Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

Thames Credit - see their response to a CCA request...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5648 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

Hi all

Having got into the spirit of writing to all my creditors, my partner sent a CCA request to Thames Credit.

 

Here's their response:

 

You have requested a copy of the original Agreement citing the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

We are not the original creditor. We did not provide you with the original credit facility. we purchased your outstanding debt balance and the right to collect that balance, together with the right to apply interest in accordance with your original Credit Agreement. We did not purchase your actual Agreement, consequently we have no obligation to provide you with a copy of that Agreement.

 

However, as a matter of good practice, we will seek to obtain a copy of the original Agreement from the original credit grantor and if that is available we will forward a copy to you.

 

We are the legal owners of your account and your liability is now to us in respect of repaying the outstanding debt balance that was purchased by this Group of Companies.

 

 

... So - what do you all think? It reads to me that they're up the creed without a paddle. Anyone know how we should respond? Its not like my CCA request responses, where they say the account is on hold while they wait for the agreement.

 

My partner's stopped all payments. What else (any letter) that we should send?

 

Thanks all

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have done your bit, just wait and see what arrives next.

 

I CCA'd them last week so I wonder if I will get the same letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly question as I have been reading many posts where DCA's have stated that they have "Purchased a Debt"

 

Has anyone ever asked for "proof of payment" to the debt!!!!!

Woolwich N1 issued 15.01.07 £11k

Acknowledged 01.02.07

Defence Filed 15.02.07

AQ Filed 21.02.07

AQ Deadline 05.03.07

Woolwich AQ late, given till 16.03.07

29.03.07, Judgement rec, woolwich to pay up by 10.04.07

Money received 16.04.07

 

Nationwide MCOL issued 22.01.07 £1k

Settled in full 05.02.07:D

Account being closed

Appeared on Watchdog 20.02.07

 

Abbey Issue MCOL £5k 24.01.07

Defence Filed 21.02.07

29.03.07, AQ hearing set for 20.04.07 with other like cases.

11.04.07, Full settlement letter received for £5,769.12

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly question as I have been reading many posts where DCA's have stated that they have "Purchased a Debt"

 

Has anyone ever asked for "proof of payment" to the debt!!!!!

 

Excellent point :D

 

Everyone should request proof of this, they'd all soon be squirming :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then if they could show how much they paid, we could then challenge the amount they are charging us and then be in a better position to argue down the amount they are chasing.

 

I bet no one DCA could ever produce proof of purchase!

Woolwich N1 issued 15.01.07 £11k

Acknowledged 01.02.07

Defence Filed 15.02.07

AQ Filed 21.02.07

AQ Deadline 05.03.07

Woolwich AQ late, given till 16.03.07

29.03.07, Judgement rec, woolwich to pay up by 10.04.07

Money received 16.04.07

 

Nationwide MCOL issued 22.01.07 £1k

Settled in full 05.02.07:D

Account being closed

Appeared on Watchdog 20.02.07

 

Abbey Issue MCOL £5k 24.01.07

Defence Filed 21.02.07

29.03.07, AQ hearing set for 20.04.07 with other like cases.

11.04.07, Full settlement letter received for £5,769.12

Link to post
Share on other sites

dear sir as you have stated in your letter that you have PURSHED my alledged debt i require you to prove you have the right to collect not just saying so. If you do not comply with my request then it comes to mind you are trying to obtain money by deception which is a criminal offence. :p

PHOTOBUCKET TUTORIAL IS NOW DONE HERE IT IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then maybe we should start.

 

If anything it would give them more work to do on top of tall the work we give them already and maybe something would come of it.

 

As in if they can't produce a Proof of Purchase they can't get a claim.

 

Like if a shop, no Proof of Purchase no refund!!!!!!!!

