TW - the problem is that most people dont realise that they can check the certificate. In a way we have to put ourselves in a position of someone who has just received their first visit and are terriefied but the guff that they spout. THink about the number of first time desperate posters on here.

 

People want instant answers to their problem.

 

SFx

Link to post
Share on other sites

TW - the problem is that most people dont realise that they can check the certificate. In a way we have to put ourselves in a position of someone who has just received their first visit and are terriefied but the guff that they spout. THink about the number of first time desperate posters on here.

 

SFx

 

I agree - which is why we must push this point more !

 

As well as telling people not to let them in - we should emphasise the fact that FIRST they need to check a bailiffs certificate (not his ID card !) and that can ONLY be done during office hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...