Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. 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.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   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? Credit Card   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 ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   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. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   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? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

Luxx -v- RBOS **Bank resumes claim from 2009 !!??**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3716 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

Evening All,

Been a while, but RBOS are back after the test case and are claiming for the bank charges element of this old claim. Since the case was stayed in 2009, the amount owing is now statute barred. So my question is can i use this as part of my defence (which has to be in by tomorrow), or does the stay allow them to still claim?

 

Also, I am unclear as to when the test case even finished? Anyone any ideas?

And since the test case, has anyone dealt with similar claims where the bank are claiming charges from you?

 

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually...i believe that the test case finished in nov 2009?... last payment on the account was jun 2007 - in march 2009 RBOS kindly credited the same account with the £1 i sent for a copy of the CCA which I specifically stipulated was only to be used for the purpose of the CCA (thankfully i retained all correspondences) ...so again question is, is this statute barred?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Luxx,

 

Can you tell us what's happened for this to be brought back as a "live" case. For example, did the bank apply to have the Stay lifted and when.

 

From a brief read back through the thread, the o/d was made up entirely of unlawful charges.

 

If the last payment made to the a/c was back in 2007, I would work on the lines that the bank had plenty of time to apply for the case to be unStayed, before the debt became older than 6 years.

 

I'd argue that they have failed to act in a timely manner after the Supreme Court ruling decided that default charges were allowed.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

good plan Slick...that's what i thought.. this has only come alive again in the last month or two. they applied for the stay to be lifted and the court wrote to us and said defence had to be in by tomorrow.

We rang them to explain wed been through this before and already submitted defence, loan claim was discontinued, AQ completed and even sent the court bundle to court and claimants. They said just submit defence for the bank charges bit by 4pm tomorrow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you confirm when they applied for the stay to be lifted.

 

When did you get notice of this.

 

If you have already submitted a Defence, I wonder why the court is now telling you to do this again.

 

However, after the result of the Supreme Court case, your old Defence will be redundant and far less useful in defending against their claim against you. If you have not been given adequate warning of the need to file a new and updated Defence, you need to apply for more time to do this.

 

In any event, I think you will need to tackle this differently from how it would have been done way back in 2009. It may be that you should oppose the lifting of the Stay and apply for the case to be Struck Out as an abuse of process, based on their failure to bring the matter back to court in a timely manner.

 

I'll ask for more input on this from Site Team and I've changed the thread title slightly.

 

Answer my Q's above and we'll take it further.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

We received a letter from DWF dated the 6th Feb including an application notice for the stay to be lifted, and asking for the defendants defence and counterclaim to be struck out as no possibility of success etc, and looking for us to pay costs.

Then received a letter from the court dated the 10th saying the parties have to file a defence and counterclaim by 4pm today

 

Last activities on the account were one final payment from my wife in Dec 2007 , followed by them paying in the £1 postal order in March 2009 after we requested the CCA and stated that the £1 was to be used speicifically for that purpose alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what i came up with this morning by way of a defence.. any advice/suggestions/inclusions or omissions?

Do i need to include any documentation referred to in the defence at this stage?

 

All advice welcomed

 

1) The claimants particulars of claim are vague and fail to disclose any cause of action, they appear to be an abuse of the process in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules.

2) The claimant was unable to produce any evidence by way of a consumer credit agreement for redress sought in the original Claim in relation to an alleged loan agreement, and that element of the claim was retracted.

 

2) The claimaint’s claim was stayed in Oct 2009 to allow the outcome of the OFT test case around unfair bank charges

3) The OFT test case concluded in Nov 2009.

4) The Claimant has failed to act in a timely manner since the outcome of the OFT test case, and the account to which the claimant refers to is now statute barred.

5) According to documentation received by the claimant in 2009 as a result of a SARS request, a statement from the claimant records final activities by the defendant on the account as being in Dec 2007.

6) A subsequent deposit of £1 is recorded in March 2009 following a request to the claimant (including a £1 postal order for administration fees) for a copy of the alleged loan agreement.

7) In a letter to the claimant dated 16/02/09 the defendant specifically stipulated that the £1 postal order was not to be used for the purpose of anything other than obtaining the alleged Consumer Credit Agreement for the alleged loan to which the claimant could not respond.

8) The Defendant denies making or authorising any payment on the account since Dec 2007 and puts the Claimant to strict proof if the suggestion is otherwise.

8) The Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 states “An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”

9) The last payment or acknowledgement of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time.

10) Unless the claimant can provide evidence of payment or written contact in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I suggest that this case be struck out as an abuse of process.

 

11) Further and in the alternative it is not admitted that the sums claimed are lawfully owing. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to how the sum claimed has been calculated and as to how it is asserted that the sum claimed is contractually owing.

