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

UKCPS - Threatening Court Action


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5432 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

//

Edited by Simon7685

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Simon,

 

UKCPS appear to be carrying out the scattergun approach to court cases at the moment. We know of one case where court papers have actually been issued. The case itself is due to be heard in a few weeks time. There is still every chance that, given a decent defence, UKCPS will not turn up.

 

If UKCPS do submit court papers, you can submit a skeleton defence along the lines of bullet points as per http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/65341-private-parking-companies-charges.html You will then have more time to submit further documents at a later stage.

 

In the meantime it is worth writing to the DVLA requesting any recent V888/2 information applications made in respect of your vehicle. This will reveal information such as PPC making the request, landowner information and so on. There is a template letter for this here:

 

FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned

 

UKCPS are a member of BPA. They are deemed to have signed up to BPA procedures. The letter you have received is in blatant disregard to these procedures. Complain to BPA / DVLA in accordance with above linked guidelines.

Edited by Barnsley Boy
mistake - as pointed out by couldthisbereal2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If UKCPS do submit court papers, you can submit a skeleton defence along the lines of "The alleged debt is disputed in its entirety, there is no legal justification for UKCPS's charge." You will then have more time to submit a proper defence at a later stage.

 

Your advice is not quite right, if any company issues a claim (not just a parking company) you then have to submit a fully detailed defence.

 

A person cannot change their defence as they feel like it, the defence submitted to the court in response to a claim has to be a full statement not a 1 liner (the claimant can apply to have the defence struck out if it does not fully describe why the claim should be defended).

 

Documents supporting the filed defence will then be filed & served nearer the hearing date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

//

Edited by Simon7685

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

//

Edited by Simon7685

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complain to BPA / DVLA in accordance with above linked guidelines.
Great link.

 

One thing, though: If in breach of the CPUT Regs 08, then the complaint should be directed to the OFT. It will be them and them only who have the statutory powers to investigate any potential breach of the CPUTs. Maybe you could bring that to the attention of those who wrote the FAQs on Pepipoo?

 

It doesn't mean that you can't write to complain to the others as well, of course. :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a good link. OFT/TS to enforce - but nothing wrong with pointing out the breach to DVLA especially as according to that article TS have already given the heads up to the BPA and the BPA took steps to not violate. That article is all about the signed up Code of practice that is not being followed and the DVLA insisting that the Code is enforced by the BPA. Seems enough leverage to me. Looks like all the PPCs have signed up to the Code but none are following it - but DVLA insist it is enforced. Good stuff to use by the look of it. either the BPA gets slapped or the PPCs do - or both - what can be bad about that ? having read it three or four times it looks to me that sending those letters is a very good idea indeed. Maybe the mods here should ask the pepipoo mods if a permanent link can be put in the stickies here ? ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

//

Edited by Simon7685

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was also said that a number of these tickets end up being passed to debt collectors, can that be right without taking you to court first?

 

Don't confuse debt collectors with bailiffs. Debt collectors are just ordinary people like the PPCs (if that qualifies as ordinary!) who carry on asking you for money. The have no more legal clout then the PPC and you can carry on refusing to pay them like the PPC.

 

If bailiffs are involved it would be after you had been taken to court and refused, or were unable, to pay the court judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

//

Edited by Simon7685

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

//

Edited by Simon7685

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

..

Edited by Simon7685

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry to hear about that but it what is expected really. There is one post in this thread that is completely misleading - example enough I think. many other examples on here. NEVER publish the defense - let them find out from court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said!

:)IF YOU ARE BORED WITH LITTLE TO DO:)

My Story - Simon -V- The (SH)Abbey - :!:WON / 19 November 2007:!:

 

SKY TV and the penalty charge - how far will it go?

 

Me V Its4me and Close Premium Finance:!:WON / 28 November 2007:!:

 

IF I CAN HELP, I WILL, IF I DO, THEN PLEASE CLICK ON THE SCALES ON THE LEFT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone who posts on these forums should be aware that there are lurkers (people who read the thread but do not post) not just from UKCPS but from other PPC's as well (Combined Parking Solutions for one).

 

It's why we advise that anything posted has it details washed. I've know of several people who have had their posts (or alleged posts) copied and the PPC have attempted to use the said posts to bring pressure to bear.

 

This site poses a problem for their operating model and must pee them off big style( :D)but those posting need to take care about what they reveal.:D

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

ive just been on the bpa website and they dont have their members on show, does anyone know where the list is, it told me i need to become a member and im not paying just to see if ukcps are actually signed up to it.

 

i recently recieved my first letter from peter, telling me not to believe a word anyone says on forums and to pay the 120 pounds. (funny a company would say such a thing)

 

he also sent me photos of my car (after stating they cant get photos) of which on the photos the date states they were took in january 2007, i didnt even have the car then so dont think that would stand up in court as solid proof.

 

even though every1 tells me to laugh at him i do think he is out to get me as im a woman, so since my boyfriend has a lot of legal info as soon as he using any threatening words in his letters i will be doing him over for harrasment, never the less his moody little world shall go on, without my pennies in his back pocket!!

 

have ukcps taken anyone to court yet and what has been the outcome?

 

i know their kinda like hippos, all mouth :/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...