Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
  • 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

MandM vs Egg Loan ***Won with Strike Out***


MandM
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2945 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

Is this DN worth arguing???  

2 Caggers have voted

  1. 1. Is this DN worth arguing???

    • Yes, argue all the way!!!
      2
    • No, they've got you beat.
      0


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 619
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The restons letters above are horrifying to read. They can't possibly serve a default notice on an account that's already been terminated, can they?

 

At first sight I'd call that fraud. Am I missing something?

 

they can try!!

 

those letters are LUVERLY to read not horryfying

 

thank you Restons

Link to post
Share on other sites

The restons letters above are horrifying to read. They can't possibly serve a default notice on an account that's already been terminated, can they?

 

At first sight I'd call that fraud. Am I missing something?

 

No, they cant. :lol: But you would be surprised how many times they have tried :rolleyes:

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little update here. I was in court today and cited my DN's and lack of Termination Notice as reason to Set Aside my CCJ.

IT WORKED!!!!!! I now have 14 days to notify the claimant of my full defence.

 

Here is my link!:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/247688-default-notices-court-dates-2.html#post2830572

 

Something is working that is for sure!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little update here. I was in court today and cited my DN's and lack of Termination Notice as reason to Set Aside my CCJ.

IT WORKED!!!!!! I now have 14 days to notify the claimant of my full defence.

 

Here is my link!:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/247688-default-notices-court-dates-2.html#post2830572

 

Something is working that is for sure!!!!!!

 

:D:D:D Well done!!!

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The restons letters above are horrifying to read. They can't possibly serve a default notice on an account that's already been terminated, can they?

 

At first sight I'd call that fraud. Am I missing something?

 

i think what you are missing is:-

 

a/ Both letters contain an admission that a faulty DN is fatal to a claim- which makes restons arguing the opposite very difficult

 

b/ The application to re issue a new DN and amend the POC was refused

 

c/ Restons eventually discontinued

 

what's not to like:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence DDs statement>>

without even having to produce it to the judge (but making sure that Restons lawyer can see it on the desk)

 

I think its potential, just by reference alone, would cause them great concern. :D:D:D Happy days.

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Hey.....CONGRATULATIONS MandM! I wondered where you had vanished to and came across this link by accident while reading another link. FANTASTIC outcome for you......well done!

 

Thanks SB. Haven't vanished just yet ;), just buried in work atm.

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I missed this thread completely MandM... been too wrapped up elsewhere.

 

Great work!

 

Thanks vj. Still waiting to see if they dare appeal. All quiet so far :)

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, this is getting interesting again!

 

Have received a letter from the solicitors enclosing a NEW default notice :rolleyes:. They've had a few months to think about it now - no calls, no contact - and obviously decided that the appeal route is far too risky.

 

These are the same solicitors that confirmed almost a year ago that the account was now terminated and then proceeded straight to court.

 

Just looking for a nicely worded reply to give them.

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

out of interest, what have they put down as arrears? arrears at termination or arrears as though repayments should have been made

 

Here's a letter from DD totally different circumstances, but there are some nice pointers http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/242517-storecard-claim-served-what-9.html#post2830927

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to have a good search of teh forums for a more complete letter. I think a killer letter in these circumstances is needed as more and more creditors are doing this.

 

Maybe some of the 'letter experts' can get onto this ........

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that was my hack of DD's post :D

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is getting interesting again!

 

Have received a letter from the solicitors enclosing a NEW default notice :rolleyes:. They've had a few months to think about it now - no calls, no contact - and obviously decided that the appeal route is far too risky.

 

These are the same solicitors that confirmed almost a year ago that the account was now terminated and then proceeded straight to court.

 

Just looking for a nicely worded reply to give them.

 

M

 

Once a DN once issued, and terminated, cannot be followed by a second DN, as the "agreement" has been terminated, so it follows you cannot default an account which does not exist!

 

So the only DN that could be valid is the FIRST one so by when proceedings have commenced the Claimant will have terminated the agreement. The language of a default notice is framed on the basis there is a current agreement. That language is prescribed. If the Claimant terminated the agreement, to deliver an effective default notice will involve the fiction the agreement is current and never terminated. It would also involve the Claimant reinstating unilaterally. The debtor would be unlikely to agree to reinstatement if to do so would cure the Claimant's difficulties.

One good thing appears to be that they are admitting the 1st Default Notice is defective. It therefore follows that by starting Court Action, their client Terminated the Agreement unlawfully, because they had failed to secure a valid Default Notice before doing so. Thus, they are admitting they started Court/Terminated when they were in no position to do so lawfully, having lost all the benefits of s87.

 

That is unlawful rescission of Contract/repudiatory breach of Contract...for which you can ask them for compensation :)

 

Fairbyblues thread may help you with this one....I had that info above stored from there so may help you on this

fairbyblue /MBNA-Restons Court 20th.March-they have issued 2 default notices./ **WON**

(you may want to read back a little on here but hope it helps)

CAG NEEDS FUNDS PLEASE DONATE AS MUCH OR AS LITTLE WHERE POSSIBLE

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/paypal.php?go=donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to have a good search of teh forums for a more complete letter. I think a killer letter in these circumstances is needed as more and more creditors are doing this.

 

Maybe some of the 'letter experts' can get onto this ........

 

 

that was my hack of DD's post :D

 

Yes, it was a DD post I used in my original defence to argue the point on the day (should I have needed it) as to why they could not just simply correct the situation by issuing a 'new' DN. It makes a nonsense of the whole act if we can just simply 'correct' the situation now by complying with the 'new' DN.

 

Pretty sure it's along the lines of >>>> For a valid DN to be issued then the 'agreement' between us must still endure. However, they claimed the full amount = terminated. They took me to court for the full amount = terminated. They wrote and confirmed termination = terminated.

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

M

 

I think they either terminated, ended, finished, concluded or waved "bye bye" or "goodbye" (but definitely NOT "au revoir") to it. Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch can probably give you a few more synonyms for the current state of the agreement if you need to clarify the situation back to them!

 

BD

Edited by Bigdebtor
Typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...