Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. 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. 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 24/12/2022. 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 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: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
    • Always send with proof of posting from your Post Office, so there is a trail. Conversations , are designed to intimidate into paying, Emails are designed as another way of bombarding. Only EVER communicate in writing, by post.  
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5300 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

Bailiffs attended a retail shop with a demand backed up by a CC judgement.

The alleged debt of £300 was turned into a £1700 demand, and Bailiffs said they will lock shop door, which they did until payment was made.

The debt was in the name of the former owner of the shop, with similar name. They didnt want to hear this, stating, if payment not made they will stay all in shop (locked) at £60 per hour.

Shopkeeper paid half to get them to unlock the door, and sent someone to get rest of money. Then when paid the bailiffs left.

Now Shop keeper wants to get the judgement set aside, and get his money back.

Any comments please for a very harrassed shop keeper, and guidance

 

dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any ideas what the original debt was for-this could help establish the debt was not owed by the current owner.

Also who is the bailiff firm ?

Also did they leave paperwork with a breakdown of charges ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the judgement was in the name of former owner and entered legitimately,then its unlikely that it will be set aside.

What needs to be challenged is the enforcement action that has occured.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails
the CC was for £700 the rest charges and expenses

 

The Law that prescribes fees for collecting unpaid CCJ's is the County Court Fees Order(Amended 1994) 1982. It only provides for bailiffs to charge £45, it appears he is trying to defrauding you with his fees - and that commits an offence under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. There is nothing in the legislation that enables a bailiff to charge "waiting time".

 

Bailiffs are not allowed to interfere with the normal operation of a business, or do anything that disrupts its in any way.

 

Bailiffs can only levy on goods belonging to the debtor, if you are not the debtor then your goods cannot be used in this way and the bailiff commits burglary.

 

It looks like you are dealing with a common fraudster.

 

Do find out of the bailiff is collecting unpaid biz rates - different laws apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say if the shop was taken as a going concern if so did the shop keeper have a contract to pay outstanding debts?

 

is the shop sole trader/partnership or ltd company?

 

and does the shop still use the same printer/and if so did the new shop keeper sigh a new contract as from what you say the printer is on a lease where the company do all the maintenance.

 

and are you sure this is still a county court claim and not high court because the fees sound like high court to me.

 

If you PM me the shop keepers details i will be happy to take this one on.

 

LFB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails

The OP said: The debt was in the name of the former owner of the shop, with similar name. This means there is no obligation for the current tenant to pay a debt owed by the previous tenant.

 

This is not a High Court action because the OP says the alleged debt is £300 and the minimum debt to qualify for transfer-up is £600.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP said: The debt was in the name of the former owner of the shop, with similar name. This means there is no obligation for the current tenant to pay a debt owed by the previous tenant.

 

This is not a High Court action because the OP says the alleged debt is £300 and the minimum debt to qualify for transfer-up is £600.

 

The debt was £300 to start with and is now £1700 this could be because there is also county court fees and cc bailiff fees and 8% interest from the judgment date.

 

if the debt is passed to a company that is also reg HCEO's they do there best to take a ccj above £600 so they can transfer it to a high court in order to put high court fees on, this is very commen.

 

and if the shop was taken as a going concern then it would also depend on the purches contract i.e there could be a clause to state that the new owner takes on all lease agreements.

 

LFB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

i have found the C/C breakdown of charges as follows:

Origional Invoice £348.85

Additionla Charges for maintenace agreement £115.00

6 items of correspondence £172.50

2 x telephone calls £23.00

interest @ 8% £15.54

Court fee £65.00

 

The rest makes up Bailiff charges, Totalling £1765.00

 

dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails

I dont think a court would accept a transfer up application because the debt itself must be more than £600. If 8% interest increases £300 to more than £600 then it has been outstanding more than 6 years - and exempt under Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980.

 

The bailiffs fees on a CCJ has a maximum limit £45, and a transfer up court wont accept transfer up application because the debt can be challenged on fee irregularity. Looking at the fees quoted above, it appears the bailiff is a common fraudster.

 

In any event the OP is not liable for any of the debt because there is no contract between him and the creditor, and further, there is no evidence the OP's name is on any court document ordering him to pay.

 

The OP has a right to claim damages from the bailiff company for the disruption to the normal operation of his business and should write to them asking them to pay within a deadline, and he has a right to sue the bailiff in the small claims track if he does not pay. He can also ask a court for a Restraining Order preventing the bailiff causing further disruption to his business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the shop door was locked by teh bailiffs... then this constituents "false imprisonment", a criminal act..... or am I dreaming ?

 

Could do as the first post would seem that there were a few people in the shop as well as the owner and could also be against health and safty law as he has just locked what could be a fire exit.

 

LFB

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think a court would accept a transfer up application because the debt itself must be more than £600. If 8% interest increases £300 to more than £600 then it has been outstanding more than 6 years - and exempt under Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980

 

that is not so as we have just been fighting a case for the same thing and that was also under £600.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Happy Contrails

If thats true, the OP would have an HCEO chasing him.

 

The CC Judgement is less than £600, its the bailiff that is fraudulently adding fees increasing the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4148 boome, Please can you private message me the name of these bailiffs, the name of the bailiff will be on the writ.

 

 

 

I think I know who they are but need you to confirm, if they are who i think they are in deep anyway, and are currently being investigated.

 

I am local to you, and would be prepared to meet up to help you if this is what I think it is.

 

thanks

danboy381

Edited by MARTIN3030
inapp wording

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fees would be added in any manner in order to be able to transfer up.

 

i,e i have one that is:

 

£530 judgement debt

£160 judgement costs

£101.75 execution costs

 

Thats already £791 so bingo up to the high court it goes.

 

And as for locking a shop door, effectively stopping the shop trading is illegal. No one can do that when collecting a goddam judgement.

Edited by danboy381

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems a serious matter, however calling the police wouldn't have achieved anything, they would have automatically sided with the bailiff.

 

I seriously hope this kind of fraud is nailed by an incoming government at the next elections... fixed rates for bailiffs collecting on any kind of debt, and any infringment means their bond is automatically forfeit... soon put paid to their little antics. Along with the fact that any commission they earn has to be declared on a weekly basis and taxed at top rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said sillygirl - fixed rate on collecting sounds good and the immediate loss of bond if they are caught dicking around with people.

 

This is an interesting case, the same thing happened with me, but got all the money back after lodging Interpleader - (Notice RSC17 Rule2) to the bailiff office.

They paid up some 10 days later.

****.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you know what the bailiff company was called, and also do you have the name of the bailiff.

 

LFB

 

 

Bailiff firm is ok to post but please no personal IDs-just playing safe.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems a serious matter, however calling the police wouldn't have achieved anything, they would have automatically sided with the bailiff.

 

I'm not sure about that. Locking everyone inside almost certainly constitutes the crime of UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT. I don't think the police, even though they are generally useless on bailiff law, would have allowed that, and I think that the bailiffs concerned should now be prosecuted under the criminal law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...