Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • why waste money on scammers? all you need in law is to prove something was sent. use a 2nd class stamp and get free proof of posting from any po counter. dx  
    • Tracked is NOT necessary. 1st or 2nd class will suffice. Just make sure you obtain free proof of posting and KEEP IT SOMEWHERE SAFE...
    • I've given it a try, I expect alot of work required so will give my eyes and brain a rest as I'm getting word blind.. and I'll come back later following your initial bashings Thanks IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;   I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. 4. The Claimant claims a Notice of Assignment was served on the 22/02/2022. This is denied. 5. The Claimant claims a Default Notice was served on the defendant. This is denied. 6. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 7. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. 8. Point 3 is noted and denied. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 9. Point 5 is noted and disputed. 10. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked *** The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 11. Point 11 is noted and disputed. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. 12. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** (dates are wrong) 13. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 14. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. Conclusion 15. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 16. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 17. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter into settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter into such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment. Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • 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

A guide to Charging Orders & Orders for Sale


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2837 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

CBR,

 

I have heard of this before, but there is conflicting advice.

 

I don't think it is as clear cut as creditors would have you beleive. It depends on the reason for the purchace of the proprety. See below:

 

A charging order can be made against a client’s ‘beneficial interest’ (her/his share) in a property, If a client owns only a part share of a property, then a charge can still be made but it will apply only to her/his part share.

If a charging order is made, the creditor becomes a party with an interest in the property and can apply for an order to sell the property so that the creditor’s interest can be realised. The court is required to have regard to the following matters:

  • The intentions of the owners at the time of the original purchase — i.e., the purpose for which the property was bought;
  • The purposes for which the property is held. For example, it may be that a court should not order the sale of an asset, which was bought for a specific purpose, until the need for it has ceased to exist. If this is a correct interpretation, then a family home should not be sold until all members of the family have ceased to need it;
  • The welfare of any minor who occupies the property as her/his home;
  • The interests of any secured creditor.

having read a little on this, it appears that a creditor can apply for a CO on a jointly owned property, but it is registered as a restriction. There is no obligation on any party to pay off the CO restriction as a matter of course, only to notify the creditor that the sale is going through. The creditor then would have to apply to the court for the debt to be paid to them. If your Solicitor was tardy in sending in the notification, then the sale would complete without them having time to act on the debt.

 

Explained here.

 

http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk/assets/library/documents/educ_fact_5_131205.pdf

 

But reading here, does support your initial post.

 

http://www.bllaw.co.uk/pdf/financeandrecoveries_0806_charging%20orders%20on%20property.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your Solicitor was tardy in sending in the notification, then the sale would complete without them having time to act on the debt.

LOL

Hindsight is wonderful......

 

But now knowledge and advice are life savers:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't understand why this is "hidden away" as it seems to me if the information is correct about the worthlessness of Charging Orders on jointly owned properties it should be headline news.

 

Does anyone know of an example where someone has disposed of a share in a property and been able to demonstrate the opinion of creditors powerlessness to prevent it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't understand why this is "hidden away" as it seems to me if the information is correct about the worthlessness of Charging Orders on jointly owned properties it should be headline news.

 

Does anyone know of an example where someone has disposed of a share in a property and been able to demonstrate the opinion of creditors powerlessness to prevent it.

 

Bump

Hindsight is wonderful......

 

But now knowledge and advice are life savers:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi CBR600F theres some info posted here from hatesdebt about this restriction thing, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/241308-fighting-charging-order-mbna-11.html#post2835721

 

Hope it helps....MDAW

CAG NEEDS FUNDS PLEASE DONATE AS MUCH OR AS LITTLE WHERE POSSIBLE

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/paypal.php?go=donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this might be of interest to all of you. It is a set of statistics for the amount of charging orders applied for and granted over recent years:

 

Table AP6

 

Charging orders, England and Wales

 

Period Charging orders, England and Wales

 

Applications Orders

 

Made - Granted

 

2000

16,014 - 9,689

 

2001

21,870 - 15,487

 

2002

30,781 - 21,408

 

2003

35,052 - 25,217

 

2004

45,516 - 33,235

 

2005

65,780 - 49,218

 

2006

92,933 - 67,090

 

2007

131,637 - 97,026

 

Source: Ministry of Justice (MoJ)

 

Notes:

 

1. Charging orders allow a creditor for an unsecured loan which is in default to tie that

loan to an asset owned by the debtor. In many cases this asset will be residential

property but orders can also be granted against land, commercial property or other assets.

