Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are 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 its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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

Deeds/Notifications of Assignment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4533 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

Is there a strict format for these notifications? i.e., should they contain account numbers, balances etc? Also, I've read various different opinions on how they should be communicated - some say they must be sent by recorded delivery or delivered in person, others say that regular mail is good enough.

 

Does anyone have the definitive answer to this?

 

Regards to all.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Deeds are agreements between a seller and a purchaser of a debt. I suspect (I've never seen one for obvious reasons) that a deed might be list of debtors and names.

 

Notices of assignments are sent (or supposed to be sent) by the seller to the debtor advising that the debt has been sold. As far as I'm aware there is no specific format as long as the relevant bits are there - account (or other reference) number, amount and purchaser of the debt. I understand that proof of service can be asked for if the matter is disputed - this suggests recorded delivery or even personal service however I suspect that most Notices are sent out by ordinary mail for reasons of cost.

 

I'm no expert and others may want to clarify or elaborate.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

jpf, in particular I want to find out if the notice of assignment sent to me by Goldfish/Cabot was correctly done. See this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131660-fred-bassett-morgan-stanley-2.html#post1653208

 

You see, I don't believe they did it at all and that this was simply an afterthought. There are also others where I would query the way in which this was done but that's for another day. In this case I know full well that did not send me anything, now they're simply lying and I want to catch them out.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read the act pertaining to notice of assignment and it seemed fairly simple with no prescribed terms. The one thing it did mention was that the notice had to be “under the hand” of the original creditor.

Now, it occurred to me that it could mean that they had to be signed and most of mine (I have a collection God help me) are not signed.

I did pose the question somewhere on the forum but I don’t think I received a reply.

 

Dogs

I do very little but I do it very, very well :cool:

 

If I've helped give my scales a click

:smile:

 

I have no legal experience and all advice given is based on the knowledge I've gained from this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Notices of assignment should contain the name of previous creditor & balance & striclty speaking date of assignment. One of old legal bods explained that the notice could be sent by either party, although I beg to differ on that one as I would expect the notice to arrive from a company I knew as opposed to an unknown buyer.

 

It should be sent by recorded delivery to guarantee receipt. 2nd class post works if you acknowledge receving the letter.

 

For Cabot use the following users in the advanced search box:- Tbern123, Seahorse, Elizabeth1, Andrew1, Rhia, pmhcfc, Louie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred bassett

 

Sorry in the time to reply but i've been away (lucky me!!). Ok assignment - essentially in your thread for Cabot / goldfish the balance was assigned not the contract this is called equitable assignment. If the contract whad been assigned it would have been absolute - this is vary rare and can only realy effectively be done by novation (google for definition) . For more info on assignment check out these threads:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/112975-equitable-assignment-how-affect.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/146027-aktiv-capital-no-replies.html

 

These cover most of the main points on how assignment works in the debt collection industry.

 

Specifically in you case what are you hoping to acheive? it would be useful to know in helping you formulate a strategy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have a court case going on at the moment. Asset Link have taken us to court for four separate accounts. They have been ordered by the court to provide a response to our defence. One of the points they make is as follows:

 

"the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the claimant (Asset Link Capital (No1) ltd under a Deed of assignment. The claimant is the assignee fo the benefit of the debt, the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor and consequently the claimant does not fall with the definition of a "creditor" s define under S189 CCA 1974.

 

To me, and I am probably completely wrong, this would imply that this assignment was equitable and not absolute. If this is the case, then I was under the impression that with an equitable assignment the assignee cannot bring a claim against the debtor in their own right, but only jointly with the OC, in this case First National. Is this correct. Any help much appreciated on this, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have a court case going on at the moment. Asset Link have taken us to court for four separate accounts. They have been ordered by the court to provide a response to our defence. One of the points they make is as follows:

 

"the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the claimant (Asset Link Capital (No1) ltd under a Deed of assignment. The claimant is the assignee fo the benefit of the debt, the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor and consequently the claimant does not fall with the definition of a "creditor" s define under S189 CCA 1974.

