Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks Dx. I have tidied the defence up with your suggestions amended. Does it look right now? Thanks!   1.    Monies due under current account facility xxxxxxxxxxxx. The claimants claim is for the balance outstanding under the facility provided by Halifax to the defendant. It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable by the defendant in full on demand.   2.    The defendant has failed to repay the amount due following the service of a demand.   3.    The debt was assigned to the claimant.   4.    The claimant therefore claims 1. 5k 2. costs   Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.    3. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.   4. Paragraph 1, Whilst I accept that I have in the past held a current account with Halifax Bank Plc. I have not serviced this account since 08/07/2016 due to the punitive charges and interest being applied which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate. The amount claimed is far in excess of any agreed overdraft limit with Halifax Bank. I deny that the account exceeded an agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds and claim that this is a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue.    5. Paragraph 2 is denied as the original creditor has failed to serve a Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence any breach.    6. Paragraph 2 is further denied as i am unaware of Halifax Bank ever providing me with a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   7. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. 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. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   8. Paragraph 4 is denied. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.   9. As per Civil Procedure icon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.     a. Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on. b. Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification. c. Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. d. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   e. Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   10. On receipt of this claim I immediately requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request, which was received by the Claimant on the *******. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. Therefore the claimant in their non compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.     11. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
    • MPs are pushing authorities to respond to allegations of potential fraud at certain banks, whereby it’s claimed home repossession documents weren’t actually signed by the authorised signatory View the full article
    • Thanks Dx. Amended defence set out below. Does it look right now?   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.     3. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of any payment terms for the stated agreement.     5. Paragraph 3 is denied. It is denied that Cabot Financial served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the claimant or the original creditor.     7. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. 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 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. 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.  
    • I'm generally convinced that there is at least 2 users on MSE that's in my thread that has friends or family or even themselves that have similar line of work to MB or Gladstone.   I don't mind different opinions but they're just throwing out playground insults to me for using that letter saying I'm stupid, prat, idiot etc etc for doing it and not including in the letter without prejudice so it can't be used against me in court. I think I'll leave MSE and just stick with CAG and in this case.    
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this ‘clone firm’. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4016 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Post it here then. :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

I would if I could remember it all...lol. but here goes

 

This artical is a misrepresentation of the facts. It is not a loop hole in the law, it is the banks not conforming with legislation. Where does it talk about the narrow confines of the ruling i.e. s77 only and that it's concerns are with redeemable unenforceable credit agreements. Also where does it take about the future test cases that may probably overturn this ruling.

 

Thats the general gist or atleast based around this. There are a few other points but for the life in me I cannot remember

 

Now anyone want to take the bet

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now anyone want to take the bet?

 

Nah,...I'll keep my tenner!

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

Links to other sites whether commercial or not are clearly explained in site rules.

Its not a case of engineering moderation as it suits nor targetting specific discussion-the posting guidance is clear for all-and applied to all,theres nothing complicated about that.

What other websites choose to allow or what goes on there is their business-we have our own and members are expected to comply with them.

simple as.

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

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

BANK CHARGES CAMPAIGN CONTINUES - PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION

 

Aktiv Kapital £300.00 SETTLED IN FULL

Capital One £741.47 SETTLED IN FULL

Citi Cards £1221.00 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(personal) £3854.28 SETTLED IN FULL

LTSB(business) £7487.97 SETTLED IN FULL

 

What poor education I have received has been gained in the University of Life

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Mail playing the old good cop, bad cop routine?

 

I think we should be told! :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

Numerous posts have been removed from this thread due to being "off-topic", please ensure that future posts on this thread relate to the discussion of issues regarding the test case as outlined by the opening poster.

Alan, Derby, UK.

 

 

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.

 

DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.

 

Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point in this case where Mr Justice Flaux said in paragraph 60

 

In a number of such cases, the courts have recognised that, although the statute may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist, even if unenforceable by the creditor

 

Maybe one to quote at Cabot when they claim to have assigned the rights but not the duties?

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting point in this case where Mr Justice Flaux said in paragraph 60

 

 

 

Maybe one to quote at Cabot when they claim to have assigned the rights but not the duties?

