Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. 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. 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 24/12/2022. 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 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: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
  • 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

Harrassed by Pargon - Advice Please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4679 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 had a loan from Alliance & Leicester in 1993. The loan was for £5000. I broke by leg and due to circumstances beyond my control could not make the payments. I was told I could not claim on the insurance because I was not in employment for more than 6 months (Although I had only just left the military after 9 years service and started work for the new company 1 week later).

 

A judgement was made against me to Universal Credit. The judgement was for £25 a month. These payments have been met constantly.

 

I am now being harrassed by Paragon Finance who say that they own the debt and that my payment of £25 a month is not meeting the "Contracted Terms" of £134 a month. Paragon have been running this account since 1999 and have never had a contract with me for anything. I have never signed a credit agreement with them.

 

Are they acting unlawfully?

 

Is this something that should be reported to either the OFT of FOS?

 

I feel that I am not alone with Paragon as a search on google reveals many more people seemingly being harrassed by them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pgh is correct. If you have been ordered by the court to make payments of £25 then that is what you should pay.

If Paragon want to change this then they will have to go back to court.

 

The issue of the six months is that you must have been in your current employment for a minimum of six months. If you had only just started with a new employer then it won't apply. If the creditor knew that you had only just started with that employer but still sold you PPI then it was mis-sold and you have a claim on that basis.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be very careful with these lot. They have a nasty habit of adding interest on top of the judgement debt so that you think it's reducing when in fact there is no chance of you ever paying it back. I had a judgement with them and asked for a balance in 2007 with a view to clear the debt. My judgement balance was under £1000 but they had added a further £10K in interest. I went to the CAB who gave me some very good advice. I paid the judgement balance in full and argued the validity of the interest. They agreed to write it off as a gesture of goodwill! They are using the OFTvFNB case which found in favour of FNB adding interest to judgements. However, they have to request a certain type of judgement to do this which they didn't do in my case and I believe they do not do it as a rule. I don't think they want to set a president which is why they seem to agree to write the interest off whenever someone argues the point. I would see if you can get a balance from them. They are very conspicuous in witholding that information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The judgement was not with Paragon, it was with Universal Credit. I believe that UC went bust in 1999 and Paragon bought the debt from them.

 

Is the advice still valid?

 

I know that interest was frozen as part of the judgment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it still applies. My original Loan was with Universal Credit too and all my payments up to the end were in the name of Universal credit. They will try it on with the interest as they keep the judgement balance and the interest balance separate. They use the words "Contractual Interest"

I would find try to find out exactly what is owed on the judgement and continue pay until you have cleard that balance only. If you need help to argue the interest case I can PM you a copy of my letter that i sent to got them off my back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find that the Courts have more power than a creditor. Paragon will find that out too. :)

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken to them to day, albeit a little heated. I spoke to Nicky Richards. (Pagagon Collections Manager) telling them that I was considering reporting them to the FSO. She insisted that as they had thousands of agreements that they knew the law. I asked them to provide me with a statement of account and a CCA with PARAGON FINANCE. She believes that they do have one, I know for sure that they do not have anything signed by me that would resemble any form of contract.

 

Is it me or do these people seem to think that anybody with a debt must also be stupid and will not challenge anything they say?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have spoken to them to day, albeit a little heated. I spoke to Nicky Richards. (Pagagon Collections Manager) telling them that I was considering reporting them to the FSO. She insisted that as they had thousands of agreements that they knew the law. I asked them to provide me with a statement of account and a CCA with PARAGON FINANCE. She believes that they do have one, I know for sure that they do not have anything signed by me that would resemble any form of contract.

 

Is it me or do these people seem to think that anybody with a debt must also be stupid and will not challenge anything they say? Got it in one

 

Golden rule from now on never call unkless you can record the conversation always write.

 

and the question re PPI did you take it out while serving in the forces, it may have been mis-sold

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd avoid speaking to them anymore......a few questions though, do you still have details of the judgment ? - if not have a look here - CCJs, court orders & fines - Search yourself and others - Trust Online Also is there anywhere in the life of the debt where you haven't made a payment for 6 years ? (5 in Scotland) or acknowledged it ? You need to make a CCA request in writing too, they can just deny you ever made it and it costs £1.... (however be warned they may state that they don't need to get it as judgment has already been passed on the debt....) - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/581-cca-request-letter.html

 

A SAR to the original creditor MAY possibly turn up something even after a long time.....but this costs £10 (send recorded) - http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/576-subject-access-request-debt-a-dca.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the PPI was taken while in the forces. I (as were many soldiers) was sold insurance that was heavily loaded even though in some cases we were not covered. I was sold Life insurance prior to Operation Granby that was heavily loaded. Only to find that they would not pay up any claims due to it being a war. The insurance guy actually came to my house and we signed the papers there. He knew I was going to the Gulf.

 

PPI is the biggest con ever. Even my mortgage insurance would not cover me when I broke my leg and then also tried it again when I had an operation (to fix the original break) 3 years later. They tried to argue that the operation was as a result of the original injury and as such was covered by the fact that I had not been in employment for 6 months. Even though I have only been out of work for 1 week in my entire life (I am now 40!).

 

I am awaiting a statement from Paragon. Unfortunately Moving home and having a wife that sees anything resembling clutter as rubbish means I do not have the details of the original judgment. I will look at the links though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they should have paid out then if you took the ppi out while in the forces, changing jobs does not mean the ppi is suddenly invalid.

