Finance U Ltd Car Repossession letter received **Round 1 WON... Ding, ding... Round 2 now on**

[nowayjose]

Im sorry I didnt quite understand your post, I am being persued for the full amount £6820 not for the sum on the Jan 2008 default notice £653, I need help filling in the defence

[postggj]

Nowayjose

Sitdown And Relax And Ill Try And Explain

 

They Have Terminated The Account By Sending You A Flawed Default Notice

 

Now You Were Very Good In Not Telling Them This, Now A Court Claim Has Started, Its Game Over

 

All They Are Entitled To Are The Arrears Up To The Default Notice,

The Remaning Balance Can Now Be Classed As A Gift Being They Have Terminated The Agreement

 

Pay The Arrears, No Ccj Recorded And No More Debt

 

Honest, Gospel I Know It Sound To Good To Be True But No Bovine Excrament

 

Ill Do A DefEnce, I Take It Its Mcol To Acknowledge Service

[nowayjose]

Im sorry but Im really not feeling confident about this, there is no default notice mentioned on their POC or any default notice attached to the court claim, its not MCOL it has to be sent back to the county court

I appreciate your help on this;)

[postggj]

They Cant Terminate An Account With Out First Sending A Default Notice

That Gives 14 Days To Rectify

 

The Beauty Of This Is It Goes In Your Defence And They Have To Reply To Your Comment

 

Me Thinks They Will Be Withdrawing The Summons

 

 

Ime Sure Pt

Surfacegent

Jonchris

 

They Will No Doubt Comment And Confirm

 

Pay The Default Ammount And You Have Won

[postggj]

ENJOY

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/165197-default-notice-re-issue.html

[janmal2000]

NWK - sounds too good to be true

stand by what these guys here are saying and push the FinUltd into touch - good enuf 4them

[nowayjose]

Ok Postggji, its a bit hard to get my head around it, like Janmal says it sounds too good to be true;)

You say I need to pay £653 - after the default notice was issued I managed to get the arrears down to £126 will this make any difference.. also in my defence is it relevant to mention they took the car without a termination notice and nothing was signed when they took the car?? what do you think??

[JonCris]

You reduced the arrears by over £500! Did they then send another DN for the lower amount of £126

[JonCris]

Also should it come to court remind it of their obligations to you the LiP consumer

State liability

 

 

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has developed a general principle of state responsibility for non-compliance with EC law. State liability derives from the fact that EU Member States are responsible for the creation and above all for the implementation and enforcement of EC law. Enforcement of state liability for violations of rights granted to individuals by EC law, including in the fields of employment and industrial relations, is carried out through the national courts of the Member States.

Many EU rights, particularly those in the many directives in the fields of employment and industrial relations, are enforced through the doctrine of direct effect of directives: the state and emanations of the state are liable, even where responsibility for the non-implementation of the EC directive lies with other organs of the State. The impact of directives remains limited, however, by the insistence of the ECJ on the exclusively vertical responsibility of the state (vertical direct effect) which prevents enforcement of directives against private individuals (horizontal direct effect) even where EC law imposes responsibilities on these persons.

The ‘useful effect’ (from the French effet utile) rationale for direct effect requires a remedy where private individuals fail to respect provisions of EC law. To circumvent the limitations of the doctrine of horizontal direct effect, the ECJ developed a general principle of state responsibility for compliance with EC law. This doctrine was created by a case in the field of employment rights: Andrea Francovich and Others v. Italian Republic, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, [1991] ECR I-5357, and the resulting principle of state liability is called the Francovich principle.

The elements of liability, which comprise the Francovich principle, that emerged from the decision of the ECJ include: (i) a breach of EC law; (ii) attributable to the Member State; (iii), which causes damage to an individual. If these elements are established, compensation may be claimed in a legal action before a national court.

The principle of state liability was said to be also explicit in Article 10 EC. It relies on a basic principle of the EU legal order: that national courts must protect the rights conferred by EC law on individuals, including enforcement of these rights where the state is responsible.

The breach of EC law in the Francovich case itself was a violation of the EC directive by reason of the national legislator failing to act to implement it. However, total failure to implement a directive is only one type of violation of EC law. Implementation of a directive by a Member State may be partial or incorrect or inadequate. There are numerous decisions of the European Court upholding complaints against Member States for faulty implementation of a directive.

The Member State remains responsible even when it has entrusted ‘management and labour, at their joint request, with the implementation of directives adopted pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3’, according to article 137(3) EC. In this case, the Member State must ensure that ‘management and labour have introduced the necessary measures by agreement’ and must take ‘any measure enabling it at any time to be in a position to guarantee the results imposed by that directive’.

Violations of EC law by different organs of the state will engage liability; the state is responsible for acts of public law bodies or others to which the state has delegated the performance of its responsibilities. For example, the Court has held that failure to transpose a directive into national law within the prescribed time limit amounts of itself to a sufficiently serious breach, giving rise to state liability (Dillenkoffer and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, Cases C-178-9/94, 188-190/94 [1996]).

