Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM   1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack  Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached   2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00.  The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month.   3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement,   Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us.   Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement   9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate   4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:-   a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement number 756050. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     Thw total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by Firrst class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges ]= 5.  A the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or  alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage.   Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs.   Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024   What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • 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

Debt purchase price - CPUTR/Unfair Relationship


Rhia
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5585 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

This is one for the legals amongst us. This is intended to be a work in progress and open to debate.

 

I have long been thinking of this business where a OC writes off a debt to tax and then sells it on to a DCA for anything between 2% and 20% (10% appears to be the norm).

 

The DCA then adds its own interest, costs etc and attempts to claim the entire amount. Notwithstanding the fact that they are trying to make 90% profit (is that correct my maths is crummy) on a collection the addition of the extras could mean the profit is way over that.

 

My question is could this be challenged under the CPUTR 2008 regulations as far as the DCA is concerned by trying to collect on this - being excessive profit, the way they collect etc? In this case I am thinking strictly of the amount they try to collect. (Yes I know some will say that's business)

 

My next question is that surely by selling off a debt to a DCA for 10% (say), and the DCA will try and recoup it in its entirety the OC or DCA or both also fall foul of the Unfair Relationships section 140A of the CCA 2006 which says:

 

(1) The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and debtor arising out of the agreement (or any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one of the following:

 

(a) any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement

 

(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement.

 

© any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

 

Going on to 140 A (4) goes on to say this applies to a debt that has been assigned to a third party (i.e. DCA).

 

 

Is this a feasible line of attack as it sticks in many a craw when someone is struggling to pay a debt and it gets flogged off for peanuts? Had said debtor been offered the chance to repay at a modest cost theyw ould most likely have been able to.

 

I have a couple of incidents whereby the debtor has evidence of what it has been sold for. However I am certainly aware that you would have to push for disclosure of the sale price and they claim this to be sensitice commercial information (my ass they just don't want us to know)

 

OK forum over to you...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting angle to approach this from. At work at the moment, so can't contribute, but hopefully others will chip in...

 

always seemed ridiculous anyway they would refuse fair offers of payment, offer you 30%, and then go off and sell debt for 10% of its value!

 

go figure...!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they get 100% back via tax, plus 10% from DCA, and they no longer have the hassle/cost of trying to collect the unenforceable debt.

 

One sad point is that the taxpayer picks up the tab for it.

 

So the OC loses nothing,and makes a profit from both previuos account transactions, and the 10% from DCA.

 

The DCA in most cases also makes a fortune, as most claims are not contested.

 

Happy OCs/DCAs

Please note i have no legal training any advice i give comes from my own experience and from what i have learned on this site

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have long been thinking of this business where a OC writes off a debt to tax and then sells it on to a DCA for anything between 2% and 20% (10% appears to be the norm).

 

The DCA then adds its own interest, costs etc and attempts to claim the entire amount. Notwithstanding the fact that they are trying to make 90% profit (is that correct my maths is crummy) on a collection the addition of the extras could mean the profit is way over that.

 

My question is could this be challenged under the CPUTR 2008 regulations as far as the DCA is concerned by trying to collect on this - being excessive profit, the way they collect etc? In this case I am thinking strictly of the amount they try to collect. (Yes I know some will say that's business)

 

My next question is that surely by selling off a debt to a DCA for 10% (say), and the DCA will try and recoup it in its entirety the OC or DCA or both also fall foul of the Unfair Relationships section 140A of the CCA 2006 which says:

 

(1) The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and debtor arising out of the agreement (or any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one of the following:

 

(a) any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement

 

(b) the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement.

 

© any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement).

 

Going on to 140 A (4) goes on to say this applies to a debt that has been assigned to a third party (i.e. DCA).

 

 

Is this a feasible line of attack as it sticks in many a craw when someone is struggling to pay a debt and it gets flogged off for peanuts? Had said debtor been offered the chance to repay at a modest cost theyw ould most likely have been able to.

 

I said this last year with my arguments against the FOS wanting to pay the DCA my charges refund, whereby the DCA would gain much more than they've paid, from the payments they've had from me and these charges, all from an invalid agreement where the legal amount owed has not been investigated. And the FOS will not contact them as they're not allowed to include a third party within a complaint but can somehow pay them.

Edited by tifo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same issue Tifonet. You are talking about actually getting a balance refunded to you when it's overdrawn I think.The FOS is saying you aren't entitled to the cash only to have your balance reduced as you never paid it out in the first place - which is correct. The only way you could get a refund is after the charges and interest have been totted up and they exceed the outstanding balance. This isn't the same thing.

My angle is re the DCA attempting to collect the full balance when they have paid a very reduced price for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My angle is re the DCA attempting to collect the full balance when they have paid a very reduced price for it.

 

My angle is the same as yours. The DCA has paid a reduced price to buy the debt but my charges refund clears almost all the amount they're asking, i.e. they bought the debt for £100 and ask for £1,000 as stated by the bank and my refund is, say, £900.

 

I have stated the same as you, in that the DCA is not due the whole £900 or £1,000 but only the purchase price but the FOS say they can keep it all. I know that once it is paid to them, it is almost impossible for me to get this money back from the DCA.

 

I've further stated that the DCA can only ever be entitled to the purchase price plus interest as per original agreement if valid, otherwise no interest under an invalid improperly executed agreement. This has been ignored by the FOS as have all my arguments regarding the bank and DCA and legal entitlements.

