Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • 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
  • 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

Help with debt sold on after County Court Judgement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5587 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've come seeking help with a problem my OH has.

 

He owed approx £2k to Yorkshire Bank for a credit card (a lot of that figure was interest + charges) and had a County Court Judgement filed against him in 2004 and an order to repay £10 a month.

 

This he has been doing faithfully since 2004, however he recently received a letter from Phoenix Recovery informing him they had bought the debt and demanding full repayment of £2092.42 which we're sure was the amount of the original judgement!

 

Now he's received a letter from Mortimer Clarke Solicitors acting on behalf of Phoenix stating they will serve him with a Statutory Demand whereupon, if he fails to repay the amount in full within 21 days, they'll file a bankruptcy petition to court.

 

So a few questions:

 

  1. Were Yorkshire within their rights to sell on a debt that was subject to a County Court Order? If so:
  2. Are Phoenix within their rights to demand a full repayment when a County Court Order stated repayment would be made at £10 a month and my OH has not defaulted on that?
  3. Does the County Order still stand now the debt has been sold on and, if it doesn't, can my OH demand a full statement of accounts to explain why the figure demanded takes no account of 5 years worth of payments? (£600)
  4. Can they make him bankrupt when all he's done is kept to the terms of the County Court Order and paid £10 a month?

 

Any help appreciated here :) Thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the advice. If the County Court Judgement still stands, despite the debt being sold on and the new 'owners' Phoenix demanding full repayment of the original amount I wonder if they'll now claim he's defaulted.

 

The reason I say that is that their first communication which stated they now owned the debt explicitly stated that my OH should a) stop paying Yorkshire the monthly £10 ordered by the court and b) stated they would only accept full repayment. My OH hasn't sent any money to this outfit given their statement. Can they spin this and now state he's in default of the CCJ even though they told him they wouldn't accept the regular £10 payments? (it's now 2 months since his last payment to Yorkshire)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the advice. If the County Court Judgement still stands, despite the debt being sold on and the new 'owners' Phoenix demanding full repayment of the original amount I wonder if they'll now claim he's defaulted.

 

The reason I say that is that their first communication which stated they now owned the debt explicitly stated that my OH should a) stop paying Yorkshire the monthly £10 ordered by the court and b) stated they would only accept full repayment. My OH hasn't sent any money to this outfit given their statement. Can they spin this and now state he's in default of the CCJ even though they told him they wouldn't accept the regular £10 payments? (it's now 2 months since his last payment to Yorkshire)

 

 

Basically, he was ordered by the court to pay yorkshire £10 a month, unless Yorkshire tell him different then he has no alternative to keep paying Yorkshire, (make sure payments are brought up to date) As far as the "new" dca is concerned, they can whistle. Until you receive paperwork from the person owing the debt, then the original court decision and stuplations are still applicable. Nobody can come along and unilaterally change the stipulations of a CCJ without taking you back to court, this includes demanding payment in full. It would be fun to see them take you back to court and explain that a CCJ is already in place and they are trying to con you into paying more than was ordered.

 

There is a common scenario where a "new DCA" appears out of the woodwork, claiming that they now own the debt and payments should be made to them, the debtor duly follows suit and cancels the repayment plan they have in [place and makes payment to the "new DCA" after a suitable period of time the original creditor contacts the debtor and asks why you aren't paying them, they then seek further enforcement action. When challenged, the "new dca" simply claims an administrative error. You have defaulted the CCJ.

 

I would suggest an immediate complaint to trading standards and also a letter to Yorkshire, voicing your concerns that a third party is attempting to collect against a debt that they own and since they haven't informed you of this sale/transfer......

 

At the very least it will show up Yorkshire as failing to inform you when they have sold/ttransferred the debt.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the information!

 

My OH has now written off to Northampton CC Bulk Centre with a query/complaint on this matter. He's also hit Phoenix/Mortimer Clarke with a Subject Access Request for good measure to see where the hell they've come up with this new debt figure from.

 

He'll make a complaint to Trading Standards today.

 

Shower of ****s these people! He wants to pay back this debt and has been doing so and they change the goalposts! :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...