Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you!    It was bought on my debit card    
    • Hi. Welcome to CAG. How was the car purchased?  
    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. 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.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
  • 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

Letter from a debt collector on behalf of Excel, owner of vehicle mentally disabled


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5369 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

Hello

 

i have followed your advice about ignoring letters from Excel but now we have received a letter from a debt collecting company saying that in the "absence of payment or any valid dispute" they will "pursue the matter".

 

The letters are all addressed to my father who is the owner of the vehicle but is not allowed to drive because he is classed as mentally disabled after a motorbike accident. Several people are therefore on his insurance policy to drive him around. Can we argue that he does not know/remember who was driving the vehicle and as a mentally disabled person he cannot be liable?

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you can argue this but I would like to see you continue to ignore.

 

I'm not too sure that a mental disability absolves liability though.

 

Raises some interesting thoughts on "Owner Liability" for LA issued PCNs though which I know this is not.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

argue what? You are not in anyway legally obliged to tell me or any other random 3rd party (including Excel) who is driving. IT is their responsibility to prove who is driving ... and they have no legal powers to carry out investigations or force people to tell them under oath!!!!

 

Let them chase your father all the way. If they take it to court (which they wont) the case would be dismissed as soon as you can prove your Dad was not the driver.

 

Remember, debt collectors have absolutely no powers. They are just agressive individuals who are paid comission and so bend the truth to make you think you must pay!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks for the really quick replies guys!! :-)

 

i remember reading somewhere amongst all the other threads that the owner of the vehicle cannot be held liable on private carparks and that when Excel write in their letters "you are liable as owner of the vehicle" that this is a lie, but i can't find that post anymore, could you possibly give me some tips on where to find the exact legal regulations on this?

 

Also, i read something in the letter templates thread about behaving reasonably. The debt collector's are saying "If we do not hear from you within 7 days we will pass the matter to our solicitors, who will review your case for potential legal action". It therefore seems a bit unreasonable not to reply... Would it not be reasonable to reply saying that my father was not the driver, is mentally incapacitated, cannot drive and does not know who was driving?

 

Thanks again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOT respond in anyway otherwise they'll never leave you alone.

 

Please accept the advice already given here that they have no legal right whatsoever to demand from you or anyone else payment. They certainly have no legal entitlment to demand the details of the person who may have been driving on the date in question

 

& even if the owner IS mentally ill that's none of their business Also if you did you could be in breach of the law by divulging such highly confidential info without the subjects consent which it would appear they can't give as they don't have capacity

 

& last but not least it's not a good idea to let strangers know that there is a vunerable person at that address as who knows what might happen ................ the drive tarmac:rolleyes: .............. the roof repaired:rolleyes: all costing thousands of pounds........... need I go on:cool:

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

argue what? You are not in anyway legally obliged to tell me or any other random 3rd party (including Excel) who is driving. IT is their responsibility to prove who is driving ... and they have no legal powers to carry out investigations or force people to tell them under oath!!!!

 

Let them chase your father all the way. If they take it to court (which they wont) the case would be dismissed as soon as you can prove your Dad was not the driver.

 

Remember, debt collectors have absolutely no powers. They are just agressive individuals who are paid comission and so bend the truth to make you think you must pay!!!!

 

Whilst I agree whith most of your comments I would point out that the original poster doesn't have to 'prove' anything, if anything it's for Excel to 'prove' who was driving NOT the otherway round & even then they'd have to prove a valid contract existed between them & the driver

Link to post
Share on other sites

okey dokey, will follow your advice, especially about revealing his condition, thanks for that!