 

To me, and I am probably completely wrong, this would imply that this assignment was equitable and not absolute. If this is the case, then I was under the impression that with an equitable assignment the assignee cannot bring a claim against the debtor in their own right, but only jointly with the OC, in this case First National. Is this correct. Any help much appreciated on this, Magda

 

Magda,

 

I don't know much about this. This may or not help, but Babybear started a thread relating to the CPUTR (?) which may have some relevance to your question.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred, thanks for the reply, I have seen that thread as I have been having some issues with TS on whether as the apparent "owner" of the debt, Asset Link are for the purposes of the CCA also the "Creditor" they say that they aren't and TS seem to agree. I am not sure what sort of assignment they have, but they have stated that the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor. This sounds to me like it is an equitable assignment, but I am not sure. Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have a court case going on at the moment. Asset Link have taken us to court for four separate accounts. This is an Absolute assignment then.... which means they've bought it. They have been ordered by the court to provide a response to our defence. One of the points they make is as follows:

 

"the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the claimant (Asset Link Capital (No1) ltd under a Deed of assignment. In other words, they've bought the balance on the OC's books at the time. The claimant is the assignee fo the benefit of the debt, the duties under the agreement have been retained by the original creditor and consequently the claimant does not fall with the definition of a "creditor" s define under S189 CCA 1974. The are arguing that they have the benefits (ie... being able to chase you for the money) but not the duties (which are tied in with the CCA Act, 1974) under The Law of Property Act.... which is a load of bowlarks

 

To me, and I am probably completely wrong, this would imply that this assignment was equitable and not absolute. No, it's the other way around... If this is the case, then I was under the impression that with an equitable assignment the assignee cannot bring a claim against the debtor in their own right, but only jointly with the OC, in this case First National. Is this correct. Any help much appreciated on this, Magda

 

It's an Absoluet Assignment, which is why they're trying to wriggle out of any responsibilities under The CCA Act, 1974. Cabot used to try and pull this one as well... :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

jpf, in particular I want to find out if the notice of assignment sent to me by Goldfish/Cabot was correctly done. See this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131660-fred-bassett-morgan-stanley-2.html#post1653208

 

You see, I don't believe they did it at all and that this was simply an afterthought. There are also others where I would query the way in which this was done but that's for another day. In this case I know full well that did not send me anything, now they're simply lying and I want to catch them out.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

 

On the back of the very first letter you received from Cabot, you should find some small print which says that "this letter acts as a Notice of Assignment" or something like that. If Cabot were to produce such a letter, they could argue that it was sent, which may be enough for a court... should it get that far.

 

Best to find alternative ammunition... as this wouldn't be strong enough to get them off your back in court, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Priority One, that's what I needed to know. TS back them up (or say they just don't know) in the argument that they are not the creditor for purposes of the CCA and OFT just sit on the fence and don't want to get involved. These Companies, like Asset and Cabot are a law unto themselves aren't they? Many thanks, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries Magda. I don't bother with TS/OFT anymore. They've never done anything positive in any of my sagas... and don't seem to know what they're on about half the time anyway.

 

Far too many incestuous back scratches within the finance industry, IMO. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Asset Link have clearly stated that this was not a 'Legal assignment' (which means absolute) they have stated that the OC has retained the duties under the contract therefore this is an equitable assignment and, as such, Asset Link cannot sue in their own name. IMHO this is an unarguable defence - they cannot sue for somthing they do not own (the original contract). Also any judge will want to see the CCA to ascertain who in fact owns the title to the contract. Asset Link have no case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the back of the very first letter you received from Cabot, you should find some small print which says that "this letter acts as a Notice of Assignment" or something like that. If Cabot were to produce such a letter, they could argue that it was sent, which may be enough for a court... should it get that far.

