Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 pep in this case.    
    • not sure what happened to the statint sheet...looks like you over wrote cells.   so they have already litigated over this debt ?
    • 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
    • Any time limits AZ might spout are simply arbitrary, the ONLY thing you need to be doing is informing them ''in writing'' of your new address.   Also ensure your CRF is updated and showing your correct address also.   When you send AZ the letter which needs only to be one line......   Sir/madam.   My current address is No.1 Mickey mouse street blah blah blah, please update your records accordingly.   Regards   And obtain ''proof of posting'' which is free from the po counter, send it 2nd class post.
  • 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

Hi,

 

The thing is, I didn't make any reference to any web site.

 

I used the term NAUGHTY NAUGHTY. (mispelt here to stop it being caught again)

 

regards

Edited by car2403
It does that for a reason...
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's because you made reference to another consumer website, any reference to it and up comes something very childish.....

 

haha I've not seen that before, thats tickled me for some unknown reason :-)

 

Childish yes but funny nevertheless

 

S.

Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Judge HAS NOT said that they can Default you under an unenforceable agreement :confused:

 

But in the latter position would the same judge have said the creditor may not DN and blacken the debtor's credit rating?

 

Could it be there are 3 scenarios, not 2?

 

(1) The creditor does not present sufficient documents. The judge does not enforce or rule out repayment, but as last week he does not forbid DN and CRA blackening.

 

(2) The creditor presents flawed documents. The judge declines to enforce payment - a negative, passive conclusion resulting in the lack of legal action. However if the obiter dicta last week were to be interpreted as the judge continuing to hold the view that a technically flawed agreement continues in existence outside a law court, then the inference could be that particular judge would still not have prohibited DN and blackening? In the first two situations the judge's stance was passive, refusing to side with either creditor or debtor.

 

(3) The creditor comes to court seeking repayment enforcement. Because of gross PPI mis-selling a judge last week proactively quashed the entire debt outstanding and in addition compelled repayment of PPI instalments (not passively drew back from enforcing repayment). If the judge actively expunged the very existence of the debt as unlawful and unfair, little chance he would have permitted even a suggestion of DN and blackening.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1/ quotes only part of the reason for the 8000 win by the woman "oop north"- the fact that the agreement was flawed was conveniently downplayed

 

2/ quote " Judge Flaux said while "the absence of the statement may be a technical non-compliance, the claimant has suffered no prejudice as a consequence".

 

this is the whole crux of the decision and he made it clear that in another case (ie if the agreement had NOT been found) the decision might well have been different

 

the claimant was bound to lose because his argument that his reported bad credit rating had prejudiced him was clearly not correct

 

once he had knowledge that they found the agreement and it was valid the report which he sought to be undone- would have been done again - thus he suffered no prejudice

 

the Piers Morgan should have withdrawn

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

 

Well to be honest no-one in the industry seems to know or reveal .Cartel commented on the case but it says they were not involved ,so your guess is as good as mine unfortunatly

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

So in a nutshell can they now come after us even if no agreement is produced?

 

no no no

 

just read the last 20 pages, will take you an hour but will educate you.

 

not mis-inform you like the wider press who are in coherts with the banks in order to scare joe public

 

CCA 74 was a protective pieces of legislation for the consumer, it is still law in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

So in a nutshell can they now come after us even if no agreement is produced?

 

no no no

 

 

 

Sorry to disagree Baggio but yes, yes, yes, they can come after you & probably will! I think what Baggio means is that the court will not be able to enforce an agreement if one doesn't exist - you can't call a pig a pig if no pigs ever existed can you? However that won't stop DCAs making demands of you & even trying to take you to court - it will be up to you to fight it off :(

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry to disagree Baggio but yes, yes, yes, they can come after you & probably will! I think what Baggio means is that the court will not be able to enforce an agreement if one doesn't exist - you can't call a pig a pig if no pigs ever existed can you? However that won't stop DCAs making demands of you & even trying to take you to court - it will be up to you to fight it off :(

 

lets wait for the other test cases

 

the last thing the judicary want is thousands upon thousands of these cases clogging up the legal system as they now are...

 

hence them calling for test cases, which will then lead to more cases being settled out of court.

 

the mcguffick case has fooled the thickos in society.... i imagine most do not even understand the true background to the case.

 

in a nutshell, there was an enforceable agreement, so of course the bank can pursue and report non payment to CRA's

 

lets wait for a case when there is no agreement or a flawed agreement

 

then we can chat. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the judgement the Judge pulled quite a lot out of Wilson to back up the enforcement definition so this will rumble on and DCA's will use this to threaten and fight back however if they can't enforce and you aren't going to pay how are they going to make you?

 

Looking at this positively it gives another option

 

They have a debt they can't collect you have a credit file entry you don't want...could be a good time to trade off for a F&F...

  • Haha 1

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you read the judgement the Judge pulled quite a lot out of Wilson to back up the enforcement definition so this will rumble on and DCA's will use this to threaten and fight back however if they can't enforce and you aren't going to pay how are they going to make you?

 

Looking at this positively it gives another option

 

They have a debt they can't collect you have a credit file entry you don't want...could be a good time to trade off for a F&F...

 

good post, spot on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who dropped a clanger? Well, IMO, the claimants solicitor. They should never have agreed to this case being a test case. I can understand RBS asking for it in desperation for something they thought they could win and must have thought it was Xmas or something.

