Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Law Project are trying to force HMG to release details of how Sunak's hedge fund made large profits from Moderna. Government ordered to disclose Sunak’s hedge fund emails - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG Good Law Project has won a battle with the Treasury after it tried to suppress emails between Rishi Sunak and the hedge fund he founded.  
    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
  • 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 
        • 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

Advice Oh Wise Ones!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5388 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

I don't want to name names here right now as I am at a tricky stage with this.

I have received a letter this morning from the compliance dept of a well known DCA with a HU 1 post code as follows;

 

You state that you do not acknowledge and debt to HU 1 but you have already made such an acknowledgement as following the assignment you made payments to us. It is now too late to say you do not acknowledge it.

The Notice of Assignment was sent to you on XXXXXX, They have already sent me a home made copy dated three months later than this.

I apologise for the typographocal error in my earlier letter which referred to XXXX. Whilst I cannot be absolutely certain that you received the Notice, the fact that 11 days later (on XXXXXXXX)) we received correspondence from the Debt Counsellors on your behalf, it is a reasonable assumption that you did receive the Notice. If you had not how would they have known to contact us? I entered into a DMP at that time.

I note your comments regarding legal defination of 'legal assignement' but repeat that the Notice was sent to you and I believe was communicated to you. It was not returned to us and you commenced payments after this. However, if, which is not accepted, the provisions for legal assignment have not been met, the transfer of the debt to HU 1 would operate as an equitable assignment. I deny , therefore that any activity we have undertaken is unlawful.

I have already explained to you that I believe we have complied with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act wth regard to documents which have previously been provided to you.

In the circumstances, I believe the entry at the credit reference agencies is valid as it accurately reflects that you failed to pay the account.

I sent them a SAR last week and this letter was sent the day after they received the SAR.

I have persisted in trying to get;

 

A true copy of the executed Consumer Credit Agreement and not a mailer Application Form.

 

A true copy of the original Default Notice which you claim was furnished by the original creditor.

 

A true copy of the actual Assignment from the original creditor to HU 1.

 

A true copy of the original Notice of Assignment which HU 1 claim to have sent.

 

They have persistantly failed to send any of these and I am waiting with interest to see what they can rustle up for the SAR request.

 

Can anyone give me their advice on this please??????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

You state that you do not acknowledge and debt to HU 1 but you have already made such an acknowledgement as following the assignment you made payments to us. It is now too late to say you do not acknowledge it.

 

Yes granted, any payment would be constured by the Court as an acknowledgement of a debt,.

 

I apologise for the typographocal error in my earlier letter which referred to XXXX. Whilst I cannot be absolutely certain that you received the Notice, the fact that 11 days later (on XXXXXXXX)) we received correspondence from the Debt Counsellors on your behalf, it is a reasonable assumption that you did receive the Notice. If you had not how would they have known to contact us?

Again 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, however if they have stated that they cannot be certain of the delivery of the notice (a DN??) then they also cannot be assured that the simple action of your debt counsellors who communicated with them to have been assumption that you received any correspondence from them!

 

In layman's terms, just because someone has communicated with them after they have sent some random correspondence, does not mean that you or anyone acting on your behalf has acknowledged or even received said correspondence:)

 

Boo:wink:

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In layman's terms, just because someone has communicated with them after they have sent some random correspondence, does not mean that you or anyone acting on your behalf has acknowledged or even received said correspondence:)

 

Boo:wink:

 

That one is going a bit too far. If you suddenly change a payee name, they are right in that you have recieved something from them. However, it does not mean the NOA is the letter you responded to, only you responded to some letter. Neither does it mean the NOA fits the legal criteria for a NOA.

 

The Limitation Act means the debt has been acknowledged by payment. However, the letter itself does not mean you agree who is the owner.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, this seems to be a complaint over CRA reporting than anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Limitation Act means the debt has been acknowledged by payment. However, the letter itself does not mean you agree who is the owner.

 

Whilst I should be able to come back with a reasonable argument:) I bloody well can't and I blame the beer:eek:

 

Although aktiv, I don't see that hme wants to fend them off with the SB act?

 

I can however hear my pillow calling:wink:

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I should be able to come back with a reasonable argument:) I bloody well can't and I blame the beer:eek:

 

Although aktiv, I don't see that hme wants to fend them off with the SB act?

