Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your registration number is still showing (third line below the picture)
    • Hi I took rooftop Mortgages to the County Court a couple of years ago asking them to produce the original mortgage deed which they did not it was just a copy the judge  referred me to the Chantry Court.  I pulled out because my friend stop advising me. I have now found evidence that Rooftop sold its mortgages for 200,000,000 to Farringdon No2 PLC plc I am now in the process of going back to the County Court if any can help please contact me
    • 1 Date of the infringement 14 Oct 2020 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 19 Oct 2020 3 Date received 20 Oct 2020 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] Mentions "Made under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012", but doesn't mention schedule 4 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Photo of back of vehicle, showing number plate 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? UKCPS 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Gateway House Piccadilly 9. For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.IAS (IPC)   I appreciate this has been asked several times already, but commentators in previous threads seem to suggest that a No Stopping Parking Charge is de facto illegal, due to a 10 minute allowable period, but the recent case of VCS v Ward (attached) shows that this is not the case, and that de minimis non curat lex is not a valid defence.   Any suggestions or advice? ukcps redact.pdf VCS v Ward - ridiculous and wrong Appeal Judgment (1).pdf
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4248 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Allocation Questionnaire N150.

 

I am Not Happy About ticking yes to Box A!

 

Halifax / Optima have selected No to question A.: Do you wish for there to be a one month stay to attempt to settle the claim, either by informal discussion or by alternative dispute resolution?

 

Reference to this site would suggest I tick yes. The hearing (final) they have requested on their AQ is for March next year. Is there really any point in me ticking yes?

 

At the end of the day there is no way I am going to be satisfied with anything short of a full strike out, or withdrawal with costs to me. This being core to my principles. Founded on my belief that the Halifax are simply wrong.

 

It is their error, compounded by errors, and overcharges. After all Halifax have put me through, I will not accept anything less than complete withdrawal by Halifax. And If they won, I am looking at about 20K which they will doubtless enforce by repossession.

 

It would appear to me from the Halifax AQ and POC they are of no intent other than to fight me all the way and are not even considering withdrawal. - The only out come acceptable to me is that their claim entire should be estopped. Or otherwise voided.

 

OK,I can for see people saying there is a time advantage to be had. But honestly! in my circumstances, (Final hearing March 2009) I think ticking yes will merely be interpreted as weakness. In that it would potentially introduce the concept that I wish, or even consider, that I accept less than total withdrawal of claim + costs. This I feel Will, be interpreted by Halifax and court as a climb down. A diminution of my long argued position. As I understand it, estoppel, as relevant to my circumstances is pretty well an all or nothing defence.

In ticking box A, pertaining to my case, what value is there in that? - Other than to have the final hearing in April instead of March 2009?

 

Why give them more time?

 

Or does ticking yes just make you look reasonable to the court ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would appear more reasonable by agreeing to try and settle, and if you believe that you are absolutely right, then you can try and show them that now and tell them what outcome you want. At best this could all be settled that much sooner, and at worst, you can show the judge that you have done your best to try and settle it because you are a reasonable person. It's up to the court to decide a date and it isn't likely to be soon anyway, so you may as well do what you can in the meantime.

 

If you can show them that your points are perfectly valid in law, that they cannot win their case because you can prove them wrong, you may get what you want without wasting more of the courts time.;)

 

Draft a letter to send them to try and settle, and if it gets to court it will show that you've tried to sort it.

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Thank you for your advice. My questions arising from the application for Summary Judgment hearing of 21st January 2009 are:

 

How to defend unjust enrichment through lost cheque?

Or if Bank can’t prove cheque was not encashed, does their claim fail?

 

At the hearing of 21st January 2009, Halifax applied for summary judgment seeking to enforce a Summary Judgment for some £10K plus costs and interest. Arising from an alleged shortfall in full redemption of a mortgage that took place in August 2003.

 

In February 2004 Halifax contacted me to inform me that their bankers Barclays had lost a cheque for £6,908.00 this being part payment of a total of £68,907.84. The background is explained on earlier posts.

 

In Court the Halifax Counsel referred extensively to “Chitty on Contract Law 29th Edition, Volume 1 General principles.” Without giving the Judge or myself prior copy. The Judge asked Halifax Counsel if he had copies for herself and me the defendant to refer to, he had none. The judge appeared displeased and asked the Court Clerk to photocopy the relevant pages.

 

I have a .pdf and can post it if helps. I also have .pdf of Halifax / Optima’s Witness Statement, P.O.C. and evidence.

 

Bear in mind the first I saw of this was when Halifax Counsel showed it to me for a few minutes just before the hearing.

 

A main argument put forward by Halifax’s Counsel: That they claim that I have been unjustly enriched to the sum of £6,908.00 the sum of the cheque paid to the Halifax that their bankers Barclays lost in 2003. Unjust enrichment is the condition I have not found a solution to.

 

Under questioning by the Judge, I said that I had no proof other than the Halifax claim that the cheque had not been encashed. I was asked if I had seen my mothers bank statements or asked her. I explained that my Mothers finances were and are controlled by my brother who denies me access to my Mothers financial data.

 

The Judge instructed Halifax’s Counsel to prove to the Court, to both Court and satisfactory legal standard that the cheque paid to your client by my Mother, for some £6,908.00 was not encashed before the next hearing 10th March 2009.

 

I do not know whether the Halifax will be able to prove that the cheque was not encashed. A friend suggests that that is unlikely that they will be able to do so. I have no idea.

 

I wonder if there is mileage in the fact that I was sent the deeds and D32SE, the highest proof anyone is mortgage debt free. How can a bank do this and then six months later claim they lost part payment, a cheque for £6,800.00. - I do not understand!

This is the Chitty Detail:

 

Chapter. 3 - Consideration, page 264, 3-089 Requirements. For the equitable doctrine to operate……

 

Page 265, 3-089 - Discharge & Variation of Contractual Duties.

- A promise or representation………..

 

Not mentioned by prosecution were:

Page 268, 3-093 Reliance. - I and my Mother relied on the material (action in reliance) sent to me by the Halifax, the deeds and form D32SE and their written proof of full mortgage discharge.

 

Importantly page 269, 3-094. Whether Detriment Required.- I wonder if this may offer me defence re unjust enrichment. I cannot sufficiently understand it to be sure. Which is why I did not raise it at the hearing.

Page 270, 3-096 Effect of the doctrine generally suspensive. - Not extinguish but only suspends rights.

 

I think page 270, 3-095. Inequitable. - Again not mentioned by prosecution, further assists me. In that: I, the promisee acted in reliance on the promisor’s highest assurances that I am debt free. Mortgage fully repaid, as confirmed by the Halifax.

 

They sent me the deeds to my house, and form D32SE - the transfer to land registry document proving that the property is debt free, and in my sole name.

 

I and my mother relied on this and my and my mothers position subsequently changed upon reliance on their assurances that I was debt free. My Mother relinquished her finances to my brother. From this point I and my Mother were unable to revert.

 

Page 271, 3-097 Discharges and variation of contractural duties.

- Extinctive effect in exceptional cases.

 

Why the Halifax are using this one I do not understand. As I interpret it. If anything, this is relevant to me as applicable in defence. As it appears to undermine / invalidate their claim against me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...