If we get a solicitor's letter i suppose we'll have to reply though, so i'll just say he is the owner but cannot drive the vehicle as he has no licence and he doesn't know who was driving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my gawd ............NO you won't have to reply to anyones letter, even a solicitor. Anyone can get a 'solicitors' letter sent for a few quid. In your case it would be meaningless as they would have no more status than Excel which amounts to now't as they still have to establish who was driving & if a contract was entered into but if you do then come back here I we'll tell you if or how you should respond

 

Perhaps because your new here you don't realize but some here on this site who give free advice are lawyers

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh ok, didn't realise that. Was thinking about getting our solicitor to reply in the case of a letter from theirs but then i thought our solicitor would probably charge us the same for a letter as the original £40 fine. Ok, will come back to you if we get a solicitor's letter from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In summary:

• it is a mail [problem]

• there is no 'fine', only a charge which is completely unenforceable

• the keeper was not the driver and has nothing to do with the charge

• Excel's paperwork is unlawful. Claiming the keeper is liable is actually fraud under the 2006 Fraud Act

ignore everything and if hell froze over and it went to court, your defence would be more solid than diamond. But it won't go to court anyway - the letters will just dry up and they'll move onto another victim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree whith most of your comments I would point out that the original poster doesn't have to 'prove' anything, if anything it's for Excel to 'prove' who was driving NOT the otherway round & even then they'd have to prove a valid contract existed between them & the driver

 

I said that! Though if it went to court you would have to reply to the defence stating why it was incorrect and then show evidence to prove why they were not the driver...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great thanks!

Haven't understood the difference between keeper and owner but will follow your advice and do nothing.

i really don't want my dad to have to go through the ordeal of a court appearance though....

Link to post
Share on other sites

in your case, the difference between the keeper and owner is irrelivant. They have got your Dads details from the DVLA and are writing to him hoping he'll just believe the rubbish and think that he is responsible for all the drivers (like the police/council tickets) and pay up.

 

It will never get to court... but if it did, you can tell the courts that your father is unable to attend due to his disability... the judge would probably throw it out before it even got to that stage!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all intents and purposes, they are the same. It's just that the owner may not necessarily be the keeper.

 

This is a mail [problem] though - court is economically unviable for them. I doubt your father would have to get involved if he isn't fit anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

okey dokey, will follow your advice, especially about revealing his condition, thanks for that!

If we get a solicitor's letter i suppose we'll have to reply though, so i'll just say he is the owner but cannot drive the vehicle as he has no licence and he doesn't know who was driving.

If you'd care to look you'll see several people got a letter from Roxburghe's linked to Excel this last week. And yes, i speak from experience. Some for a carpark where Excel were exposed, again on here.

 

If i sent you an official looking letter demanding money, would you pay me?? Of course not.

Now do yourself and your family a big favour and file the nonsense away and ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed

 

ignore totally

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that! Though if it went to court you would have to reply to the defence stating why it was incorrect and then show evidence to prove why they were not the driver...

 

 

No you don't THEY have to PROVE you were, prove being the operative word. Just because your the registered keeper doesn't mean your liable & even then as Excel have already found out to their cost their 'contract' both with the driver AND the land owner would have to be enforceable

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I aint going to argue, but it would be a pretty poor reply to the defence if you didn't submit a reason why them saying the disabled father wasn't the driver.... the judge isn't psychic, he's going to want to see the reason why you state he wasn't!! There is no point in holding back that sort of evidence!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that! Though if it went to court you would have to reply to the defence stating why it was incorrect and then show evidence to prove why they were not the driver...

In a civil claim the onus of proof is on the claimant. Both parties are assumed to be telling the truth. It is sufficient to deny their claim.

 

They can't just show up in court and say the registered keeper was the driver. The first thing a judge will ask them is How do you know? And as one PPC (of porcine persuasion) found out "We just do" will not suffice.

 

Only if they have some form of evidence they can present e.g. CCTV footage and a clear identification of a driver from a third party (otherwise the face in the picture is just a face) and/or a letter naming the driver will a claimant be entitled to conclude the RK and the driver are one and the same.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not constitute legal advice and is not represented as a substitute for legal advice from an appropriately qualified person or firm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but to claim the keeper doesn't remember may also be stretching credibility to an extreme & statements if proven false, may land the keeper in more trouble namely perjury. In addition as pin & I say it's upto them to prove who the driver was. Failure to do so would be enough to have the case thrown out at the outset

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the 'not the driver defence' is weak if the keeper was the driver (otherwise it's sound). The judge could perfectly reasonably decide that on the balance of probabilities the keeper was the driver if there is no evidence otherwise.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...