Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • don't get too hung up on the real meaning of 'fake' in terms of the documents a claimant might produce relating to a potential court claim. by fake we typically mean, they are not obviously the 'real McCoy' ,100% associated with whatever credit they are trying to pin on punters. they are often of the right 'version' that an OC would have used for that particular take out date, but with details inserted in a diff font where they should be for say your name address DOB etc. All DCA's typically  have filing cabinets covering each year for most creditor, whip 'em out, scan and copy n paste your details onto them, even easier now with online sign ups. no hard copies ever sent cause 90% of mugs have lost them..... one of our most powerful tools is the fact any docs they produce, unless they state they are 'a reconstruction'  MUST come from the original creditor noty some hidden pile the claimants have. Link are absolute masters at this so dont stick to lowell threads. dx    
    • Driving home last night I contacted wing mirrors with a car coming the opposite way. The wing mirror folded in and the glass popped out. Very minor damage.  I stopped at the next layby (A road) to repair the mirror. A passerby stopped and said they saw the other car stopped behind me in another layby - they went back and passed over details so we could get in touch.  The conversation started cordially, but quickly got heated when I said I was well on my side and they drifted over (which is what happened).  I wasn't going to bother filing a claim as there isn't enough damage to justify it. So I've said to the other party lets just call it quits as there are no witnesses and we both think we are innocent.   they said they are contacting the police and insurance and that they have witnesses. But a quick facebook search found a post by the other person saying they were in a crash, and were 'spun' off the road. Picture of a broken wing mirror and a slight scuff on the front and rear wheel arch. they are asking for witnesses. I have screenshots of the post, and sent them another message saying I can see you dont have witnesses as you are appealing for them. I'd really not drag this out. Lets call it quits and move on. this was followed by a couple of messages that didn't really make much sense. e.g. 'do the right thing'. What should I do now?  Contact police?  Contact my insurance? - Can I tell them about this incident but say I dont want to claim? Will that affect my premium?  
    • So this is the crux of the argument. The scrappage contribution should have also been counted as a deposit. It was literally a part exchange in return for a cash deduction so there is no reason it wouldn't be treated the same way.  I did not request a VT, I was struggling to pay after a separation from my partner at the time. However had the figures been reflected correctly, the VT cost would have been 2k not 9k and I may have considered it as an option. Instead, the car was marked stolen and removed from my possession by the police
    • LOL - old one the fiver theory - although with the poops its take a fiver now, promise 10p  sometime in the future while claiming the reverse theory   So when is jenrick, an apparent slam dunk as referenced higher in the thread, being referred to the police? These poops need to know that anything they throw will be returned .. with interest  
    • Yup, it isn't a criminal case, it's hard to prove, but take a detailed look at my thread to see how many holes there are in what they have sent me, there is a picture building.
  • 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

Fiddlesticks, I didn't know that.....did you?.loan


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5388 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 I appreciate what you're getting at. The POC didn't say "arrears" but the Judge said it didn't matter because if the claimant issued another claim, judgment would be awarded anyway.

 

 

Incidentally though, they did seem a bit "chummy" (school/firm)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

just out of interest did they disclose the default notice in their disclosure list, if they did then surely they are contradicting themselves by one minute saying that its eveidence then the next saying we dont need it now, also what lessons can people learn from this, there must be a way of defending this if the claimant does adopt this method in court

Link to post
Share on other sites

but the Judge said it didn't matter because if the claimant issued another claim, judgment would be awarded anyway.

 

 

Incidentally though, they did seem a bit "chummy" (school/firm)?

 

In your 1st post bill

Slowly but surely getting plastered.xx.

 

Good luck bill maybe chat with you another time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I understand the statute you refer too, please understand that the statute does not apply to "arrears" it only applies to sums payable in the future.

There is no protection in section 87 CCA because it refers to "earlier payment". Therefore, the claimant does not need to send a default notice in the case of "arrears".

If your loan has ended, the claimant cannot send a TN either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you successfully argue that the DN is ineffective, the Termination notice is/was ruled ineffective as well. That didn't make any difference because the creditor does not need to issue a DN for the recovery of arrears if your loan has ended.

By coincidence, my loans' "end date" was a few weeks ago, therefore, the total amount of "arrears" totalled the same as the "amount outstanding"

The claimant knew that I had successfully argued that the DN they were relying upon was ineffective (and a fake). Nevertheless, the claimant changed their claim (in court) to recover the arrears, and not the amount in dispute, claimed on the claim form.

This is all pretty new to me too (this pm).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are receiving "statements" every six months. your creditor could claim against you, and any DN or TN you have already received will not be admissable in court because your creditor is claiming "arrears" and not attempting to claim "earlier payments" from the future.

 

You must fail to remedy the breach to get a DN.

A DN is required before your creditor can send you a TN.

If these docs are effective your creditor can then take the next step (enforcement). To recover earlier payments due in the future.

However, to recover sums due from the past (and your creditor has an enforceable agreement) your creditor needs to send you the statement twice a year, and that is all.

By my experience today, the court had been expecting it.

 

This is a new one on me too.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Popeye1, yes they unlawfully terminated the loan (IMHO).

There is 2 DNs.

1st one (relied upon) and an ineffective reconstruction.

2nd one is the true original, that I got in the post. They differ substatially.

The Judge didn't acknowledge my DN, said it is now irrevelant because the claimant is claiming for the arrears.

 

Quote

They terminated before the end of the life of the loan,I think you said so the account never run its full term.

 

The Judge said the account was not terminated, because the DN (relied upon) was ineffective. He didn't look at my DN, perhaps he didn't want to admit the claimant had been economical with the truth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HHe said DN was irrevelant ? But it was enough not to change the status of the account [ termination of the account ]

 

The claimants DN was ineffective. Therefore, the account was in effect, not terminated.

The account has how run its full term, and all sums due under the agreement are now "arrears".

A claimant does not need a DN or TN to claim for arrears.

A claimant needs a DN and TN to claim for sums payable in the future.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you're wrong bill

 

A claimant DOES need a DN in order to claim the arrears, it's the arrears that generate a DN

 

Hi VG, yes thats what I thought. However, once your loan agreement has run its course and all sums due are arrears, the claimant can claim for the arrears "bypassing" the need for a DN.

A (valid) DN is normally a warning shot, asking you to make up (remedy) the arrears due, whilst the account is running.

When the account is no longer running, the claimant does not need to comply with section 87, because there is no remedy.

At least that is my conclusion from todays events.

 

Regards Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put that wrong.

The DN was irrevelant but it changed the account which originaly was terminated to not being terminated

 

He said that both DNs and the TN are now irrelevant because the loan term has ended, and all sums due are arrears and not due in the future.

 

Regards Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were arrears on what authority were they collecting them if the agreement had ended

 

Also the change in the CCA is NOT retospective

 

& last but not least the Judge under CPR1 should not have permitted them to ambush you. I suggest this alone is strong grounds to appeal the Judgment, that you didn't have an opportunity to consider YOUR alternatives

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...