Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Russia’s economy has been cut off from the global financial system - but it is still growing. Why?View the full article
    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] 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 has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. 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 the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: 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. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. 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 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. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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

No agreement - can I get default removed?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4952 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

bummer :(

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess we're on a collision course then to the High Court and the subsequent appeals on this one. Hopefully it'll end up in a COA or HOL ruling that they can't impose a default in circumstances where the agreement is unfair - after all the inability to enforce the agreement is the financial penalty the Creditors pay for breaking the law. To allow them to default the affected borrower is to mock Parliaments intention.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit reference agencies

 

13.5 When you open your account or apply for a card, we will tell you when we may pass your details to credit reference agencies and the checks we may make with them.

 

 

 

13.6 We may give information to credit reference agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

  • you have fallen behind with your payments;
  • the amount owed is not being disputed; and
  • you have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand.

13.7 In these cases, we will give you at least 28 days' notice that we plan to give information about the debts you owe us to credit reference agencies. At the same time, we will explain the role of credit reference agencies to you and the effect the information they provide can have on your ability to get credit.

 

13.8 We will give credit reference agencies other information about the day-to-day running of your account if you have given us your permission to do so.

 

13.9 If you ask, we will tell you how to get a copy of the information that credit reference agencies have about you, or their leaflets that explain how credit referencing works. You should contact the customer service teams at the following organisations:

 

Surely if there is no agreement there is no permission??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lou, the banks argue you consent to them sharing your data with CRAs as a condition of your application, indeed your application will more than likely say this. If you have been defaulted as a result of unlawful charges then you should have a good case to appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh bu**ar! That puts paid to a letter I have drafted saying get this off my file - you have no enforceable credit agreement. Back to the drawing board. Whilst there are experts in defaults around, where do I stand with a default entered after the issue of an invalid Default Notice? They didn't give me the required 14 days after service to remedy the breach then terminated the account, thus rescinding it unlawfully. If that can removed, I have only got the unenforceable one left. Hurray up High Court case!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

not all bad though.

they must show 'trading' on the cc before they can default.

most dca's certainly wont have this info i bet.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a letter from Hillesden stating that their client is "unable to provide a copy of the documents requested under the CCA", however they state that "the default will remain on my file until the debt has been satisifed". Am I correct in the fact that a default can only be issued in respect of a valid regulated agreement (which they don't have). If so does anyone have a letter template available that covers this eventuality and additionally what recourse can I take should they decide to ignore the follow-up letter?

 

Thanks for any help. Great site by the way!!

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Information Commissioner put out a Notice this week that an unenforceable agreement won't mean a default entry will be removed from a file if the creditor has other proof of monies owed. When there is no agreement it means the debt cannot be enforced in court but you still owe the money and if the creditor has proof of that then a default won't be removed.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This guidance from the ICO is nearly TWO years old. What's new??

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

On reading it agai, it is clear that this is a newsletter from a firm of solicitors who are trying to drum up business. It is not a statement of law. The reference to S 15 CCA 2006 is also misleading. S15 repeals S127(3) of the 1974 Act but only in relation to post October 2007 agreements. And in any case repealing S127(3) only removed the lack of discretion available to the court. IMHO, it is still open to the court to refuse enforce an agreement that does not comply with the requirments of S61 of the 1974 Act.

 

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 haven't a clue what is new and what isn't (there is no need for sarcasm) -the question was about getting a default removed and it will be difficult on the grounds of no enforceable agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Thanks for the response. Do you think there would be any value in trying to determine what "proof" they have? I assume an SAR would show this, I'm assuming I was just a name on a list - surely that wouldn't be seen as proof?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Thanks for the response. Do you think there would be any value in trying to determine what "proof" they have? I assume an SAR would show this, I'm assuming I was just a name on a list - surely that wouldn't be seen as proof?

 

An SAR, whilst costing £10, is invaluable to a certain extent because it means that you should get all of the documentation held by you.

 

I am in a similar situation to yourself where I have a default from a lender who now has no CCA. The guidance referred to above states this:

 

"Where a ‘debtor’ disputes the existence of any credit agreement, enforceable or otherwise, we would ask to see evidence of the agreement and of its terms."

 

It stands to reason that if they do not have an agreement then there is no case for us to answer in my opinion... but obviously the regulatory bodies seem to do as they please.