The principle of state responsibility has potentially far-reaching implications for the enforcement of EU labour law. If an individual has a definable interest protected by the directive, failure by the state to act to protect that interest may lead to state liability where the individual suffers damage, provided causation can be demonstrated. The directives on health and safety at work, on equal treatment of women and men, and an increasing number of directives regulating individual and collective interests of workers, are a fertile field for exploration of the scope of state liability.

See also: Francovich principle; judicial enforcement of EC law; infringements of EC law; remedies for infringements of EC law; sanctions.

[nowayjose]

You reduced the arrears by over £500! Did they then send another DN for the lower amount of £126

 

 

No JC, the last DN issued was in JAN 2008 and they came for the car in JAN 2009

Thanks for replying the more comment the better

 

Much appreciated;)

 

NWJ

[nowayjose]

I have to go to work shortly, so I havent got time, but I will scan and post my statement of account I received from them in my SAR, perhaps it will make some sense

[Markiemark1]

The Particulars of Claim make no sense in my view! They are pretty much a nonsense, certianly not fully pleaded and particularised.

 

Mark

[nowayjose]

I agree Markie, they are a bit vague... After all he is defending himself;)

[nowayjose]

Bump, anyone;)

[janmal2000]

NWJ, have a look at the court papers and stuff he issued me - could be using the same basic standard format to everyone he defaults with. at least it will give you an idea of some of the things he will state if it does end up going to court.the man is a t@@ser. saving ££ not using solicitors & getting more and more practice to perfect his art of getting ££ off people!

[nowayjose]

Ive had a good look at your paperwork JM it was good to see the reply he sent to your defence, did you see that BEFORE you went to court, or did you only receive it after.... a bit confused I dont know how the court system works:?

 

What are you planning to do next:-|

[postggj]

hi nowayjose

 

a creditor issue a county court claim

you then have 14 days to acknowledge service

you then have two weeks to put in a defence

the other side has to then produce docs as you request them under civil procedure rules

 

a court bundle is then prepared, this gives the creditor or defendant a chance to refute the allegations

 

then a trial date will be set

 

 

ALL DOCUMENTS EACH SIDE WISH TO USE IN COURT

 

MUST BE GIVEN TO EACH SIDE PRIOR TO TRIAL

 

 

ISSUING A COUNTY COURT CLAIM IS ONE THING

GOING THROUGH WITH IT IS ANOTHER

[nowayjose]

 

 

 

I received this in my SAR request, showing all the action on the account and when they issued default notices and all the threatening text messages made to us.

 

 

 

 

This is the statement of account I received in the SAR request, showing default notice charges etc

 

Thanks Postggj that makes things a lot clearer,

I definately think he will go through with the claim, he has done before with Janmal, now trying to get a charging order on her house..

 

Postggj....What can I do about this now, I would like to get some idea of my defence, any help appreciated, I cant do it my own, wouldnt have a clue where to start;)

[janmal2000]

ALREADY got the charging order on my house!! dont know how to fight him now :(disgusting the way he has text you - that borders on stalking!!!

[nowayjose]

Im sorry to hear that JM, I really dont know what to say to you.... I dont think people on here realise what lowlifes F U LTD are.... the text messages were meant to scare us into contacting them, saying things like they are coming to get the car today if you dont phone us asap, to threats of reporting the car as stolen to the police if we dont contact them, even though there was an agreement set up on the account.... there are only text messages showing on the daily diary, but we also had endless messages left on our house answerphone, where anyone could listen to, saying that they are coming to get the car.... and to phone them to discuss the arrears on the car finance.... I used to feel sick with worry, I would offer to pay them my child benefit just to keep the car...

 

Im so angry, I dont want them to win this, but unless I am confident I have a good defence, I feel like filling out the expenditure form and admitting the debt, I feel so helpless at the mo:(

[postggj]

Hi Nowayjose

 

Not Forgot About You

 

Still Time

[cymruambyth]

Hi NWJ Try not to worry too much I'm sure you'll get the help that you need. They sound like right ********* and deserve everything that is coming to them. (Yes I know it is easier to give than receive that advice)

Edited June 24, 2009 by cymruambyth

[janmal2000]

NWJ

stand strong and we will all support you

dont let these losers win anymore - it is extremly daunting to go to court etc, but it is possible, the judge will make more than enough allowance for your nerves and inexperience, and will support you too by not allowing them to walk over you in there. you will also have everything explained easily, and helped along so to speak

[nowayjose]

Thanks both, just hope I dont get a Judge like the one I had when I applied to Set Aside my SD with 1st Credit... basically she said... you took out the credit and when you default they have the right to collect and if you cant pay youd be better off going bankrupt:mad:

[nowayjose]

Right I really want to crack on with this now.... On the Acknowledgement of Service, which box do I tick???? 1. I intend to defend all of this claim.... 2. I intend to defend part of this claim or 3. I intend to contest jurisdiction ????