 

you need to look at th PPi forum for guidlines on how to recalim this, first things first though send parasites a sar for all statements / agreements and any other crap they have on you, costs £10 send it recorded and do not sign just print - the template is under the link in 42mans post above

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for some excellent advice. I have just printed of the letter and it will be on its way this evening.

 

I feel that this entire business needs urgent reform and legislation. My friend has just been chased for a debt for a loan he was paying yet the company folded. Now a debt collector has knocked on his door 8 years later. He is determined that the debt collector has nothing on him and is taking them to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I now have had a reply from the letter I sent dated 7th April.

They have stated the following:

 

"As there is no obligation on us to produce a copy of the actual agreement executed by you, please find detailed below, the financial particulars relating to the loan."

 

They also state:

 

"Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act imposes an obligation to supply a 'copy of the executed agreement'. Section 180 of the act provides for the making of regulations governing the form and content of copy agreements and, pursuant to that section, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations were introduced in 1983.

 

Regulation 3 (2) expressly provides that a copy need not be an exact copy of the agreement signed in that we are permitted to exclude from the copy:-

(a) any details furnished by the customer (for example, any information required to underwrite the case and included in the agreement);

(b) any signature boxes, signature or date of signature; and

© in certain cases, the customer's name and address."

 

They provided details of the original loan ammount that was taken out with Alliance and Leicester. They then produced an extremely dodgy copy of a loan agreement where all the printed text is badly reproduced, and yet all the figures are obviously written in fresh and there is NO signature.

 

They then provided what appears to be a template letter that says that they took over from Universal Credit. The letter still has the mail merge field names in rather than the actual data and is not signed, dated or addressed to me. They also produced a copy of the original CCJ that clearly shows that the payment is not £134 a month as suggested by Nicky Richards. The agreement through the courts was for £35 a month.

 

I am prepared to continue making regular payments as agreed by both parties as per the CCJ.

 

What should I do now?

 

I feel that this really stinks and I may seek legal advice regarding any possible false representations. I simply can not believe that there is a loophole in the CCA that allows a company to claim a debt without producing Legible documents that include signatures and dates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are only entitled to what is stipulated on the court order, they cannot change it only a court can do that, in fact if your circumstances have changed and you are having difficulties paying that amount you could apply to the court for a redetermination hearing.

 

In fact a complaint to the OFT about them wouldn't be amiss.

[email protected]

 

tel: 020 7211 5823

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hi, dragging this up from the depths again.

 

I have been making regular payments of £35 to these parasites as the ORIGINAL CCJ stated, even though UC were happy for me to pay £25. Now I am getting phone calls from these people saying that as I have been paying £35 for a while they want to review my case. They started asking for things like "your mobile number" "your employers details" I quite rightly told them that they were not entitled to these details as under the Data Protection Act they only need enough data to carry out the job.

 

They told me that they are entitled to review the agreement even though I have a CCJ.

 

What reapply gripes me is that a company can "buy" a debt that is already being paid in accordance with a CCJ, then add interest etc and attempt to demand a greater monthly payment.

 

I also notice that the Subject Access Requests are useless as they simply reply with:

 

"As there is no obligation on us to produce a copy of the actual agreement executed by you, please find detailed below, the financial particulars relating to the loan."

 

They also state:

 

"Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act imposes an obligation to supply a 'copy of the executed agreement'. Section 180 of the act provides for the making of regulations governing the form and content of copy agreements and, pursuant to that section, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations were introduced in 1983.

 

Regulation 3 (2) expressly provides that a copy need not be an exact copy of the agreement signed in that we are permitted to exclude from the copy:-

(a) any details furnished by the customer (for example, any information required to underwrite the case and included in the agreement);

(b) any signature boxes, signature or date of signature; and

© in certain cases, the customer's name and address."

 

When I made my SAR I got the following:

 

There was an obviously doctored agreement form that did not bear my signature (or any signature in fact). The form was a badly photocopied document but my details had been written in using fresh Biro ink. A covering letter that was supposedly to show how the debt had been transferred from Universal Credit to Paragon was in its best form, useless. The letter was a document template without my name, address, or even a letterhead from universal credit. The document looked like a mail merge document with the field names included. Under scrutiny this would appear to be an attempt to falsely represent an actual debt to the company.

 

 

I really need to get these parasites off my back. Any advice, is as always, greatly appreciated.

 

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

They told me that they are entitled to review the agreement even though I have a CCJ.
They are only entitled to what was stated in the judgement, no more. Personally I would ignore them as you are adhering to the CCJ & they can do nothing.

 

You could always send them this if you prefer ;)

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971).

 

Yours,

Link to post
Share on other sites

What reapply gripes me is that a company can "buy" a debt that is already being paid in accordance with a CCJ, then add interest etc and attempt to demand a greater monthly payment.
Unless the judgement stipulated interest there isn't any.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again they have called. They are insisting on doing a full review. I even took the guys name and told him that if they continued to call I would contact the police and pursue a criminal harrasment case against them and the guy simply said "Whatever"

 

His name is Paul Watts, they are using different numbers to call me on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It seems as if Paragon are making a habit of this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?312161-Paragon-need-some-help-to-deal-with-them-!!!(11-Viewing)-nbsp

 

You should all complain to the OFT, your local Trading Standards & the MoJ.

 

Paragon are completely out of order here and in effect committing contempt of court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were not the original Claimant on the CCJ have they informed the court of this change ?

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...