Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What type of finance is it?   HP, PCP, Loan? They want her to ring so they can bully her into making payments she can't afford...unless she can record her calls then IMHO, I'd keep everything in writing. Is £400 SSP her only income? There's no chance they will justify taking half of that.   Lodge a formal complaint with them ASAP, exhaust it, and then you can escalate it sooner rather than later, ruddy sharks!  
    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: 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. 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 written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s 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. 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. 4. Point 3 is noted. 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. 5. 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. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. 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 *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. 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. 11. 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 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter 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. 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 it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

UK debt being Chased in Australia


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3756 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

Skippy

 

You must take option 2.

 

Punishment by the Regulatory bodies is all scummy DCAs understand. Be thankful that you are in Oz where the authorities have balls and not here in the UK where thay talk the talk but have yet to walk the walk.

 

Go for the jugular.

 

Pie on Ear know they are stuffed hence their keeness to get you to settle quietly. Unless they offer you a huge sum of dosh or several tinnies of ice cold golden nectar then hang them out to Dry/Die

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 538
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Skippy

 

You must take option 2.

 

 

 

I agree. If you take option 1, they win. They push people as far as they can and when they know they can't win they just pull out and no harm comes to them. They rely on the fact that a large number of people would simply give in and pay. That's why they don't mind making all these false claims.

 

I won't be happy until they have been punished for they actions. I would really like to see their license revoked and I will push as hard as I can for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Option 2 would be benificial to all, but you need to take your own situation into consideration first. Make sure everything is water tight though if you do take option 1.

 

My complaints are still standing though, even though they have no recourse on me now. I'm gunning for the idiots one way or the other.

 

About time these people where taught a lesson as long as ASIC et al will have the decency to take action. Which under the glaring obvious way these people have breached various laws and regulations they should do pretty soon.

 

I believe we may have a spate of similar calls to other members of the PFF very shortly.

 

Bodgit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Option 2 would be benificial to all, but you need to take your own situation into consideration first. Make sure everything is water tight though if you do take option 1.

 

My complaints are still standing though, even though they have no recourse on me now. I'm gunning for the idiots one way or the other.

 

About time these people where taught a lesson as long as ASIC et al will have the decency to take action. Which under the glaring obvious way these people have breached various laws and regulations they should do pretty soon.

 

I believe we may have a spate of similar calls to other members of the PFF very shortly.

 

Bodgit

the fat lady is on stage. i have just spoken to my lawyer. he has spoken at length to the lawyer at fos today. i have great news i can't post here.....

 

2010 is a great year already. happy to take anyones calls if you want to know more....

 

Pie and beer are seemingly on the ropes. it appears they want to reduce the number of fos complaints at all costs....

 

im feeling like a dog with 2 d*cks tonight... sing fat lady sing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Skippy

 

You must take option 2.

 

Punishment by the Regulatory bodies is all scummy DCAs understand. Be thankful that you are in Oz where the authorities have balls and not here in the UK where thay talk the talk but have yet to walk the walk.

 

Go for the jugular.

 

Pie on Ear know they are stuffed hence their keeness to get you to settle quietly. Unless they offer you a huge sum of dosh or several tinnies of ice cold golden nectar then hang them out to Dry/Die

not sure about balls, but everything including a barbers is licensed here. so when it comes to renewal time.........

 

santas watching.... be good pls children!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Greeno. From my experience - I lodged a FOS complaint and received an auto-generated email reply straight away (11/01/10). I then received a reply from P&B which although dated 11/01/10, I didn't receive until around the 19/01/10. Then received a letter from FOS dated 20/01/10.

The best bit is P&B included detail in their letter dated the 11th which didn't happen until the 13th - gotta love their attention to detail!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi greeno

 

I didnt receive an automatic response either but I do know they are well and truly on the case, just wading through all of our cases I suspect. Some others have had contact made so now its just a waiting game till they get to us too. Rest assured though, they are aware and answering all complaints in due course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my application is well advanced at FOS and I think it's going our way. Can't say anymore at this stage.

 

Guys, quite simply the best advice you can get on this forum is to put an application into FOS. Firstly, it costs Pie&Beer $2K for every single application and secondly, if (when) you win on grounds of jurisdiction (and anything else you can think of), FOS have the power to wipe the alleged debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great advice Goldcoast. I'd normally would wish you luck with your FOS complaint but from what I have seen they are really good and you don't need luck.

 

To anyone who hasn't filed a complaint with FOS, do it now. The process is simple and free. At least it is free to you, it costs Pie & Beer at least $2,000 for each complaint.

 

In addition to finding that the debt is unenforceable, FOS can also award costs to you and even compensation in the worst cases. If you have suffered any financial loss because of Pie & Beer this may be recovered.

 

If anyone doesn't want to submit to a public forum they can send me a personal message. We now have two teams of lawyers working on this and someone on the inside.

 

If anyone has paid money to Pie & Beer for a UK credit card debt after being threatened by them, please contact me to be part of a class action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my application is well advanced at FOS and I think it's going our way. Can't say anymore at this stage.

 

Guys, quite simply the best advice you can get on this forum is to put an application into FOS. Firstly, it costs Pie&Beer $2K for every single application and secondly, if (when) you win on grounds of jurisdiction (and anything else you can think of), FOS have the power to wipe the alleged debt.

i agree. i also have reason to believe the tide has turned against pioneer. fos is the way to go, then followed by asic one fos ruling is out...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoke to FOS and they said my issue has been received, accepted and escalated already. She wasn't able to tell me too much but I got the impression that this was unusual and had gone to someone high up. Then again I might have just been trying to read too much into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Newman - it's good to be back.

 

Bodgit's been keeping me in the loop but it's really good to be able to watch all this unfolding...and P & B's defence unravelling :D

 

Bugger Foxtel, I'm staying tuned to this channel! Or at least until the footy starts again...mind you, if the Sharkies start this season the way they played last year I may need to reconsider that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been following this thread with interest for a little while now.

 

Glad to hear (see/read?) that you guys have taken the bull by the horns with regards to this P&B mob.

 

One thing that has me concerned, - and please correct me if I have misunderstood.

 

1. The FOS in Australia is a voluntary scheme/code, and P&B have given notice that they wish to withdraw. (this takes 1 year ?)

 

2. Several Aussie CAGGERs have complained to the FOS about the behaviour of P&B and gained a resolution largely due to pressure from the FOS ?

 

3. What has been the outcome of queries raised about the defaults/negative info the P&B have made to Credit Reference Agencies ? (Veda?)

 

I suspect that P&B will get worse with their badly behaved ways once they are free of the binding rulings that can be made by the FOS.

 

4. For those that dont have the luxury of complaining to the FOS in future, what are the best option(s) they can use to repel the attacks on themselves (and their credit files) against P&B ?

 

Discuss....

Just trying to be proactive.

Edited by toto003
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...