 

12 ) Without admission that any cause of action is shown by the Claimant it is denied that I am indebted to the Claimant as alleged or at all.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Site Team are aware and will look in asap.

 

When did you receive the letter of 10th Feb. If you rec'd this late, you should tell the court the deadline to file submissions is unreasonably short is in view of the delay in sending the notice out. You could seek an extension in case this is not sorted today. However, the draft Defence above looks ok and you may prefer to submit this, rather than miss the deadline.

 

Don't include abbreviation "SARS". Use "Subject Access Request".

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinion so far is that the case cannot be SB'd once the court action was commenced.

 

I'm still waiting on opinion about the Claimant's failure to have the Stay lifted in a timely manner, like a LOT sooner.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

from what i can see, the only relevant mention of stays is in part 26 of the CPR

 

Stay to allow for settlement of the case

 

26.4

(1) A party may, when filing the completed directions questionnaire, make a written request for the proceedings to be stayed(GL) while the parties try to settle the case by alternative dispute resolution(GL) or other means.

(2) If all parties request a stay the proceedings will be stayed for one month and the court will notify the parties accordingly.

(2A) If the court otherwise considers that such a stay would be appropriate, the court will direct that the proceedings, either in whole or in part, be stayed for one month, or for such other period as it considers appropriate.

(3) The court may extend the stay until such date or for such specified period as it considers appropriate.

(4) Where the court stays the proceedings under this rule, the claimant must tell the court if a settlement is reached.

(5) If the claimant does not tell the court by the end of the period of the stay that a settlement has been reached, the court will give such directions as to the management of the case as it considers appropriate.

 

Seems to suggest that in this case the stay should have been lifted after the test case finished ie: Nov 2009

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you bring the particulars forward Lux (verbatim) less any identifiable data.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The claimants claim is in respect of monies due pursuant to an account maintained with the claimant.....and the claimant claims 1. £5427.57"

Thats it in its entirety no account numbers.... no interest.... no Pre action protocol?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The claimants claim is in respect of monies due pursuant to an account maintained with the claimant.....and the claimant claims 1. £5427.57"

 

Thats it in its entirety no account numbers.... no interest.... no Pre action protocol?

 

That was the original POC back in 2009

 

This is the recent communications dated the 6th Feb

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49369[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]49370[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could convert to Pdf ..I seem to have misplaced my magnifying glass :-D

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so they are also requesting Summary Judgment (CPR24) but without the need of an hearing should CPR 3.4 fail.

 

Personally I see a need to vary the original defence and CC greatly the Supreme Court ruling does not change the stance...it simply confirmed that OFT can not challenge unfair charges in the way that they did with Credit Cards.It was not adjudged that the penalty charges are fair or unfair or unlawful..as stated more to do with warning the OFT off their backs.

 

Since that ruling you will note that bank charges have decreased considerably and even been eradicated in some cases therefore only confirming that the OFT were correct to try to challenge them.

 

The only amendment required to your original defence would be the addition that the claimant by not acting promptly following the Supreme Court ruling as disadvantaged you by delaying your counter claim and also prevented said debt from becoming Statute Barred pursuant to the Law and Property Act and statute of limitations.

 

It is unjust that the claimant is allowed to proceed on a claim that has been stayed and remained stayed for a period of xxxxxxx which penalised your counter claim from proceeding.

 

 

Edit to suit.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so they are also requesting Summary Judgment (CPR24) but without the need of an hearing should CPR 3.4 fail.

 

Personally I see a need to vary the original defence and CC greatly the Supreme Court ruling does not change the stance...it simply confirmed that OFT can not challenge unfair charges in the way that they did with Credit Cards.It was not adjudged that the penalty charges are fair or unfair or unlawful..as stated more to do with warning the OFT off their backs.

 

Since that ruling you will note that bank charges have decreased considerably and even been eradicated in some cases therefore only confirming that the OFT were correct to try to challenge them.

 

The only amendment required to your original defence would be the addition that the claimant by not acting promptly following the Supreme Court ruling as disadvantaged you by delaying your counter claim and also prevented said debt from becoming Statute Barred pursuant to the Law and Property Act and statute of limitations.

 

It is unjust that the claimant is allowed to proceed on a claim that has been stayed and remained stayed for a period of xxxxxxx which penalised your counter claim from proceeding.

 

 

Edit to suit.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Many Thanks for the advice Andy, and many thanks to Slick too.

I will amend the defence accordingly and get it sent. Will let you know the outcome :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may also wish to submit a Witness Statement in response to their application vis a CPR 24 (Summary Judgment) this must be served not less than 7 days pre hearing.

 

Best of luck

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...