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
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • 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   -----------------------------------
  • 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

Me vs marlin in court next monday HELP


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5462 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

oh dear....HFC got it wrong again:( dodgy default notice= unlawful termination of agreement....bad news for them....EXCELLENT news for you!!:D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

the statements are from feb 06 - may 08 the charges are - default fee £40, late charge assessment £25, overlimit chg assessment £25,

the default notice (dated 17/10/07)

1. provision of agreement breached:

(a) payment of the minimum monthly repayments on the payment dates.

2.nature of breach:

(a) you have failed to pay the minimum monthly repayments totalling £4580.74

3. Action required to remedy

payment of the minimum monthly payments, namely £4580.74 referred to in 2(a) by 05th november 2007

 

Ok lets take it stage by stage - as a starting point - for a DN to be valid it must comply with the rules:-

 

Service you must have 14 days after the date of service. If the DN is sent by first class post service is deemed to take place two days after posting so that would be 19th - so 14 days from the 20th. If sent second class its' 4 days after posting so it would be the 21st for service with 14 days from the 22nd. If they sent it first class post it complies with the rules if they sent it 2nd class it doesn't - there needs to be evidence from HFC when and how it was posted.

 

The contents of the DN - I would argue that the DN is invalid as firstly it asks for payment of the minimum monthly amount when actually it wants repayment of the whole balance and secondly the sum claimed is wrong as it includes unlawful account charges. Look at post 30 - I've explained how I think you deal with the DN sums being wrong

Edited by I've got no money

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems your case mirrors mine in many ways...sadly for me my CCJ was given before I discovered CAG and am now fighting to get it overturned.

It also seems that HFC sold phoenix a lot of unenforceable cases which is why they are trying the route of CCJ to CO asap to get the debts secured.

Your default notice is not valid due to incorrect amounts stated regardless of whether it includes the charges or not so therefore Marlin terminated the agreement unlawfully and have no right to take court action.

 

The NOA at this stage appears to be invalid too due to discrepancies in the dates .

As far as the CA is concerned I'll leave that in IGNM capable hands cos I haven't seen hide nor hair of mine and since my 'agreement' dates back to 1999 I doubt I will!!.

 

Looks to me you've got a good defence.:cool:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in terms of the case generally I really do need to see your defence as I think that it's going to need amending.

 

In terms of tomorrow I think that you need to argue that:-

1. The need for the actual original agreement - there is not a signed agreement that complies with the Consumer Credit Act and it is irredeemably unenforceable

2. The amount claimed is wrong as it contains money pursuant to unfair contract terms and/or penalty clauses which are not binding on a consumer

3. In consequence the DN is invalid and the whole claim falls

4. The NoA - I'm a bit confused are you saying that you got the first letter which said the date of the assignment was may but that they say they sent you a letter saying it was July - because if you are then tell the court that and you'll find that the NoA is invalid as it has the wrong date on it. If they say that they sent you another letter out that letter must either have been sent registered post or hand delivered by them if it wsasn't unless you have acknowledged receipt they cannot prove service and the whole proceedings faiil.

 

Can I suggest that you read my skeleton - I've already given you the link to it and that you then re-read all of this thread and ask us if you want anything clarifying.

 

I should add that there may be other things wrong with the agreement, notices etc but without seeing them its' a bit difficult

 

Is that OK

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in terms of the case generally I really do need to see your defence as I think that it's going to need amending.

 

In terms of tomorrow I think that you need to argue that:-

1. The need for the actual original agreement - there is not a signed agreement that complies with the Consumer Credit Act and it is irredeemably unenforceable

2. The amount claimed is wrong as it contains money pursuant to unfair contract terms and/or penalty clauses which are not binding on a consumer

3. In consequence the DN is invalid and the whole claim falls

4. The NoA - I'm a bit confused are you saying that you got the first letter which said the date of the assignment was may but that they say they sent you a letter saying it was July - because if you are then tell the court that and you'll find that the NoA is invalid as it has the wrong date on it. If they say that they sent you another letter out that letter must either have been sent registered post or hand delivered by them if it wsasn't unless you have acknowledged receipt they cannot prove service and the whole proceedings faiil.

 

Can I suggest that you read my skeleton - I've already given you the link to it and that you then re-read all of this thread and ask us if you want anything clarifying.

 

I should add that there may be other things wrong with the agreement, notices etc but without seeing them its' a bit difficult

 

Is that OK

 

 

ive just noticed that the last statement that shows any charges is march 2006

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok lets take it stage by stage - as a starting point - for a DN to be valid it must comply with the rules:-

 

Service you must have 14 days after the date of service. If the DN is sent by first class post service is deemed to take place two days after posting so that would be 19th - so 14 days from the 20th. If sent second class its' 4 days after posting so it would be the 21st for service with 14 days from the 22nd. If they sent it first class post it complies with the rules if they sent it 2nd class it doesn't - there needs to be evidence from HFC when and how it was posted.

