Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (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 of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. 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.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
  • 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

Validity of claims management companies? Moved from "Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice"


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5191 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

by ML:

 

"Sadly, discussion in the forum is limited on this one as claims handlers are a litigious bunch, and the risk of handing them a juicy libel claim from some flippant comment sadly means discussion needs to be put on hold until we’re fully ready to publish."

 

No doubt one will be in a more enlightened position, once the list is published.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

by ML:

 

"Sadly, discussion in the forum is limited on this one as claims handlers are a litigious bunch, and the risk of handing them a juicy libel claim from some flippant comment sadly means discussion needs to be put on hold until we’re fully ready to publish."

 

No doubt one will be in a more enlightened position, once the list is published.

 

AC

 

That's what I was thinking when I read that this morning.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an outburst!

I simply posted up the Martin Lewis view...

 

Furthermore, I believe that the following sentiment is appropriate:

 

I know AC,

 

it wasnt aimed at you, but it gets me going when i hear the holier than thou arguments such as youve borrowed it pay it back stuff.

 

the claims management companies out there who are reputable are helping people they are not some diseased creature that needs to be kept away from and it annoys me to hear some of the comments coming out of the likes of Martin when it seems to say that these claims management companies are something to be avoided

 

the company i work with does not charge, they are fully reputable and they as i said before hold a consumer credit licence and are extremely ethical

 

they dont even touch any compensation thats awarded( if there is any)

 

With all due respect I would not expect you to be on ML's side being someone who works for a CMC type business... the bias is clear to see.

 

But what he has said is right... it is bringing genuine claims into disrepute. I'm no keeper of high morals... but if you borrow money you should really pay it back unless you genuinely have no way to honour it and I believe, in the main, that the CCA defence type argument should be used to DEFEND creditor action and not to make a "claim".

 

I have also seen NO company stating they do not charge money for attempting to challenge credit agreements so your company must be the exception ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

by ML:

 

"Sadly, discussion in the forum is limited on this one as claims handlers are a litigious bunch, and the risk of handing them a juicy libel claim from some flippant comment sadly means discussion needs to be put on hold until we’re fully ready to publish."

 

No doubt one will be in a more enlightened position, once the list is published.

 

AC

 

Don't hold your breath, for a consumer champion Martin seems to have

been surprisingly reticent to get involved in any way with the whole issue of challenging credit agreements despite the act it ha sben discussed here for years.

The excuse about possible libel claims is very convenient, a bit like claims companies being unable to show written evidence of debts wiped out due to confidentiality and the data protection act.

The truth is that however he started out Martin is now very much a product of the media and as such he has to toe the line like all the media do and blowing the lid on this would not be at all a good idea for him

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't hold your breath, for a consumer champion Martin seems to have

been surprisingly reticent to get involved in any way with the whole issue of challenging credit agreements despite the act it ha sben discussed here for years.

The excuse about possible libel claims is very convenient, a bit like claims companies being unable to show written evidence of debts wiped out due to confidentiality and the data protection act.

The truth is that however he started out Martin is now very much a product of the media and as such he has to toe the line like all the media do and blowing the lid on this would not be at all a good idea for him

 

Just out of curiousity, have you been genuinely threatened with court action by your creditors? Such as being served a stat demand/CCJ or suchlike?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With all due respect I would not expect you to be on ML's side being someone who works for a CMC type business... the bias is clear to see.

 

But what he has said is right... it is bringing genuine claims into disrepute. I'm no keeper of high morals... but if you borrow money you should really pay it back unless you genuinely have no way to honour it and I believe, in the main, that the CCA defence type argument should be used to DEFEND creditor action and not to make a "claim".

 

I have also seen NO company stating they do not charge money for attempting to challenge credit agreements so your company must be the exception ;-)

 

Lets say that when you took out a loan for 10k you expected to pay back 10k plus agreed interest and the lender expected the same thing.

Further down the line it transpired that you had messed something up and the lender was now entitled to 20k plus interest -do you really thing they would say no no you just pay us 10k plus interest and we will be happy with that .