 

I have commented before as to whether there was some side deal. You only have to look at the parties and who they instructed as their respective barristers. Both were good QCs but in different areas of the law. Taking the Bar's 'taxi rank' approach to instruction, it's like the claimant hired a gondola to get to court whilst RBS turned up at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand in a chauffeur driven Daimler limo. The nearest the gondola would have got you is the Embankment, so you would have had a walk up the hill to court. On the other hand, a limo wouldn't be much good in Venice...

  • Haha 1

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

apparently they have now got together and are deciding on using a witness to state they did have a proper signed agreement but has been misplaced.

 

just as they got together a year ago and decided on non-disclosure as a route to stick 2 fingers up at the public.

 

they won't get away with it, all this will do is bring more publicty to the whole unenforceable arena and get more cliams against them

 

thick feckers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
apparently they have now got together and are deciding on using a witness to state they did have a proper signed agreement but has been misplaced.

 

just as they got together a year ago and decided on non-disclosure as a route to stick 2 fingers up at the public.

 

they won't get away with it, all this will do is bring more publicty to the whole unenforceable arena and get more cliams against them

 

thick feckers.

 

Hmm, given the judges lottery, that could possibly work :-( depending on level of court obviously.

 

S.

Edited by the_shadow

Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, given the judges lottery, that could possibly work :-(

 

S.

 

that would be a real scandal, and precendents could then be set for other cases in law that have contract disputes, where one party could use the defence of pulling a nobody out and getting them to swear such and such was on a contract but has now been misplaced.

 

would be farcical, would open up the biggest can of worms in legal history.

 

keep trying lenders.... you will get there in the end... with the realisation that you cannot and will not win this war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
apparently they have now got together and are deciding on using a witness to state they did have a proper signed agreement but has been misplaced.

 

just as they got together a year ago and decided on non-disclosure as a route to stick 2 fingers up at the public.

 

they won't get away with it, all this will do is bring more publicty to the whole unenforceable arena and get more cliams against them

 

thick feckers.

 

 

No surprise there then!

 

What really got me on this test case was that both sides apparently agreed beforehand that issuing a default notice was not an enforcement action. Hence the judge agreeing that issuing a DN did not amount to enforcement.

 

Now since the staute requires that a DN be served before certain specified actions can be taken and that the wording in the Default Notice stipulated in the Regulations refers to 'No Further Enforcement Action', I cannot see how a DN can be anything other than part of the enforcement process.

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
No surprise there then!

 

What really got me on this test case was that both sides apparently agreed beforehand that issuing a default notice was not an enforcement action. Hence the judge agreeing that issuing a DN did not amount to enforcement.

 

Now since the staute requires that a DN be served before certain specified actions can be taken and that the wording in the Default Notice stipulated in the Regulations refers to 'No Further Enforcement Action', I cannot see how a DN can be anything other than part of the enforcement process.

 

the point here is, a proper case needs to be submitted and handled.

 

you can bet your bottom dollar that cartel with all there cash will make sure the 8 cases they are having heard wont be bought off by a bank looking to spin the public a yarn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all.

 

1. When did British Law become concerned with the 'moralality' of the law in question. If an insurance company can find a loophole in a contract it will refuse to pay out. No moral questions raised, contract law.

2. In the Wilson case one of the Judges stated that the finance company were responsible for the setting up of the agreement and could only blame themselves if the agreement was not legaly binding. The law is there to protect the average citizen, not a company holding all the cards. Remember if we want the money we have to agree to the conditions laid down by the lender. But the prescribed conditions are layed down in law!!

3. If the company cannot supply a signed contract then what contract are they trying to enforce and who gave them permission to pass on 'alleged' details of a contract that does not exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"sorry" for butting in

can anybody tell me what section in the 2006 regs, states that agreements pre april 2007 are not effected

 

cab

Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths **Claim Recieved**

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?181761-Cab1ne-Lombard-Shoosmiths-**Claim-Recieved**/page25

Summary Judgement 01/02/2011 **REFUSED** set for trial "May 23rd To June 30th 2011"

DISCONTINUED 3rd MAY 2011 **WON**

 

santander" Responsible Lending!!!!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?219431-quot-santander-quot-Responsible-Lending!!!!!!!

 

Capquest "V" Cab1ne

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?262962-Capquest-quot-V-quot-Cab1ne

 

"STAYED"

 

CAB "Sittin Tight"

Link to post
Share on other sites
"sorry" for butting in

can anybody tell me what section in the 2006 regs, states that agreements pre april 2007 are not effected

 

cab

 

CCA 2006 was passed by parliment and become law on the 6th April 2007, so any agreement signed from that date onwards was regualted by this new act.

 

The old CCA 1974 was still in place to govern all pre 6th-april 2007 agreements.

 

Hope this makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"sorry" for butting in

can anybody tell me what section in the 2006 regs, states that agreements pre april 2007 are not effected

 

cab

 

If you want specifics, I've nabbed this from a defence by Citizenb, hope she doesnt mind me posting it up.

 

. Firstly I will address the issue of which Act is relevant in this case, in case it is suggested that the claim falls under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, it is drawn to the courts attention that schedule 3, s11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents s15 repealing s127 (3) of the 1974 Act for agreements made before s15 came into effect. Since the agreement would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006, section 15 of the 2006 Act has no effect and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is the relevant act in this case.

S.

Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

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...