Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • 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 xx/xx/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 xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/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.
  • 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

Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5297 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

Wilmington, Delaware... Don't worry my fellow caggers on another thread will get it!:D

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Manchester Cases

There is going to be a preliminary hearing in the week beginning 30 November to determine several legal principles. 13 cases have been chosen. All other cases are stayed pending hearing. Trial window in March 2010.

 

HHJ Waksman has said that he does not consider himself bound by the McGuff case as he is sitting in the Mercantile court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MBNA are trying to enforce an agreement and I have just found out the trial date is just over a month away.

The "agreement" they have sent in response to pre action disclosure is an application forms with my signature on and a completely seperate set of terms and conditions which comply with the CCA( not surprising as they were probably produced last week).

MBNA have actually confirmed in writing that they do not have the original agreement as it was copied electronically and destroyed some years ago.

They maintain however that the original document did contain these terms and conditions on the back and have produced a witness statement from one of their employees confirming their contention is correct.

Surely that can not stand up in court or do I need to get a witness statement from my girlfriend saying the terms and conditions were not on the back?

 

I just hope you are not in the Midlands have a look at my thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224011-what-day-court-help.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

humbleman,

 

It's possible hat MBNA are hoping they get a judge like the old duffer you had. I hope you are going to appeal.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just hope you are not in the Midlands have a look at my thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/224011-what-day-court-help.html

 

What happened to you is just unbelievable,hope you get a decent judge in your trial.

My trial is in Chester not the midlands but I guess there may be judges like the one you describe any where :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Manchester Cases

There is going to be a preliminary hearing in the week beginning 30 November to determine several legal principles. 13 cases have been chosen. All other cases are stayed pending hearing. Trial window in March 2010.

 

HHJ Waksman has said that he does not consider himself bound by the McGuff case as he is sitting in the Mercantile court.

News

 

Test cases to impact credit industry

 

Credit Today online

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's hope His Honor Judge Waksman leans more towards Judge John Deed than Emperor Nero!

 

Does anyone know the difference between the Admiralty/Commercial Court and the Mercantile Court?

 

It sounds like it is a battle between good and evil!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would request that they confirm with proof that the witness was employed by MBNA at the time the app form was scanned and micro-fiched (is that a word?). If they were not employed how do they know it was a true copy? I may be wrong, but doesn't the witness also have to have a certain standing/position for it to be reliable (not just the tea boy)? If you were with your girlfriend at the time you allegedly signed then why not:), must surely carry as much weight as the tea boys! (I dont mean the girlfriend carrying the weight :D).

 

i wouldnt mention it to them at all - until i was in court !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, I have just read the Daily Mail,and in their Money mail section page 48 and its haedline says "JUDGE CLOSES CYNICAL DEBT LOOPHOLE" AND IT GOES ON TO STATE THAT THE COMMERCIAL COURTS HAVE COME BACK AND GIVEN A DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE BANKS.SO NO AGREEMENTS OR UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENTS DEBTOR AS TO PAY. Sorry but scanner not working.

 

Manc1

MANC 1

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

haha the title... "Not paying Unenforceable agreements that can me made enforceable will still destroy your credit rating for 6 years" isnt quite as catchy as theirs is it.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its best to wait for some of the more legal bods to give us their opinions before we start assuming anything.

 

Manc1

Why, is this Mail report not more of the same as we had last week? Is this report based on the RBOS test case which has beend oen to death on here or is this something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the worst, most desperate, example of spin and misreporting I have seen on this issue. Does it even cite the case? NO. Does it explain the judgment? Ehm... NO. This is slack p*ss poor reporting and doesn't even meet bare minimum standard acceptable for publication. This "journalist" wouldn't have lasted five minutes where I cut my teeth. It is so general that unless someone can come forward and cite the case this article refers to I am going to continue to operate on the premise that this refers to the McGuffick case. In which case the agreement was enforceable. End of.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys i hope i am not going over a old story ?. Due to bad health i have not been on the forum for a while ,so might be a tad behind with the latest events.

 

Manc1

No problems, as stated above the article doesn't state what case it was but it is fair to assume it is the McGuffick case. If you want to catch up on this just read the last 20 odd pages! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this mean Nationwide will now put a charge on my property?

 

The only way a charge can be entered against your property is if they have taken you to court previously and gotten a CCJ against you.

 

This case is all about reporting to the CRA's for non payment of a debt, that debt WAS uneneforceable when the court case started but only due to an account statement being provided. As soon as that was supplied the debt would have become enforceable.

 

A Debt with a pre april 2007 agreement that does not have the prescribed terms and is therefore irredeemably unenforceable was not looked at.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Manc1

 

It is still the right thing to bring this to the thread's attention.

 

1. It might be a different case.

2. It serves to remind us all that the spin meister's are desperate for anything that will keep the trickle from turning into a tidal wave.

3. The whole slant is appalling and we need to see this stuff in order to counter it.

 

Hope you are recovering well.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5297 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...