Yeah right

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just out of curiousity, have you been genuinely threatened with court action by your creditors? Such as being served a stat demand/CCJ or suchlike?

 

This isn't normal practise, as they know where they are going if they do.

 

Usually, the debt is passed on to a reticent DCA that doesn't give up and makes your life a misery until the debt is repaid out of pure desperation. (Usually by those who don't know their rights)

 

The whole reason these types of threads come around is the consumer backlash. It's time we all stood together to be counted and made the change.

 

(Anyone for a revolt?)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just out of curiousity, have you been genuinely threatened with court action by your creditors? Such as being served a stat demand/CCJ or suchlike?

 

I don't see what difference it makes but yes I have several ongoing at the moment,written evidence available on request along with a copy of my latest bank statement showing my parlous financial position

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This isn't normal practise, as they know where they are going if they do.

 

Usually, the debt is passed on to a reticent DCA that doesn't give up and makes your life a misery until the debt is repaid out of pure desperation. (Usually by those who don't know their rights)

 

The whole reason these types of threads come around is the consumer backlash. It's time we all stood together to be counted and made the change.

 

(Anyone for a revolt?)

 

Maybe its not normal practice but I have 2 with MBNA and they have issued on both despite me telling them that their agreement did not include all the prescribed terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't hold your breath, for a consumer champion Martin seems to have

been surprisingly reticent to get involved in any way with the whole issue of challenging credit agreements despite the act it ha sben discussed here for years.

The excuse about possible libel claims is very convenient, a bit like claims companies being unable to show written evidence of debts wiped out due to confidentiality and the data protection act.

The truth is that however he started out Martin is now very much a product of the media and as such he has to toe the line like all the media do and blowing the lid on this would not be at all a good idea for him

 

 

Well his website is full of all sorts of offers & loans from credit card companies and banks so I guess he is probably not as unbiased as CAG in this area.:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With all due respect I would not expect you to be on ML's side being someone who works for a CMC type business... the bias is clear to see.

 

But what he has said is right... it is bringing genuine claims into disrepute. I'm no keeper of high morals... but if you borrow money you should really pay it back unless you genuinely have no way to honour it and I believe, in the main, that the CCA defence type argument should be used to DEFEND creditor action and not to make a "claim".

 

I have also seen NO company stating they do not charge money for attempting to challenge credit agreements so your company must be the exception ;-)

 

Err vjohn, pt did not say that he works for a CMC business, he actually stated that, he works with one. I would presume that whichever firm this is, they work on a; no win no fee basis.

 

Many consumers have valid reasons to challenge their consumer credit agreements such as myself. I personally, do not wish to be tarred with the same brush as some, who just wish to get out of paying.

 

I agree, that it is often wiser to defend rather than to challenge. However, sometimes you have to stand up for your rights, particularly when your valid complaint(s) are continually ignored by the OC/DCA.

 

It is a worry though, that via all the media and TV advertising by CMC's, some naieve consumers will be drawn into something that they do not understand and as a consequence ending up with a large bill.

 

AC

Edited by angry cat
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Err vjohn, pt did not say that he works for a CMC business, he actually stated that, he works with one. I would presume that whichever firm this is, they work on a; no win no fee basis.

 

Many consumers have valid reasons to challenge their consumer credit agreements such as myself. I personally, do not wish to be tarred with the same brush as some, who just wish to get out of paying.

 

I agree, that it is often wiser to defend rather than to challenge. However, sometimes you have to stand up for your rights, particularly when your valid complaint(s) are continually ignored by the OC/DCA.

 

It is a worry though, that via all the media and TV advertising by CMC's, some naieve consumers will be drawn into something that they do not understand and as a consequence ending up with a large bill.

 

AC

 

Glad that could never happen to somone following the advice on here :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well his website is full of all sorts of offers & loans from credit card companies and banks so I guess he is probably not as unbiased as CAG in this area.:eek:

Martin Lewis' site is moneysavingexpert, if he didn't cover all sorts of moneysaving methods including loans and credit cards I would be surprised.