However figures on charging orders split by type of asset are not available

 

2. Data for all years have been revised, and figures for 2007 are provisional.

 

CML Research

 

9/9/2008

Edited by Akamas
Formatting improved.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the figures have gone up!

 

And at a quick glance the percentage that have been granted has increased.

 

What we all really need to know is:-

 

  1. How many of these are for joint properties.
  2. How many sales have been forced on single properties.
  3. How many sales have been forced on joint properties if any.

If someone out there can get the raw data I am quite happy to do the analysis and post it back here.

Hindsight is wonderful......

 

But now knowledge and advice are life savers:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is exactly the information I was looking for, along with more up to date stats on orders applied for and orders passed.

 

Seeing as how the lenders are now resorting to dirty tactics more regularly to secure unsecured debts, maybe we also need to start looking at more clever ways to block them. For example, what if you could prove that you owed money to people/businesses that would be willing to object to the order being passed? If you could get them to write to object? Do you think that it would be enough to sway the judgement against the lender applying for the order?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've got my hearing on Wednesday 2pm (see other thread)

 

I am, I hope, at least going to be able to get an opinion from the judge as to whether it is fair that an unsecured CC debt with mega interest can be turned into a secured debt and in particular for the full amount.

 

Personally I find it insulting that for the last 26 years I have paid mega mega amounts of interest on CC's and to now find that the courts are more and more allowing these debts to be turned into secured debts, having probably added a third to it, whilst the debtor has been finacially struggling, intimidated, depressed,worthless, a failure and probably suicidal.

 

Yes I have thought about it - frequently.

 

However after my sister-in-laws boy friend hung himself at the end of January (nothing to do with debt) and I think because of this group I have realised that although I would be rid of the problem, the effects of my suicide on others far out weighs the indignity of CCJs and CO hearings....

 

So Wednesday approaches.....

 

Sorry all ended up an early morning ramble:)

Hindsight is wonderful......

 

But now knowledge and advice are life savers:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel extremely saddened when I hear of suicides contemplated over debts, and I really do wish you all the best with your case!

 

I think we all have to think outside the box a little when it comes to dealing with these sleazebag lenders. An idea that I have been discussing recently with my friend (law student) is whether it might be possible to accept a voluntary charging order for a large sum to a friendly party BEFORE any hostile charging orders are approved. Charging orders work on a first come first served basis, so all the equity would be diverted to the friendly (first) charging order on the sale of the property! What do you all think of that idea? Wouldn't that trump the whole foolish process?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

I also like the idea of a friendly CO. I wonder if it would be possible to tie this into a pensions (which are protected investments)?

Hindsight is wonderful......

 

But now knowledge and advice are life savers:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

An idea that I have been discussing recently with my friend (law student) is whether it might be possible to accept a voluntary charging order for a large sum to a friendly party BEFORE any hostile charging orders are approved. Charging orders work on a first come first served basis, so all the equity would be diverted to the friendly (first) charging order on the sale of the property! What do you all think of that idea? Wouldn't that trump the whole foolish process?

 

That could easily be sidesteped.

 

If the creditor sees that a recent charge like that has been made they could petition to make you bankrupt instead, it may then be possible for the OR to arrange for the recent charge to be set aside if they can demonstrate it was added with a preferance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is the case then the court should throw my CO out as it severely preferences HFC.