 

The contents of the DN - I would argue that the DN is invalid as firstly it asks for payment of the minimum monthly amount when actually it wants repayment of the whole balance and secondly the sum claimed is wrong as it includes unlawful account charges. Look at post 30 - I've explained how I think you deal with the DN sums being wrong

 

 

14 days from 22nd oct would be 5th nov so they are ok with that aren't they

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if they sent the DN by first class post - we don't know when it was sent - Marlin can't tell you because they don't act for HFC - if it was sent 2nd class it would be the 6th of November which is too late

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if they sent the DN by first class post - we don't know when it was sent - Marlin can't tell you because they don't act for HFC - if it was sent 2nd class it would be the 6th of November which is too late

 

 

2nd class 14 days from 22nd (31 days in oct) would surely be the 5th nov wouldn't it

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive just noticed that the last statement that shows any charges is march 2006

 

The OFT started an investigation in 2005 - they published a report in April 2006.

 

They (HFC) clearly knew that the charges were unlawful so they stopped adding them. What they should have done is refunded the earlier charges.

 

The issue is that the law says that an unfair term is not binding against the consumer. This is an application to strike out - the court can't, at this stage get into a determination of whether or not it actually is an unfair term - its' enough for yoy to cast doubt on it.

 

If you go to the OFT website and search credit card charges you'll find there are several documents - the one you want is 40 pages long and was produced in April 2006 - print it out and take it with you to court

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you relying on your own statements or ones that you have got from a SAR response?

 

 

I put in a defence i got from this site many months ago, before the 1st case, i turned up for court (naievely) not realising the need to also do a witness statement, i just told the judge i wanted to rely on my defence and that as they were taking me to court it was up to them to prove that i owed them the money. The judge was ok with that , when the case was adjourned he just asked marlin to get the original agreement and for them to produce a new witness statement, he didn't ask me for one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT started an investigation in 2005 - they published a report in April 2006.

 

They (HFC) clearly knew that the charges were unlawful so they stopped adding them. What they should have done is refunded the earlier charges.

 

The issue is that the law says that an unfair term is not binding against the consumer. This is an application to strike out - the court can't, at this stage get into a determination of whether or not it actually is an unfair term - its' enough for yoy to cast doubt on it.

 

If you go to the OFT website and search credit card charges you'll find there are several documents - the one you want is 40 pages long and was produced in April 2006 - print it out and take it with you to court

 

The reason I asked whether you are relying onyour own statements or SAR printout is because HFC continued to add charges to my account up until March '07. :rolleyes:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put in a defence i got from this site many months ago, before the 1st case, i turned up for court (naievely) not realising the need to also do a witness statement, i just told the judge i wanted to rely on my defence and that as they were taking me to court it was up to them to prove that i owed them the money. The judge was ok with that , when the case was adjourned he just asked marlin to get the original agreement and for them to produce a new witness statement, he didn't ask me for one.

 

Yeah sorry, I wasn't clear in my request:-) I meant Marbles monthly statements....they stopped sending me mine about 6 months before they sold the debt and that is part of my defence....i.e I have no idea how much I allegedly owe...didn't know if you were in the same boat there too.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

rochdalecowboy can you just check something for me - do the terms and conditions that they've supplied have default charges on - if so are they the same amounts as you were charged

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

rochdalecowboy can you just check something for me - do the terms and conditions that they've supplied have default charges on - if so are they the same amounts as you were charged

 

 

no mention of any amount for charges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then either there is no contractual basis for the charges OR as is much more likely the document they've supplied is the up to date terms and conditions and so it CANNOT have been on the back of the document you signed

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Cowboy,

Please also check your POC.

Marlin/Phoenix have a habit of also trying to claim interest after judgement. They are not entitled to do this either as if the agreement ever turns up :rolleyes: it would have been a regulated credit agreement. They may not have tried this one on you as your alleged debt is below £5000, but do check as they do go for every trick in the book.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

They say money talks......mine just keeps saying "Goodbye"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back from court the judge has given them judgement, the judge was different to the last hearing and he was a complete ****, i got the feeling he was against me from the moment i entered the room, he didn't see it as a problem that they didn't have the original agreement and thought that there explanation was ok that they just didn't have it, he dismissed my claims re the default notice, and just kept going on about using "probabilities".

Gutted but would like to thank all of you who took the trouble to help me i appreciate it so much

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you need to seriously consider an appeal

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Probablilities' don't come into it. Documents, proof and law do. Appeal.

 

I'm with DonkeyB - the form you need is an N161

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rochdalecowboy

 

Really sorry to hear your news the judge is wrong and you can appeal...BTW did you present the facts using s.127(3) with the relevant case law, Bennion ect?

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...