Edited by ADE&FAB
Spelling and Rum
  • Haha 1

Woolwich N1 issued 15.01.07 £11k

Acknowledged 01.02.07

Defence Filed 15.02.07

AQ Filed 21.02.07

AQ Deadline 05.03.07

Woolwich AQ late, given till 16.03.07

29.03.07, Judgement rec, woolwich to pay up by 10.04.07

Money received 16.04.07

 

Nationwide MCOL issued 22.01.07 £1k

Settled in full 05.02.07:D

Account being closed

Appeared on Watchdog 20.02.07

 

Abbey Issue MCOL £5k 24.01.07

Defence Filed 21.02.07

29.03.07, AQ hearing set for 20.04.07 with other like cases.

11.04.07, Full settlement letter received for £5,769.12

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huggy, well said, lets get a good letter going with lots legal stuff and go from there!

Woolwich N1 issued 15.01.07 £11k

Acknowledged 01.02.07

Defence Filed 15.02.07

AQ Filed 21.02.07

AQ Deadline 05.03.07

Woolwich AQ late, given till 16.03.07

29.03.07, Judgement rec, woolwich to pay up by 10.04.07

Money received 16.04.07

 

Nationwide MCOL issued 22.01.07 £1k

Settled in full 05.02.07:D

Account being closed

Appeared on Watchdog 20.02.07

 

Abbey Issue MCOL £5k 24.01.07

Defence Filed 21.02.07

29.03.07, AQ hearing set for 20.04.07 with other like cases.

11.04.07, Full settlement letter received for £5,769.12

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, but in the case where they can produce a CCA (rare like a living Dodo) this can be the next spanner in the works.

 

We could even request a copy of the cheque used to purchase the debt!

Woolwich N1 issued 15.01.07 £11k

Acknowledged 01.02.07

Defence Filed 15.02.07

AQ Filed 21.02.07

AQ Deadline 05.03.07

Woolwich AQ late, given till 16.03.07

29.03.07, Judgement rec, woolwich to pay up by 10.04.07

Money received 16.04.07

 

Nationwide MCOL issued 22.01.07 £1k

Settled in full 05.02.07:D

Account being closed

Appeared on Watchdog 20.02.07

 

Abbey Issue MCOL £5k 24.01.07

Defence Filed 21.02.07

29.03.07, AQ hearing set for 20.04.07 with other like cases.

11.04.07, Full settlement letter received for £5,769.12

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Thanks for responses - liked reading your brainstorming :D

 

Should we send them a letter then? Saying, screw you, or does anyone have a slightly better worded letter we could send?

 

Or do we just sit tight?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rum makes the mind wonder.

 

Lets argue here.

 

If we have to request for an origional copy of a CCA, then could we not also argue they they have to produce an origional cheque/telegraphic transfer order etc of the purchase.

 

i think we are onto something.

 

MOD's, has this ever been raised before and if not are we onto something??

Woolwich N1 issued 15.01.07 £11k

Acknowledged 01.02.07

Defence Filed 15.02.07

AQ Filed 21.02.07

AQ Deadline 05.03.07

Woolwich AQ late, given till 16.03.07

29.03.07, Judgement rec, woolwich to pay up by 10.04.07

Money received 16.04.07

 

Nationwide MCOL issued 22.01.07 £1k

Settled in full 05.02.07:D

Account being closed

Appeared on Watchdog 20.02.07

 

Abbey Issue MCOL £5k 24.01.07

Defence Filed 21.02.07

29.03.07, AQ hearing set for 20.04.07 with other like cases.

11.04.07, Full settlement letter received for £5,769.12

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would send nothing for the time being, if they continue to send begging/threatening letters, just let them build up and use them as evidence later, the more they send the worse it will look for them at a later date if it goes to court.

 

Once the 12 days is up start scanning all the letters you receive, make copies and after a couple of months when you have a few letters send the lot to your local trading standards office, around this time send Thames a reminder letter regarding your CCA request and their none compliance. Send TS a copy of this letter and a copy of your original letter requesting a copy of your CCA request, put copies of these in with the other letters you send.

 

This is what I did with Lowell, by the time it went to court I had over 30 threat-o-grames from them plus a letter back from TS confirming they were looking into it, and that they had copied all letters and had sent them off to the TS office in Leeds where Lowell are based.

 

I put all of the events into a time line which I read out in court, I only wrote to Lowell twice, once to request my CCA and the second time to remind them that the account was in default.