 

About 1/10th of the money I owe is to HFC whilst the rest is to about 9 others (depends if you count two CC with same bank as 1 or 2).

Edited by CBR600F

Hindsight is wonderful......

 

But now knowledge and advice are life savers:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is the case then the court should through my CO out as it severely preferences HFC.

 

About 1/10th of the money I owe is to HFC whilst the rest is to about 9 others (depends if you count two CC with same bank as 1 or 2).

 

I should have added, preference can only be claimed if the debtor has allowed the preference out of desire to do so, e.g. it's a friend, partner or family member.

 

I'm just thinking out loud with my hypothesis by the way, I'm at work at the moment so cannot research this more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a link to my other attempt to get to the bottom of this question.

 

 

Debt Questions • View topic - Is this correct?

 

CBR600F I completely mirror your frame of mind, very similar story:(

 

I wonder, is this a worth while suggestion??...

 

Compose a note to the judge and creditor to the effect that you are very unsure that what is about to happen is actually legal and that you would like absolute proof that it is in fact legal and proper as per 'ALL' the appropriate law as it exists. If this proof cannot be provided, then you would like a condition/note attached to the charging order to the effect that should at some later date the legality of the charging order be proved to be flawed you will be compensated to the full extent of your time, cost emotional upset and have your asset restored to you.

 

 

I don't know about anyone else but, the one thing that I found difficult to get my head around is that, in this situation, the credit card or whatever is gone, finished and over. All that is left is a debt, an amount of money owed.

 

A charging order is nothing to do with the original debt/problem/correspondence/stress.

 

It is just a method of getting a debt paid, regardless of how the debt was incurred.

 

You have to put on a different hat when you try to understand the fairness of Charging Orders, they are a new problem, born out of, but nothing to do with all the crap of the original debt.

 

They are not a mechanism for 'transforming' unsecured debt into a secured debt.

 

It is no good saying "I would never have taken out that unsecured loan at that interest rate, if I had known it could later be secured anyway".

 

 

 

 

I understand all that now, but initially I thought it was all just another

disgusting kick in the nads from the banks etc and got all stressed and confused. Now I just want to know if I will be allowed a manageable timescale to clear my debts or whether they will bankrupt me, which I think they would were it not for the charging order option. I have a lot of debt, equity and ill health.

 

 

Also...

 

Here is my cunning plan/solution to a charging order leading to the sale of my house. I intend to sell the drive and front access plus the last ten feet of my back garden to three separate relatives.

 

Let the bankstards try and sell it then;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compose a note to the judge and creditor to the effect that you are very unsure that what is about to happen is actually legal and that you would like absolute proof that it is in fact legal and proper as per 'ALL' the appropriate law as it exists. If this proof cannot be provided, then you would like a condition/note attached to the charging order to the effect that should at some later date the legality of the charging order be proved to be flawed you will be compensated to the full extent of your time, cost emotional upset and have your asset restored to you.

 

Not sure whether this would help as surely if the Judgment is subsequently set aside then surely the claimant would have to pay costs and any actions that took place after judgment would also be undone.

 

Anyway something like this: -

 

Note to Judge re charging order for claim xxxxxx

 

In the event of the charging order being made final I would like the following condition attached to the judgment and charging order: -

 

If at some future date, the legality of the judgment or the placing of a charging order, is proved to be flawed that I will be fully compensated for my time, cost, emotional upset and have the charging order removed.

Hindsight is wonderful......

 

But now knowledge and advice are life savers:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on, that's much better:-)

 

I think it's a perfectly sensible and reasonable request in view of the lack of clarity on charging orders.

 

If a particular debt collection solution seems to be outdated/flawed and in need of amending, registering your concern as above seems the best/only thing you can do:(.

 

I will be thinking of you tomorrow, I hope it goes well mate.

 

If you get to be in front of a judge, just imagine him/her oblivious of a massive black beard sticking out the back of their head at 45 degrees:D

 

Works every time:).

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2837 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...