Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
  • 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

Tate-Lloyd/Claims Management UK


adz1985
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5053 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

As a partner in the company she is ultimately responsible for the language her staff use when engaging with a client, it is her duty to provide the necessary training to educate her staff accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry this is an outright lie as *****do not have a merchant facility.They do not take payment direct from clients.

look i dont lie the sale team said this to me who ever they are if ***** want to sue me let them try you sound like you work for them

Edited by MARTIN3030
Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at this in more depth I have discovered that they do not purport to be solicitors.

By saying that they are a [problem], you could be sued and just consider the implications for one moment if you are incorrect.

 

Please do your research.

 

I did.

 

I'd read your post #33 - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2130851.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caroline,

 

Reading back through the thread you have imparted an awful lot of knowledge of these

 

1/ Not true at all. They have a team of staff.

 

2/ ***** resigned due to ill health

 

3/ their system has been copywritten so you need to be aware of this.

 

4/ ****** do not use the CCA as this system takes too long

 

5/ ***** are solicitors and they do not need an MOJ licence as they work indirectly and do not market their business.

 

6/ I can assure you out of the money you state, Tate-lloyd will have seen very little of this.Who did you pay the money to?

 

7/ I have seen letters from lenders regarding this re clients whose have been.

 

8/ With regard to your own situation i suggest that you drop a short e-mail to **EDITED** and explain your situation and mention that you exchanged email correspondence with Caroline2009 and wondered if you could have an update. I will mention this to them and let's see if we can speed this up for you.

 

9/ Sorry this is an outright lie as ***** do not have a merchant facility.They do not take payment direct from clients.

 

10/ Final office move completed today. No work has been done this week due to this.

 

11/ You've been told they don't want clients making payments on credit cards.

 

and mostly in a very defensive tone.

 

If I was ******* I would be extremely worried about a chatty member of staff revealing all to a friend who then posts on an open forum.

Edited by MARTIN3030

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

look i dont lie the sale team said this to me who ever they are if ***** want to sue me let them try you sound like you work for them

 

****don't have a sales team.

What are you talking about??????????

 

I think you are confused here.

Edited by MARTIN3030
Link to post
Share on other sites

****** don't have a sales team.

What are you talking about??????????

 

I think you are confused here.

how all of these people cant be wrong i just want THE ****** to do what they say they can do and clear all my debt

Edited by MARTIN3030
Link to post
Share on other sites

Caroline,

 

Reading back through the thread you have imparted an awful lot of knowledge of *********

 

1/ Not true at all. They have a team of staff.

 

2/ ***** resigned due to ill health

 

3/ their system has been copywritten so you need to be aware of this.

 

4/ ********do not use the CCA as this system takes too long

 

5/ ****** are solicitors and they do not need an MOJ licence as they work indirectly and do not market their business.

 

6/ I can assure you out of the money you state, Tate-lloyd will have seen very little of this.Who did you pay the money to?

 

7/ I have seen letters from lenders regarding this re clients whose have been.

 

8/ With regard to your own situation i suggest that you drop a short e-mail to **EDITED** and explain your situation and mention that you exchanged email correspondence with Caroline2009 and wondered if you could have an update. I will mention this to them and let's see if we can speed this up for you.

 

9/ Sorry this is an outright lie as ******* do not have a merchant facility.They do not take payment direct from clients.

 

10/ Final office move completed today. No work has been done this week due to this.

 

11/ You've been told they don't want clients making payments on credit cards.

 

and mostly in a very defensive tone.

 

If I was ******* I would be extremely worried about a chatty member of staff revealing all to a friend who then posts on an open forum.

 

Yes I assumed they were sols until I researched it further.

No I am not a member of staff.

Do know more than most about the firm and therefore it is interesting and worrying to see how quickly a picture can be painted that is inaccurate.

 

They absolutely do not have a sales team and do not take payments so a posting prior to this stating that money was paid to them is an outright lie.

 

They process paperwork, that's it.

 

Reading these posts is like watching a group of 10 year olds in a playground.

Judging from one of the more recent posts not only are there IQ issues but emotional intelligence ones aswell with some of the posters.

 

Bottom line - money was not paid directly to ******* so if there is a problem then surely you should go directly to the person you did pay.

 

Actually using the CCA is so slow and tedious and if there is a faster method why not use it. Managing client expectation should be done by the company that sells the service.

If the timescales have been delayed it must be frustrating but the end result is worth the wait as it is still faster than the CCA route.

 

The company selling it should give full info as to what is involved and if they feel it is not appropriate for the client they should make a judgement and tell them so.

 

Come on all of you, grow up and see this for what it is: an opportunity to make the debt unenforceable faster than CCA. May be a rough ride but it works.