 

Best to find alternative ammunition... as this wouldn't be strong enough to get them off your back in court, IMO.

 

Thanks Priority1

 

There is something on the second page of the letter to that effect. What's on the first page however is a joke - it's a copy document with mail merge fields in it and doesn't even mention my name - plus there is no date on it.

 

Anyway, I'll keep that argument to my thread.

 

The other thing I want to find out is how these letters should be communicated. My understanding is that they should be sent by recorded delivery, but I can't find a definitive answer to this. Any ideas?

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Asset Link have clearly stated that this was not a 'Legal assignment' (which means absolute) they have stated that the OC has retained the duties under the contract therefore this is an equitable assignment and, as such, Asset Link cannot sue in their own name. IMHO this is an unarguable defence - they cannot sue for somthing they do not own (the original contract). Also any judge will want to see the CCA to ascertain who in fact owns the title to the contract. Asset Link have no case.

 

If they are sueing in their own name, then they are lying.... which is not unheard of in this industry. :roll: The CCA won't show ownership... and if the CCA is produced, it can be re-enforced no matter who owns it anyway.

 

If Asset are sueing, then they should be made to produce the Deed of Assignment in court. If no Deed of Assignment, then they need to clarify the basis of their claim ?

 

This does sound like a classic "we've got the rights but not the duties" kind of bowlarks that some come out with when they've bought a duff account (ie, no CCA)... and don't want to tell you because it makes them look stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are only required to state they have bought the debt - it does not have to be by recorded delivery. However if they purchased the entire contract (which they have not) then they would have to prove delivery.

This however IMHO is academic as I have previously stated this assignment is equitable (they’ve admitted that) I, personally would request that this case be thrown out as vexatious on the grounds that the claimant has no legal right to sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The other thing I want to find out is how these letters should be communicated. My understanding is that they should be sent by recorded delivery, but I can't find a definitive answer to this. Any ideas?

 

 

As far aw I'm aware, there's nothing to stipulate how these Notices should be sent/delivered.... and they can come from either the OC or the DCA.

 

On that basis, it's not strong enough to rely upon as part of any defence, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are only required to state they have bought the debt - it does not have to be by recorded delivery. However if they purchased the entire contract (which they have not) then they would have to prove delivery.

This however IMHO is academic as I have previously stated this assignment is equitable (they’ve admitted that) I, personally would request that this case be thrown out as vexatious on the grounds that the claimant has no legal right to sue.

 

I've not read the thread in question, so it's difficult to comment any further.

 

Assignment to one side though.... if there's no CCA, it cannot be re-enforced under CCA 1974, sec. 127 (3)..... regardless of who's trying to do the sueing.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Asset Link have clearly stated that this was not a 'Legal assignment' (which means absolute) they have stated that the OC has retained the duties under the contract therefore this is an equitable assignment and, as such, Asset Link cannot sue in their own name. IMHO this is an unarguable defence - they cannot sue for somthing they do not own (the original contract). Also any judge will want to see the CCA to ascertain who in fact owns the title to the contract. Asset Link have no case.

 

I have not seen any notice of assignment, but the wording on one assignment I have received from them for another account (also subject to court action) is as follows:

"G E capital bank ltd assigned to us the benefit of the debt that you owe to them under an agrement. As a result of the assignment the debt is now owed to us" I do think it is confusing when they state that the "duties of the agreement have been retained by the original creditor" and whithout seeing the actual deed of assignment, I don't know how I can be 100% sure that they have the legal right to take me to court.

 

I've not read the thread in question, so it's difficult to comment any further.

 

Assignment to one side though.... if there's no CCA, it cannot be re-enforced under CCA 1974, sec. 127 (3)..... regardless of who's trying to do the sueing.

 

:)

 

Unfortunately they did provide the CCA once court action was under way and they had seen my defence. They claim now that they originally sent the agreement to our old address (we moved 9 years ago) which I know is absolute rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...