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 
        • 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

Why Management Health & safety 1992


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5294 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

Okay, I will phone the disclosure officer as soon as I can. I feel if anything the first one was not reported, as this was on a right of way to the factory, that the company is ment to keep in good order and clean, as they run heavy plant on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whether the company drops it or not - what happened in that appeal cannot stand as it was not held in accordance with procedure - grievence would be going in if it were me - but then I'm a stoppy cow and don't let anything go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, the RIDDOR regulations also require an employer to report an incident that could have led to accident or injury.

 

For example; a brick is accidently knocked off a scaffold and hits the ground where someone could have been standing - this is reportable. Or if you had to swerve on Company premises to miss a piece of debris or a pothole. The fact that you might be unhurt is NOT the issue.

 

Bottom line all employers should have a dedicated individual appointed to carry out Risk Assessments and if more than 5 employees, a written Health and Policy presented to all and more importantly constantly reviewed and updated. If you have sustained illness or injury in connection with your employment you COULD make a claim against the company's Employers Liability (EL) insurance - details on the displayed (A legal requirement) EL certificate.

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have phoned HSE and gave them the ref number that RIDDOR gave me. It came up as an arm injury to another employee.

I told the person on the phone how I got to where I was and asked, had I asked for the search to be done in the right way. He said I had, but could do another search if I wanted, so I said yes.

 

He got back to me and said my accident was reported. I checked the date of the report, and it's for the second one. He said it was reported that a bike had skidded on sheet ice, resulting in an injury to the riders right foot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been back in touch with the HSE just to make sure that my accident from 3 years ago was not reported, and this is the case.

 

I still feel like I'm carrying the can for the company's failings on their traffic routs though.

 

Not only is it all the points that have been mentioned above, but now I know they were happy to brush the first accident under the carpet, but say they are banning bikes because of two accidents when it suites them. And as we have said the second may not of happened at all, had they acted on the first one.

 

Anyway, as this thread has died of some what and I don't know if there is anything I can do to have my grievance upheld, I would like to say thanks for all the replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right the first injury should have been reported and appropriate action taken at that point.

 

Anyway, you can put in another grievence citing the 1st grievence and subsequent appeal were flawed due to inccorect information i.e. management of health and safety regs 1992 and the fact that the appeal was held by the same person - in direct contravention of the grievence and appeals process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did think of doing this, as you mentioned it earlier. But not sure it will change their minds.

 

And now I know they never reported an accident that they should have, it's just another fact I can chuck back at them. I'm not very good at all this though, and so find it hard to understand what to do. For example, I can't just say that the appeal was, in direct contravention of the grievance and appeals process. Because if they press me on it, thats all I know lol.

 

Where can I read up on the proper way do this process?

Edited by eggyhead
bad spell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have been looking but can't find anything that says the same person can't chair the grievance and it's appeal. In fact on the businesslink site it says this.

 

 

Ideally the person hearing the appeal shouldn't be the same person that heard the initial hearing, eg a more senior manager who has not been involved with the grievance process at all. They will be able to hear any appeal without having any assumptions.

 

 

However, where the person hearing the appeal is the same person who heard the first hearing, they should act impartially and make sure they review the original decision carefully.

 

So I feel this is all the MD will say!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is off the ACAS website - which is the be all and end all of employment law.

Noone wants to fall foul of these...

 

Conduct of the hearing

  • remember that a grievance hearing is not the same as a disciplinary hearing, and is an occasion when discussion and dialogue may fruitfully produce the answer

  • make introductions as necessary

  • invite the employee to re-state their grievance and perhaps how they would like to see it resolved

  • care and thought should go into resolving grievances. They are not normally issues calling for snap decisions, and the employee may have been holding the grievance for a long time. Make allowances for any reasonable 'letting off steam' if the employee is under stress

  • after any summing up, management may find it useful to adjourn - they may need to explore possibilities with other managers about the resolution of the grievance, or they may themselves wish to take advice on how to proceed further

  • tell the employee when they might reasonably expect a response if one cannot be made at the time, bearing in mind the time limits set out in the procedure

  • respond to the employee's grievance in writing within the time limits specified in the procedure

  • if the employee is unhappy with the decision the employer should arrange an appeal

  • the appeal should be heard by a more senior manager than the one involved in the grievance. In small firms, if this is not possible, another manager, the owner or, in the case of a charity the board of trustees, should hear the appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just on the ACAS site. Honest lol. Thanks for that.

 

Am I within my rights to ask my employer to see any risk assessments they have done in relation to the two bike accidents? Or does he not have to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All employees should not only read all risk assessments relevent to their job but should have signed something to say they have read and understood them

 

Health and Safety 101 - your employers don't seem to know very much at all.

 

I bet a drop in investigation by the local EHO might go down a storm

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Sorry for not getting back sooner, but I now have more important things to press on with. My employer has now decided I am being considered for redundancy!!

 

I think I'll need to start another post lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would stop messing about, and go to Claims Are Us, and let them do the shouting.

The employer has got to provide you with a safe working environment. The fact you went down a hole in the road, is your employers fault, cos if oil wont there tha wunt of gon down it.

These type of incidents can be stopped by 3 monthly inspections of the workplace.

You have 3 years to claim for this type of thing.

I fell down a manhole and sustained 6 stitches in my right shin, I claimed through the Union and nearly 3 years later I got £2000.

I would rather have not gone down the man hole, but the employer is at fault.

As the advert says, " A slip, trip or fall anywhere. "

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I know they have failed in their duty of care and have had a claim on going from day one, and have brought grievances about the traffic routes and being banned from using my bike on site, all is in this thread.

 

This is why I feel I am about to be made redundant. I have a solicitor to look into it and a union, because yet again I don't feel my employer is following procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Regardless of what regulation your employer is banding around he has an overall responsibility for the safety of all that visit his site, which would mean repairing pot holes and the like. I would look at pushing him with section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 as he has not provided you with a "Safe Place of Work". Of course there are plenty of more Acts and Regulations that would apply to your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...