The firm have had some internal issues and are addressing them.

 

For all of you who think you are so clever the same system is used in the US.

Edited by MARTIN3030
Link to post
Share on other sites

THEY DO NOT HAVE A SALES TEAM

 

 

So they just allow any company to advertise and attach themselves likle limpets ...............oh and get a small slice of the fees.

 

Fees that have been paid by people, who, when in debt, are paying to be free of debt !

 

How hypocritical !

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they just allow any company to advertise and attach themselves likle limpets ...............oh and get a small slice of the fees.

 

Fees that have been paid by people, who, when in debt, are paying to be free of debt !

 

How hypocritical !

 

Your attitude disgusts me.

They do not take a large fee.

They do a service and yes they charge for it. It is faster than the CCA route.

Please do not display your egotistical tendencies on this thread.

Just because there is a company out there who has a good method.

You have not understood anything of what I have said.

They have helped many people who are desperate and vulnerable.

This thread is a sham.

 

There is no honesty in it.

You are only interested in perpetuating your preconceived opinion which is not factually based.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please do not PM me and then abuse the reply I proffered...........I now see why offering advice by PM is frowned upon !

 

I'm sure the mods will take a look at what was posted

 

I do not condone the actions of proposing such companies that charge a fee for those services.

 

As such, I find your responses on this thread very repulsive and a good indication as to why such companies should be avoided at all costs.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reported post acknowledged.

First of all CAG has never supported nor encouraged anyone to use third parties who charge fees to do something that you can easily do yourself for free.

In 2008 following an increase of firms who were advertising their services for claims management,and the promise of debt clearance,the FSA jointly with the MOJ introduced tougher measures and introduced new licencing criteria for those operating in these fields.

As a result we have seen different activites including those with MOJ licences "Farming out" business to other parties.

Lets be clear,none of these people are working or offering services for nothing.

In some instances there is 25% commission plus vat which borders on a third !!

I see no reason as to why any of these people should be given publicity on this site.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has she forwarded any letters onto you yet?

 

 

Yes she has, and if anybody would like to see proof that this system is working please feel free and send an email to email address removed by site team

 

Dr. Lloyd has left due to health problems, we have moved offices, to expand our admin department, simply to provide a better service.

We never claimed to be solicitors, however both Dr Lloyd and I have a legal backround. We have advised our staff not to refer to us as "Solicitors". We are making clear in our letters, that we are providing a file management service. The process takes a minimum of 28 days, however we have to appear reasonable at all times. Creditors are getting more and more aggresive, to the point of telling one of our customers that "even if the debt is squashed in court, you still owe us the money".

We receive very little money, and are making hardly any profit.

I believe it is time that people are aware of the way banks are working, and if anybody would like to have information regarding this please email me, and I send the info.

 

Tate-Lloyd

Edited by ScarletPimpernel
Remove advertising email address
Link to post
Share on other sites

memberofstaff:

 

The email address has been edited out of your post, since the final sentence appears to be thinly-veiled advertising. Why not make us all aware of the way banks are working, rather than asking people to contact you individually - especially as workload appears to be an issue.

 

Perhaps you can answer a few questions:

 

- with whom is your contract - the individual who has paid for your services, or the introducer or intermediary?

 

- you've confirmed that Tate-Lloyd aren't solicitors, so what qualifications do the principals or staff have? What is the 'legal background' you refer to?

 

- what is your success rate?

 

- the email address you posted relates to another firm who are a debt management consultancy. Are you the same firm or a separate legal entity?

 

- a search of the ICO database reveals that Geoffrey Lloyd (retd) is registered as a data controller, but Tate-Lloyd is not - data controllers have to list all trading names. The database isn't always entirely up to date, so can you confirm your data registration number?

 

- similarly, I was unable to locate Tate-Lloyd or the principals on the OFT's database of consumer credit licence holders - and any business helping people with debt requires a licence. Again, the database may not be entirely up to date, so can you confirm your consumer credit licence number?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reported post acknowledged.

First of all CAG has never supported nor encouraged anyone to use third parties who charge fees to do something that you can easily do yourself for free.

In 2008 following an increase of firms who were advertising their services for claims management,and the promise of debt clearance,the FSA jointly with the MOJ introduced tougher measures and introduced new licencing criteria for those operating in these fields.

As a result we have seen different activites including those with MOJ licences "Farming out" business to other parties.

Lets be clear,none of these people are working or offering services for nothing.

In some instances there is 25% commission plus vat which borders on a third !!

I see no reason as to why any of these people should be given publicity on this site.

 

Your track record is good.