 

Wasn't Rankine using this argument so he could 'buy' peoples debts before the MoJ cancelled his registration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In a number of such cases, the courts have recognised that, although the statute may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist, even if unenforceable by the creditor"

 

 

But what exactly does it mean......?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"In a number of such cases, the courts have recognised that, although the statute may render the agreement unenforceable, the agreement remains a valid and subsisting contract and rights and obligations under it continue to exist, even if unenforceable by the creditor"

 

 

But what exactly does it mean......?

 

It's semantics.

 

No company is going to allow an unenforceable debt to exist on there books. It would be very damaging to their portfolio, overall, as what will they do if you don't pay? Ask nicely?

 

Pah!

 

If a debt is declared unenforceable, it's generally written off and not pursued.

 

The Judge is talking about the effect on the contract between the parties, where the debt is declared unenforceable. Of course, there is still a contract, as there are rights and obligations, but they cannot be enforced by a Court. As a Court is the last avenue to enforce rights and obligations, there's little value in keeping an enforceable debt on the books. In fact, there's more value in writing it off, as there is tax implications and HMRC should really focus on that, IMHO.

Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Link to post
Share on other sites
there's little value in keeping an enforceable debt on the books. In fact, there's more value in writing it off, as there is tax implications and HMRC should really focus on that, IMHO.

 

I wish they did.

LIBM

Link to post
Share on other sites

When a creditor charges an account off, does it get tax relief on the whole amount of the loss?

 

ie: if Sharkleys charges off £4000, do Sharkleys get to keep hold of £4000 they would otherwise have had to pay to HMRC?

Link to post
Share on other sites
When a creditor charges an account off, does it get tax relief on the whole amount of the loss?

 

ie: if Sharkleys charges off £4000, do Sharkleys get to keep hold of £4000 they would otherwise have had to pay to HMRC?

 

no it would not work like that

 

i think it works in that a bad debt or unenforceable debt could be tax deductable for a creditor???

 

e.g

 

lender A makes 1m pre-tax profit

 

lender A writes off 200k in bad debts

 

lender A has a tax liabilty on 800k

Link to post
Share on other sites
When a creditor charges an account off, does it get tax relief on the whole amount of the loss?

 

ie: if Sharkleys charges off £4000, do Sharkleys get to keep hold of £4000 they would otherwise have had to pay to HMRC?

 

unless I am mistaken the 4k would go down as a loss in their profit and loss account so whatever profit they make will be reduced by 4k so they pay corporation tax on 4k less

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK here I am going to post something about UCA,s considering I work for one of the major claims companies in this field.

 

People are mentioning a company called Ultimate Law they have one of those freebie websites something like ultimatelaw.synthasite.computer take the end off you will find it Daniella Lipszyc is the director

She has some type of beef with a company she used to work for and is blowing everything out of all proportion.got herself in the news about it

 

Fact is claims are not on hold (Trust me I would know) but it is a good way for her allegedly to damage another business and make herself look good.

 

I am not saying that Judges have mentioned the case that credit agreements could be stayed.... Perfectly honest I cannot see how they could do that. there are over 400 lenders from before that timed deadline with approximalty 10,000 types of agreements.

 

From Experience the easiest credit agreements to get rid of are credit cards . The success rates are massive with about 80% of lenders at the 100% meaning totally screwed.

 

The one thing I have noticed on websites arround the UK is no-one really knows what makes them unenforcable.... Yes prescribed terms breaches but how do you figure out what is a breach and what is not ,

 

Claims companies use a three tiered system

1- Prescribed Terms Breach = Uneforcable

2 - Technical Breaches = A gamble

3- No Breaches = Enforcable Agreement.

 

What disturbs me a little is the recent news of a RBS case where RBS won and damaged the credit of the debtor this is purely sad the loan agreement in question should not have been taken to court. The company I work for would not have done so as the success rate is only arround the 40% mark as they are always technical breaches

 

I hope this gives you a little insight to what is happening

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who dropped the clanger then? Why was it ever taken to court? You would think something this important would be deeply scrutinised by the legal seagulls before it got that far. RBS must have thought it was xmas.

 

regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who dropped the clanger then? Why was it ever taken to court? You would think something this important would be deeply scrutinised by the legal seagulls before it got that far. RBS must have thought it was xmas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4016 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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...