Furthermore, his forum is unmoderated which is not a dig at this forum but I think suggesting Martin Lewis is biased towards banks/loan companies is perhaps an unfortunate aspersion to make considering what his site is about and the varied people who use the forum.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Lewis' site is moneysavingexpert, if he didn't cover all sorts of moneysaving methods including loans and credit cards I would be surprised.

Furthermore, his forum is unmoderated which is not a dig at this forum but I think suggesting Martin Lewis is biased towards banks/loan companies is perhaps an unfortunate aspersion to make considering what his site is about and the varied people who use the forum.

 

So presumably you have another reason in mind as to why Martin has not dealt with being able to claim against your lender as for sure thats a way of saving money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So presumably you have another reason in mind as to why Martin has not dealt with being able to claim against your lender as for sure thats a way of saving money.

 

I think you need to email Martin Lewis and ask him the question because my name is not Martin Lewis and I don't think for him.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you need to email Martin Lewis and ask him the question because my name is not Martin Lewis and I don't think for him.

 

 

Not much point he has already said he has has massive amounts of mail asking him to address this issue but its not had the desired effect yet so I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for the sage to pronounce

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not much point he has already said he has has massive amounts of mail asking him to address this issue but its not had the desired effect yet so I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for the sage to pronounce

 

Have you emailed him? Have you emailed [email protected] or one of their site team?

I prefer to DO THINGS than shoot hot air out so email him or the team on MSE and ask the question you want of them and report back on the thread.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Err vjohn, pt did not say that he works for a CMC business, he actually stated that, he works with one. I would presume that whichever firm this is, they work on a; no win no fee basis.

 

 

I said I imagine he works for a CMC type business... not actually within one. Either way his involvement is ambiguous and that's why I believe there is bias in his position on CMC's. This is a logical assumption. I do not work for a CMC and have seen ones which screw people over; therefore my bias is against them.

 

 

Many consumers have valid reasons to challenge their consumer credit agreements such as myself. I personally, do not wish to be tarred with the same brush as some, who just wish to get out of paying.

 

 

I've been quite careful to say that the majority of people have a genuine inability to pay... those who are proactively taking their creditors to court to claim money from them (compensation etc) in my opnion is slightly disconcerting. Creditors and DCA's are not always the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what a load of Bo!!ocks

 

the law does not seek to enforce morals, there is no such thing as a moral offence nor can you be tried for breaking the spirit of the law

 

is it moral for the lenders to give out money to people who cant afford it? NO

 

but on the same token , people seem to throw the moral argument that youve borrowed it so pay it back

 

 

this is what the Law Lords said on the "moral" issue

 

pah:mad:

 

I agree with that 100%

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

Mr Lewis has some libel problems with the so called industry big dog (CMC wise)

 

rubbed the owner up the wrong way, :D ALLEGEDLEY

 

"litigous bunch" lol

 

hint hint, pop pop !!!

Edited by Baggio
Link to post
Share on other sites

The CMC's are charging from £99.00 to £799 as a charge for taking on a case. This allows some of them to give cases to solicitors to act etc. However they are also charging a backend fee at the same time some like Cartel are charging both and a fee to the solicitors and a fee back end from the solicitors. It's a business. Problem is the free or state alternative is to recovering the true amount owed to the borrower on these types of claims (Loans, credit cards, store cards, unenforceable agreements and PPI/ASU claims)

To be able to do this work for people you have to make a living but it is outrageous that the general public are being ripped off again by the lenders who will settle very quickly for a much smaller amount with FOS and the CMC's who make more that the claimant and the lawyers simply for putting the two together.

The CMC's are charging from £99.00 to £799 as a charge for taking on a case. This allows some of them to give cases to solicitors to act etc. However they are also charging a backend fee at the same time some like Cartel are charging both and a fee to the solicitors and a fee back end from the solicitors. It’s a business. Problem is the free or state alternative is to recovering the true amount owed to the borrower on these types of claims (Loans, credit cards, store cards, unenforceable agreements and PPI/ASU claims)

To be able to do this work for people you have to make a living but it is outrageous that the general public are being ripped off again by the lenders who will settle very quickly for a much smaller amount with FOS and the CMC's who make more that the claimant and the lawyers simply for putting the two together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...