So have you cleared card debts in full.Also would you agree that sometimes when you are stressed and over burdened with it all, sometimes it may feel easier to pay a small fee to get a company to do it for you. I was and know how it can feel during a vulnerable time in your life, say divorce, to want to just hand it to someone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone.

I began to look up Tate Lloyd on line and came across this thread.

 

I too was contacted by claim management uk, by a guy named Edit, Edit explained how my credit cards could be eradicated and after just getting divorced myself, it seemed like an ideal opportunity to clear my debts.

I have paid the fee of £275 on one of my credit cards directly to a girl named Edit at Edit.

I was duly contacted by Tate Lloyd within a few days, and I have had three affidavits sworn, and returned the same to tate Lloyd.

Since then I have heard nothing. Granted the "28Day" period as quoted by Claim Management hasnt passed yet, but Im getting a sinking feeling after reading all your responses, that maybe this isnt going to work.

 

One of the other posters sent a thread saying that Mint had closed his account, does that mean that he is now liable to pay his outstanding balance in full?

Also I was under the impression that Tate Lloyd would deal with the respective credit card companys once the affidavits had been forwarded, Caroline is this the case?

Can anyone tell me exactly what the sequence of events are supposed to be.

Am I going to get people from the credit card companies contacting me and threatening to destroy my credit worthiness, and if so what should be my response?

I am going to let this progress as I have paid my fee, to Edit who in turn have passed my details on to Tate Lloyd.

 

I was concerned that on the three occaisions that I have tried to contact Tate Lloyd, that all three messages are still awaiting replies as promised on their answerphone system.

 

I am looking forward to any replys

 

Thanks

Edited by saintly_1
Removal of names and advertising
Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited out a quote that has been edited

 

Hi there,

If you see above a member of their staff has written on the thread.

You have nothing to worry about.

The system is that about three weeks after the first Affidavit you will have a final one to have sworn. Once this goes off to the lender that should be it. You will get a final document from Tate-Lloyd confirming completion and possibly something from the lender, but sometimes you may have to rely on the completion document.

There is a backlog, not helped by moving offices. If you email them now at the address you have for them, it may help. Tell them you have not received the final affidavit. However you will be in the system.

Mine was slightly delayed also but came in the end.

 

I think you will find it easier to contact them now the move is complete.

It is easy when you read this posts to jump to conclusions and also for other posters to whip up a frenzy among the readers that everything is a [problem] without looking at the full facts. To date all hat has happened to you is that the process is a little delayed.

If you do have hassle from creditors there is a letter that Tate-lloyd can provide that you can send them stating relevant statutes that show it is illegal for the lenders to chase you while the debt is in dispute.

Sometimes there does seem to be little communication between the lenders and the companies they use to collect the debts but just tell them it is disputed.

 

One lender completely backed off when I told them it was disputed and apologised for calling!!! Another has passed it to their collection company but I have told them it is disputed and to refer back to the original lender.

 

Anyway, you have nothing to worry about. Just email them and say you have not received the final affidavit and can they send it out.

The end result is worth it. Divorce plays complete havoc with your finances so I really empathise with you.

Yes, Tate-Lloyd will speak to your creditors but it may not stop them chasing you.

Edited by saintly_1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited out a quote that has been edited

 

 

We are aware that some sales people are claiming it only takes 28 days, however this is only the minimum. We have addressed this issue, which causes a lot of problems for Tate-Lloyd.

I also like to point out that we only offer a File management service, basically we are sending letters on behalf of our customers.

We are not making any claims, nor do we give debt advice, we are refering to the OFT Debt collection guidlines.

Once the process starts our customers usually dont hear from us untill the process is over, unless the customer is contacting us.

 

However please email if you have any concerns.

Edited by saintly_1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many of us would be reassured if either memberofstaff or Tate-Lloyd's number 1 supporter would answer the points I raised above, particularly those relating to compliance.

 

Just to reiterate, any business that collects data (such as customers' names and addresses) is required to be registered with ICO. The OFT says that a business that helps people with debt problems (this is the OFT's own broad definition), requires a consumer credit licence. Given that these registrations are both legally required and in the public domain, I don't imagine that a legitimate business would have any problem providing confirmation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only just spotted this thread. I am well known for my distain at certain types of claims management companies. The ones that charge an upfront fee as the post offices will only give them Gold encrusted stamps for their letters since the price of three stamps and a subject access request is £49.99.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

42man considering the company was incorporated in February 2009(check companies house) IT IS clear advertising already. Nice try though by those working for the company to at least try.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you been paying any money to your creditors?

no i have not payed the creditors for three months and i got a letter from there solicitors so in the end i gave in and payed them but now i am black listed because of what the tate and lloyd have advised me to do

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...