 

I can however hear my pillow calling:wink:

 

Keep off the beer :p

 

Seriously I do see the question being answered from the wrong angle. Hme seems to be really concerned with a DCA reporting negatives on their credit file when no CCA has been produced, the acknowledgement is not going to help there due to the payment which was the only point I was making.

 

~added after~

Whatever the type of assignment, DCA's can report under their own name or the banks name. It is no use just complaining over the legalities of assignee to report in their own name if the end result means the entry either stays exactly as it is, or, changes to an identical entry under banks name. The focal point here needs to be what anyone can report when payments are held back due to non-cca compliance.

Edited by make them aktiv runners
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a small point, may or may not have relevance:

 

In the typed copy of their letter (Post 1) they are being grammatically incorrect: They use both 'we' (ie. the company) and 'I' (the individual) so this could be construed that some points are from the DCA as a Company and others are just personal opinions (as in 'I' and not 'we').

 

So, in theory at least, their are points that could be raised as to the total validity of what they are saying as a company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I need to put this in order of events so that people can understand.

I entered into a DMP about 5 years ago having been left with a mountain of debt from my previous OH and being on Incapacity Benefit there was no way I could handle it as the charges for interest were just about killing me.

This account was one of the ones I entered into the DMP with.

I have never received a Default Notice or Notice of Assignment from the OC or DCA.

None of my creditors have produced an enforceable agreement, some haven't produced anthing at all, so I stopped paying them through the DMP in June of last year.

This DCA produced a mailer Application form which had alterations on it and was completely illegible.

I asked them for a copy of the DN and the NoA. They sent a home made NoA which was dated 3 months after they had defaulted me on my CRA reports, no DN at all.

Now they are saying I responded to the NoA (which I never received) It was purely co-incidental that I entered the DMP shortly after that.

They do not have an enforceable agreement, they have persistantly failed to supply the copies of the original DN, NoA or true copy of the agreement and they have recorded a default on my CRF for five years, which they refuse to remove.

The dates they have given have changed in every letter I have had from them, they don't seem to have accurate records for anything related to this account, pick a date any date will do.

Following advice on here, I have told them I do not acknowledge any debt to them until they produce a valid CCA. Are you telling me this now wrong?

I am not going for the SB route, I am just trying to get correct documentation as I have been requesting it for months, and, if they can't produce the documentation I want the default removed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That one is going a bit too far. If you suddenly change a payee name, they are right in that you have recieved something from them. However, it does not mean the NOA is the letter you responded to, only you responded to some letter. Neither does it mean the NOA fits the legal criteria for a NOA.

 

THe first bit of what aktiv says is right. However, I would suggest that it does not matter whether you responded to the noa or to any other letter that says this debt is now owned by them. If you do respond at all, by paying them, telephoning them or writing to them then you will have acknowledged the assignment.

 

In terms of legal criteria, there is very little. It merely has to say "your debt with x is now payable to y". If it does say anything about the date or the amount then it does have to be accurate, but otherwise, that's all there is to a noa

 

 

hme,

 

given that you are/were on a debt management plan and you haven't paid them anything for a year, if it were me I would continue not paying them. If they were in a position to do so, I would suggest that they would have taken you to court by now.

 

You can ask for correct documentation as much as you like, but if they don't want to send you anything then they don't have to. The only way to force them to do this is to take them to court. Is that something you want to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following advice on here, I have told them I do not acknowledge any debt to them until they produce a valid CCA. Are you telling me this now wrong?

 

No on the contrary, it is correct advice and should be followed.

If you have requested from them a Valid CCA and they have failed to produce one, then place the account into dispute stop all payments to them, and maybe then they might pull their finger out and attempt to find the correct legally enforceable documentation.

 

Boo;)

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good advice, thank you.

I have as I said already placed the account in dispute and stopped paying them and they still haven't come up with an enforceable agreement.

 

The reason I wanted a NoA from the OC is because I believed that is what should happen.

 

Anyone, even the milkman could write me a letter to say he was now the owner of the debt, and without a OC NoA I wouldn't know any different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't give them any more ideas about using milkmen and postmen to collect alleged debts!:-D

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...