 

I understand that we have a case based upon the tenets of the Data Protection Act principles and I have started my own thread on this. Feel free to have a look at your leisure :D

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/198791-advice-needed-no-cca.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and within the guidance issued it states this:

 

"If the dispute has not been before a court, is the lender prepared to test their claim by seeking a CCJ or decree against the customer? If not, why not?"

 

This is one of the factors taken into account when the ICO investigates a dispute... it is the one main argument I am using to be honest because there isn't much else to go on :-(

 

But hey let's see what happens!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its interesting that the statement identified the difference between legal liability and enforcement and I wonder how many folk truly understand that.

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should remember that this is an extract from a letter from the ICO to a firm of solicitors who will be interested in defending banks and other credit companies from claims resulting from the failures of those institutions. What did Addleshaw's actually ask the ICO would be my first question?

The ICO can only base its decisions on what it has published as its guidance in the public domain. It cannot determine an issue in private with just one (interested) firm of solicitors.

Looking at both the announcement from Addleshaw's and the Technical Guidance from the ICO (which is dated 2 August 2007), I would make the following points:

1. S 15 of the CCA 2006 only applies to credit agreements entered into after the implementation of the 2006 Act which I believe was 1 October 2007. The court must still decline to make an enforcement order in respect of non-compliant pre-October 2007 agreements. Further, the repeal of S127 (3) for post Oct 07 agreements does not (in my view) preclude the court from exercising its discretion and still refuse an enforcement order. The clear message from the 1974 Act and case law was that if credit institutions didn't comply exactly with the requirements, they should lose out. All that the 2006 repeal did was to allow the courts to have some discretion about the decision.

2. The ICO refers to a legal liability. What liability I ask? There is case law which clearly states that in the absence of a compliant credit agreement, the law considers advances by creditors to be 'voluntary dispositions' or gifts.

3. The ICO guidance clearly states the factors taken into account by the ICO when making a judgment about disputes. Among these factors is the following ' Has the Court refused judgment to a lender and, if so, on what grounds?’ If the ICO is saying they can over rule the court, I would be very interested in challenging such a view.

As you say, vjohn, let's see what happens.

  • 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

Well as someone pointed out what the ICO says is not the law and getting them to do anything is an absolute pain.

 

From what I have seen on CAG, most success in this area has been achieved by either threat of or actual legal action.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guidance from the ICO is nearly TWO years old. What's new??

 

The main ICO article is two years old, the 'new' bit is from April this year.

 

We should remember that this is an extract from a letter from the ICO to a firm of solicitors who will be interested in defending banks and other credit companies from claims resulting from the failures of those institutions. What did Addleshaw's actually ask the ICO would be my first question?

 

The ICO can only base its decisions on what it has published as its guidance in the public domain. It cannot determine an issue in private with just one (interested) firm of solicitors.

 

Looking at both the announcement from Addleshaw's and the Technical Guidance from the ICO (which is dated 2 August 2007), I would make the following points:

 

1. S 15 of the CCA 2006 only applies to credit agreements entered into after the implementation of the 2006 Act which I believe was 1 October 2007. The court must still decline to make an enforcement order in respect of non-compliant pre-October 2007 agreements. Further, the repeal of S127 (3) for post Oct 07 agreements does not (in my view) preclude the court from exercising its discretion and still refuse an enforcement order. The clear message from the 1974 Act and case law was that if credit institutions didn't comply exactly with the requirements, they should lose out. All that the 2006 repeal did was to allow the courts to have some discretion about the decision.

 

2. The ICO refers to a legal liability. What liability I ask? There is case law which clearly states that in the absence of a compliant credit agreement, the law considers advances by creditors to be 'voluntary dispositions' or gifts.

 

3. The ICO guidance clearly states the factors taken into account by the ICO when making a judgment about disputes. Among these factors is the following ' Has the Court refused judgment to a lender and, if so, on what grounds?’ If the ICO is saying they can over rule the court, I would be very interested in challenging such a view.

 

As you say, vjohn, let's see what happens.

 

All fair points. It's certainly not a statement of the law, and I too would be interested to know where the firm obtained it from. I've just checked the ICO website and it does not appear to have been released on there, so as you say it may be that it was just correspondence between the ICO and the solicitors.

 

Its an interesting question though; whether the lack of one or more prescribed terms making the agreement unenforceable also means there is no contract or liability at all. I would have thought that there was still a contract, just one thats technically unenforceable.

 

Having said that the House of Lords didn't appear to make any distiction between liability and enforceability in Dimond v Lovell, so the ICO may well be wrong. Lets hope so.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...