Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm sure I've said before that it's fine and dandy bringing in rules that favour you or your party, but you have to consider how it would play out if your opponents get in and want to use the same rules...
    • Its Gaelic celebration and bonfires today - Beltane Quite fortuitous for tomorrow lets hope
    • look on the bright side - it would allow Biden to do what he likes ...
    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  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. 3. 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. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
  • 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

Spam Getting to Grips with Halifax.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5382 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

Okey dokie... Bad news :( and good news :D

 

The bad news is that the agreement looks enforceable as it has the prescribed terms for a loan. :eek:

 

The APR on it is wrong - they have underquoted it, as it should be 9.332%, not 8.8%. This means the interest rate is wrong and not within the permissible tolerances under the regulations; :rolleyes:

 

Permissible tolerances in disclosure of the APR

 

1A. For the purposes of these Regulations, it shall be sufficient compliance with the requirement to show the APR if there is included in the document

 

(1) a rate which exceed the APR by not more than one; or

 

(2) a rate which falls short of the APR by not more than 0.1; or

(3) in a case to which either of paragraphs 2 or 3 below applies, a rate determined in accordance with the paragraph or such of them as apply to that case."

 

The agreement is unenforceable due to s.60(1)/s.61(a) and s.127(3).

 

Good times.

 

You've already highlighted the Default Notice issues, but that is always secondary to holding a compliant agreement anyway. The agreement is incapble of being Defaulted/Terminated under the Act, as it was improperly executed and is irrevocably unenforceable. The fact they've Terminated, means it's unlawful.

 

The Defaults on your CRA file should be removed, as a result of all this.

 

I have a feeling they won't give up so easily, though.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I'm really embarassed about this but...

 

How did you work out the APR?

 

for the life of me I can't see how you get it... never was much use at maths ;)

 

I Keep looking at the agreement and seeing the monthly rate of 0.69% and timesing that by 12 for APR I make it 8.28% thats still not the 8.8% as quoted but it's not much different.

 

Where do you get the 9.332% from please?

 

Cheers, Spam:)

 

To be honest, I ignored the monthly interest rate as an APR is stated and it should be accurate.

 

Use any APR calculator and input the loan amount and the APR and repayment period and it will show you it's wrong.

 

Try these;

 

Loan & APR Calculator

 

Loan calculator

 

If the APR is misstated beyond the permissable tolerances, their donkey is filleted :)

 

EDIT: Oh, the reason you don't times the monthly interest rate by 12, is that it will be compounded monthly - so interest from month 2 will be less than month 3, but more than month 1. If you don't compound the monthly rate, it comes to 8.46% annually, but the APR is the cost of borrowing over a 12 month period. (Including compound interest)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The agreement states that the acceptance fee was added to the total charge for credit, so it should be included in the total interest.

 

As they have misstated by more than 0.1% under the APR, that makes the interest rate (in fact, the total charge for credit will be misstated as well!) wrong, so therefore unenforceable.

 

I'm no maths man (it's the reason I manage people, not numbers!) but either way I've done it, it's still wrong...

  • Haha 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Chris, sorry for being such a pedantic pain in the proverbial!

 

Consider your scales well and truly tipped! :D

 

Not pedantic at all - if this goes further, you need to know what you need to know to be successful.

 

In that vain, I've asked the site team to double check my figures and just make sure we're all on the same page with this one! :D

 

[Don't let it be said I'm doubting myself, of course :eek:]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bugga... See, this is why I don't get too excited - I'm not known for being wrong, but... (Note to self, sort Dualcalc access out)

 

Anyhoo, doesn't really matter as the Default/Termination issues are fatal anyway... :p

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, we've established that the agreement is not irredeemably unenforceable under s.127(3) as the rate of interest isn't a prescribed term for this type of agreement. Fair do's. That doesn't mean that it is automatically enforceable, though, as it is improperly executed and could be unenforceable under s.127(1)(i) if, and it's a big if, you were prejudiced as a result of the improper execution. Now, if this was me, plus should it be true, etc, etc, I'd be seriously reconsidering the position I was in when I took this loan out - if I didn't have a chance to compare this loan with others, if I did consider other loans by comparing APR stated, etc, I would think you have a decent case for showing you were prejudiced enough to not have the agreeement enforced against you. :p

 

To answer your question - it really depends on the Judge. I think the agreement was terminated after the 1st Default Notice was issued and you didn't comply with it, but they didn't send you a Termination Notice. The fact they then get a DCA on to the debt, indicates, according to the ICO, that the agreement was at an end. The 2nd Default Notice is just a bonus, as they can't Default the same account twice, IMHO, if you read the wording of s.87/s.88 CCA 1974 - and indeed can't Terminate twice if you read s.98 of the same. The fact the DCA is asking for the full amount, rather than just the arrears, also indicates full Default/Termination, IMHO...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they have 40 days from the date they originally received it? You should quote the section from the DPA (s.7) stating the prescribed period begins when they receive the payment, not the day the receive the cleared funds.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, hello... Why are you even calling them? You've been more than reasonable in even sending it back to them with written instructions - if their monkeys can't even understand that, I can't understand why you're trying to mop their mess up. For me, this would be a case of waiting for the 40 day period from their receipt of your original request to pass, then I'd hit them with a S.A.R. non-compliance claim to force their compliance with it. They can't seriously expect a Judge to consider their behaviour as reasonable in this situation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...