 

They know the law better than you and are fully aware of what they are doing.

Edited by Alex_DeLarge
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Having got into the spirit of writing to all my creditors, my partner sent a CCA request to Thames Credit.

 

Here's their response:

 

You have requested a copy of the original Agreement citing the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

We are not the original creditor. We did not provide you with the original credit facility. we purchased your outstanding debt balance and the right to collect that balance, together with the right to apply interest in accordance with your original Credit Agreement. What Credit agreement??? Oh you mean the one you didnt purchase so how do you know what it says We did not purchase your actual Agreement, consequently we have no obligation to provide you with a copy of that Agreement.

 

However, as a matter of good practice,and in accordance with our legal obligation under S 175 of the CCA 1974 we will seek to obtain a copy of the original Agreement from the original credit grantor and if that is available we will forward a copy to you.

 

We are the legal owners of your account and are Creditors as defined by S 189 of the CCA 1974and your liability is now to us in respect of repaying the outstanding debt balance that was purchased by this Group of Companies.What account. You have no proof

 

 

... So - what do you all think? It reads to me that they're up the creed without a paddle. Anyone know how we should respond? Its not like my CCA request responses, where they say the account is on hold while they wait for the agreement.

 

My partner's stopped all payments. What else (any letter) that we should send?

 

Thanks all

This is the usual Bowlarks from these muppets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget, that in Court, they would need to produce proof that the debt has been lawfully assigned. They need a deed of assignment, but this can cover numerous debts purchased, or what these ****** bin rummagers like to call "portfolios" in order to give their industry a little respectability

If they are relying on "equitable assignment," then they can't take legal action without the original creditor. Weddell and Another [1988] 1 Ch 26 Besides, LoPA 1925 has been superceded by various other legislation. Not least CCA 1974 S 189

Edited by rameses_qc

I am a lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. I do not practice as a barrister or solicitor. You should consult a practising Solicitor BEFORE taking any Court or other action

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they claim not to be the creditor, then s.175 of the CCA 1974 requires them to pass the request to the creditor; 'good practice' doesn't enter into it - it's a legal obligation.

 

If the debt was an absolute assignment, s.189 says they are the creditor, because an assignment is of both rights and duties, not one or the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they claim not to be the creditor, then s.175 of the CCA 1974 requires them to pass the request to the creditor; 'good practice' doesn't enter into it - it's a legal obligation.

 

If the debt was an absolute assignment, s.189 says they are the creditor, because an assignment is of both rights and duties, not one or the other.

 

You appear to have missed my sarcasm in my response to this thread about the river rats

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all

 

Letter received today from Thames Credit. To put you all in picture, CCA letter was sent, the 10+2 days passed then received letter (wording as per first posting in this thread).

 

Ignored letter and filed away.

 

new letter received today stating:

 

"we are writing to you because our records show that we have not received payment from you in accordance with the agreement we reached.

 

It is important that any payment is received by no later than the agreed date, otherwise our automated procedures will return an account to our Collections Division. In those circumstances it is usually the case that all accrued interest is added back to the account and any discount offered to a customer is withdrawn. In other words the full balance will become due and payable.

 

Therefore we would ask that you telephone us immediately, so that you can make payment by debit or credit card, or agree another payment date.

 

If for any reason you cannot make your payment, again it is important that you telephone us without delay, to prevent further action being taken against you. We are sure you will understand that.

 

We therefore look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency."

 

blah blah.

 

So,

1) we won't be phoning

2) we're not unduly worried or threatened about this letter.

 

What I want (please help if you can) is the wording or a template letter to send back to them to say, in effect "no CCA = no payments, stop hassling" Or any other comments welcome.

 

Thanks

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try this:

 

Dear Sirs

 

I refer to your letter dated (date).

 

On (date) I made a formal request pursuant to s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The statutory time limit for compliance expired on (date) and s.78(6) of the Act therefore applies. Whilst you remain in default, any demand for payment is unlawful.

 

Take notice that whilst you remain in default of my request, I will not enter into further correspondence with you. Any further unlawful demands will be reported to the appropriate enforcement agency.

 

Yours etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...