 

I haven't taken the matter up separately with the DCA but intend to do so. The FOS suggested i make a separate complaint about the DCA but i said, no thanks, after the decisions i've received regarding bank charges, i don't think i trust the FOS enough to be fair or impartial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

restitution restitution restitution tifo, the principles of unjust enrichment would clearly apply here

 

I've been saying this all along and asking the FOS to investigate the DCA's entitlement to a proper amount before they pay them and they say they cannot include a third party within a complaint and i say, well, how can you agree to paying them and how do you know how much the DCA is entitled to, to which they don't answer. Decision made, go away i am told, or make a separate complaint against the DCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Test case is called for isn't it? I don't have a case to test I'm afaid or I would definitely offer.

 

PT - when you're back online properly can you either lay down a suggested POC or point us to a thread if there is one elsewhere on here.

 

I actually believe the biggest hurdle to this would be forcing the DCA to reveal the purchase price. Even though it is well known throughout the industry that this is all they pay it would be a different thing to admit it publicly.

 

Any such action, as I see it, would not be to get a cash refund but to get the debt they claim reduced to a reasonable level. i.e. what they paid for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone needs to tackle a DCA with this - any offers :D

 

I would do it with the proper support. It's lack of confidence in tackling them on this issue that's stopped me so far.

 

As some may know, the FOS 'gave' away some £12,000 of my refunds to DCA's and if it came to purchase price only, i could get some of this back.

 

I didn't accept the decisions so the money should still be with the banks but many said they've sent the refund to the DCA anyway, following the FOS decisions. I still told them i didn't accept their offer so that's on their own initiative.

 

How about claiming charges from the DCA, as they do say they bought the debt and even according to banks now, the DCA owns and handles everything. Has anyone done this?

 

Note to Rhia : i'm not taking the thread over, my points are still regarding the issue of what the DCA is entitled to following purchase of a debt :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Test case is called for isn't it? I don't have a case to test I'm afaid or I would definitely offer.

 

PT - when you're back online properly can you either lay down a suggested POC or point us to a thread if there is one elsewhere on here.

 

I actually believe the biggest hurdle to this would be forcing the DCA to reveal the purchase price. Even though it is well known throughout the industry that this is all they pay it would be a different thing to admit it publicly.

 

Any such action, as I see it, would not be to get a cash refund but to get the debt they claim reduced to a reasonable level. i.e. what they paid for it.

 

 

I would happily be a test case, I owe a couple of small debts to Red but my main debts have been passed back to the OCs.

 

 

I would of course need someone to write the POCs!

 

 

Next reckon they are passing it over to Lewis.. so there's 2k if it does get passed :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good to try this with a small debt like yours I think - keep it into small claims.

 

Tifo I know you're not trying to take over the thread but I still think there is a small but distinct difference between what I am suggesting and you have been through.

 

I agree the DCA should refund the charges but we have all been a bit confused as to whether this is the correct road as many say they have bought rights not responsibilities. If you could link your thread on here then we can try and keep this one on track and be able to follow what you have experienced too. There will be some useful comparisons I have no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be good to try this with a small debt like yours I think - keep it into small claims.

 

Tifo I know you're not trying to take over the thread but I still think there is a small but distinct difference between what I am suggesting and you have been through.

 

I agree the DCA should refund the charges but we have all been a bit confused as to whether this is the correct road as many say they have bought rights not responsibilities. If you could link your thread on here then we can try and keep this one on track and be able to follow what you have experienced too. There will be some useful comparisons I have no doubt.

 

 

So a small amount wouldn't be a problem then?

 

If you want me to start a claim I will, provided someone explains what to do :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking back, a barrister told me never to start and action unless forced to as it's easier to defend.

 

Let's see what the legal brains amongst us say (PT I mean you of course) as starting an action without funding is tricky - don't want you landing with the costs. I guess we need someone who is about to defend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking back, a barrister told me never to start and action unless forced to as it's easier to defend.

 

Let's see what the legal brains amongst us say (PT I mean you of course) as starting an action without funding is tricky - don't want you landing with the costs. I guess we need someone who is about to defend.

with us, we bring actions on a CFA with ATE legal expense insurance, this is to ensure that if it goes wrong the client is not liable for legal costs of both sides

 

it is extremely dangerous pressing on with litigation without adequate protection, however some people have legal cover on their home insurance and dont even realise it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the DCA should refund the charges but we have all been a bit confused as to whether this is the correct road as many say they have bought rights not responsibilities.

 

I believe this is the way DL now advises and some of your own experiences are used as the basis for this advice.

 

In the cases at the FOS where the bank wanted to pay the DCA, they now refuse to correspond with me and state to contact the DCA as they bought the debt in full with everything, i.e. claim the charges off them, don't ask us. Even letters of intended court action, CPR requests under any rule, letters quoting unfair relationship etc are all responded to by stating it's been passed to the DCA to reply to and so will all future correspondence.

 

Of course, neither i or the FOS has contacted the DCA in any of my cases so i don't know why the bank now wants to pass the buck to them. This means I am being pushed to chase the DCA for everything, under the reasoning that they bought the debt and the bank now has nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

with us, we bring actions on a CFA with ATE legal expense insurance, this is to ensure that if it goes wrong the client is not liable for legal costs of both sides

 

I've never been able to find a local'ish solicitor to take on any 'consumer credit' action for cases less than £5k but i would love to sue banks and DCAs under a CFA. I can give about 10 of my own personal cases, a mixture of diferent things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...