Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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. 9. 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.
  • 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

LTSB Default Notice - a query


thunderballs
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5394 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

How would I get the proof I need? The DSAR sheets I've got don't say whether that 30th Apr letter is the notice. But I don't have any letters dated the 30th. The closest thing I was sent to that date were the DNs - I also recall they were in the same envelope together.

 

it wont be for you to disprove it will be for them to prove

 

there are certain questions that you will ask them in court but i'm not going to state them here and now!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Thats fair enough - I appreciate theres only so much info to take in. I think I can take a guess what the questions would be. They'll add to the masses of 'why was this allowed to happen' and 'why wasn't this delivered when I asked for it' type questions I've been asking them - some of which have been asked of LTSB repeatedly. In all honesty, I've NEVER encountered such a comically inept, shambolic and pig ignorant company as them. Hopefully, they'll be out of the picture soon enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats fair enough - I appreciate theres only so much info to take in. I think I can take a guess what the questions would be. They'll add to the masses of 'why was this allowed to happen' and 'why wasn't this delivered when I asked for it' type questions I've been asking them - some of which have been asked of LTSB repeatedly. In all honesty, I've NEVER encountered such a comically inept, shambolic and pig ignorant company as them. Hopefully, they'll be out of the picture soon enough.

 

i'll pm you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, have you asked LTSB specifically about the DN and their proof of posting? They told me that they don't keep thm (but I do) and gave me a postal date a day later which meant they failed.

 

exactly cymruambyth,

 

that was my point above, they also told me they dont keep them nor proof of postage, if so its deemed as 2nd class:

Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

 

 

 

getting that in writing will obviously help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I've not specifically asked them about that. I know that I should have, and I certainly will be doing that. I won't get a quick response from them - they've never been quick with anything I've ever asked of them!

 

But, from what I can see, the fact that **** asked me for the full balance on each letter before the DNs were sent, is also quite important. I'd like to get a little more information on the workings of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

exactly cymruambyth,

 

that was my point above, they also told me they dont keep them nor proof of postage, if so its deemed as 2nd class:

Practice Direction

Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail.

 

With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore.

1). Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

2). To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:-

(a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting;

(b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting.

"Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday.

3). Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used.

4). This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process.

 

8th March 1985

J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master

Queen's Bench Division

 

 

 

 

getting that in writing will obviously help.

 

these point whilst spot on would seem to be totally irrelevant now given the information you just posted

 

they have terminated the agreement a month before sending a DN

 

if the SAR does not show any DN's as having been issued to you befoe these two termination letters then its all over, game set and match to you

 

this is about as unlawful as an unlawful rescission of contract can get IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

they have terminated the agreement a month before sending a DN

 

if the SAR does not show any DN's as having been issued to you befoe these two termination letters then its all over, game set and match to you

 

this is about as unlawful as an unlawful rescission of contract can get IMO

 

id have to completely agree with that DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charges and PPI are also involved. Being as arrogant as they are, LTSB refuses to back down on those. Claimed for those already (some time ago, as it happens).

 

Would claims for those affect the DN issue? My own imagination of a court POV, I'd guess not, being that the DN issue seems to be entirely a breach of practice issue on the bank's part (much like punitive charges).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many. many thanks to diddydicky for his brilliant input in clarifying a hideously complicated situation.

 

 

According to LTSB, they wrote off the account in June 2007. I've said before mine was a complicated affair.

 

 

But, I take it that as **** were demanding the full balance (as can be seen by the attached two letters earlier in this thread) a month BEFORE the DNs were issued, then their demands effectively constitute account termination.

 

 

However, since 'Charge Off/Write Off', LTSB are still trying to continue pursuing (mainly by means of external DCAs), doing it by :-

 

 

1. A consolidated account (apparently consisting of the outstanding balances of two terminated accounts), for which no agreement exists.

 

2. A credit card agreement (which is actually headlined 'Credit Card Application Form and Agreement'). The personal details are correct to me but the handwriting is not (two different people have completed this form). I believe this 'agreement' has been 'knocked up' from other paperwork possibly and which LTSB have just pulled out of thin air (I've never seen this agreement before in my life prior to them sending me this 'copy' very recently). It's certainly not an account I've ever used.

 

 

Up to now, I've been quoted and sent in paperwork, the details of four separate accounts which I've only ever had or used two of them at best.

 

 

Now, because LTSB's DSAR sheet does specifically state 'Charge Off/Write Off' and they're continuing pursuit (if not getting other companies to do it for them!), isn't this tax evasion on their part?

 

 

After all, wouldn't they have offset the 'defaulted sum' off against tax on that Charge Off/Write Off date?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many. many thanks to diddydicky for his brilliant input in clarifying a hideously complicated situation.

 

 

According to LTSB, they wrote off the account in June 2007. I've said before mine was a complicated affair.

 

 

But, I take it that as **** were demanding the full balance (as can be seen by the attached two letters earlier in this thread) a month BEFORE the DNs were issued, then their demands effectively constitute account termination.

 

 

However, since 'Charge Off/Write Off', LTSB are still trying to continue pursuing (mainly by means of external DCAs), doing it by :-

 

 

1. A consolidated account (apparently consisting of the outstanding balances of two terminated accounts), for which no agreement exists.

 

2. A credit card agreement (which is actually headlined 'Credit Card Application Form and Agreement'). The personal details are correct to me but the handwriting is not (two different people have completed this form). I believe this 'agreement' has been 'knocked up' from other paperwork possibly and which LTSB have just pulled out of thin air (I've never seen this agreement before in my life prior to them sending me this 'copy' very recently). It's certainly not an account I've ever used.

 

 

Up to now, I've been quoted and sent in paperwork, the details of four separate accounts which I've only ever had or used two of them at best.

 

 

Now, because LTSB's DSAR sheet does specifically state 'Charge Off/Write Off' and they're continuing pursuit (if not getting other companies to do it for them!), isn't this tax evasion on their part?

 

 

After all, wouldn't they have offset the 'defaulted sum' off against tax on that Charge Off/Write Off date?

 

i wouldnt concern yourself with their tax affairs to be honest

 

so what is your intention now? do you want to force the issue and go on the offensive or just sit back and let them take the lead(you can still take control of the situation when they have done that)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure to be honest, diddydicky. I'm torn between acting against them, or waiting for them to act against me. I guess that's the next puzzler I need to decide on.

 

Just I noticed what the DSAR had said about the Charge Off date, and thought it might have been worth mentioning as it could have been relevant to what the thread has already discussed.

 

I just wasn't sure if the topic had come up under discussion on these boards before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another factor I failed to point out.

 

Defaults were left on my credit reports once the 'consolidation' of the two terminated accounts took place. This was in June 2007, and over a month after LTSB's default notice expired.

 

Would I be right in thinking that LTSB merely ASSUMED they shut the account down already when they passed in to **** in March 2007, realised they hadn't once they sent the list of charges to me, and then closed my account down in a rush because I told them I was reporting them to the ICO for non-compliance?

 

Did they do this to hinder my claim for refund of charges?

 

Just trying to make some sense of LTSB's actions. Admittedly, that's an uphill struggle in itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...