Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here is my final draft: I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.   1.        The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date.   2.        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 wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants 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.   3.        The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’.  The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents.   4.        Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018.   5.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020.   6.        Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicotors is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’   7.        I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’.   8.        The claimant relies upon and exhibits a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement.   It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HH Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’.   The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause.   9.        Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not try to mislead the court.   10.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are 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 its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024
    • Only trying to help.  Ain't being nasty.  Some
    • Hi folks, I've just found previous documentation. I thought it had gone missing. I'd forgotten that I did appeal it through POPLA but I can't find the thread on here that, I assume, I posted for help. Appeal letter is dated 27/10/2020 with a rejection. I genuinely had forgotten about this so apologies for misleading you. A lot has happened in the years since the ticket was issued. We closed down a couple of businesses and moved to the opposite end of the country to retire. The documents I have are scanned copies. I no longer have the originals. If there's anything you'd like to see, please let me know and I'll post them, although it probably won't be until tomorrow now, but I'll be looking in on this page tonight. Thank you for the responses so far :)
    • Hello! After emailing them I received this reply:   I have drafted the following, please would you be able to comment as to if you think it is correct/sufficient? "Thank you for your email.   Thanks you for confirming that the vehicle does not have these features as stated in the advertisement.    I am sure you are aware that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides the short term right to reject within 30 days. Statutory rights cannot be taken away from a consumer, and any attempt to do so is illegal.   Please can you advise how best to return the vehicle?" Thanks in advance!
    • I find that highly disrespectful Sir/Madam just so you know.
  • 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

Mortgage Express appoint LPA Recievers Walker Singleton to scare tenants off!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4053 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

GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU CHILLI, BEEN QUIET ON HERE FOR A WHILE ,

HOPE EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING ON OK

YES MEDIATION ALTHOUGH WE ALL CAN GEUSS THE OUTCOME AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THEY WILL NOT COMPLY UNLESS IT SUITS THEM, ALSO THEY WILL WANT TO NAME THE MEDIATOR OOPS SORRY CAps lol

yes by all means use the Mediation Service http://www.civilmediation.justice.gov.uk/

this also help stop MX from any more activity with this account and suspend the actions of the receivers , also if the receivers and including mx are already in breach of the judges ruling you need'nt bother with mwdiation but seek a ruling from the judges for mx to cease and desist all actions until meditaion has taken place ?

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Chillin,

Good to hear that you are in mediation with these guys. my advice to you is that I would be very careful and I would be extremely skeptical of anything they said, ensure all is in writing and play your cards close to your chest. They seem to be past masters on delaying tactics, remember this is a job for them. I would also suggest, if there have been breaches to a court order, it is important to deal with them separately from the claim and have it on file, it will only strengthen your position.

 

My impression of them is not the best but will keep this to myself for now, suffice to say that i will not trust a car salesman as far as i can throw them.

 

Regarding cca and BTL mortgages, its interesting that there aren't a lot of people out there bringing cases against banks, they might have a case against them as i dont think there is a time limitation on cca agreements or s140 and 140a.

 

I have a lot to say on this issue with btl mortgages and i am thinking of starting a new thread to share my experience further, bcos i am getting really annoyed at the way these guys behave, their arrogance and smug attitude towards borrowers, I am happy to share my experience to help others in the hope that the more people know about this and bring cases the more they will take it seriously, however, the difficulty for me is that I am conducting my claim myself and it is extremely time consuming and draining, but notwithstanding, I am convinced that certain aspects of the mortgage contract can be challenged successfully under the cca.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My advice and comments are 'without prejudice' based on my personal experience, research and what I have learned through the people. Please If in doubt or told to, do not hesitate to seek legal advice. I can not be held responsible as each individual's circumstance is different

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi jutolo welcome to MX forum...

by all means share your experiances on here if its MX , also how far are you down the line with them , as if pointed out to Chilli trust them not... i would ask for a recorded meeting and have a solicitor handy as well .. and do not accept anything they say as trickery is their middle name

i also think the Goverment may have had words as well as the FSA also the Parent Company who are meant to be overseeeing MX out of their troubles or should i say parent company guiding the Building society

out of their financial troubles , but i suspect also someone may be considering a BID for the Company and with all these legal Problems they certainly dont want this showing up on their Books ...

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

just noticed the Bringing WS into the frame ABSOLUTELY NOT what you require from WS is so simple the accounts of all collection data all letters sent by them to your customers and all accounts for repairs and to include all emails and letter concerning you and your properties end of ...your matters are with MX , what they are trying to do here is hijack your complaints in order for them to be able to continue with the use of WS and their underhand tactics ..MX must stop all actions by ordering WS (cease and desist)against you before you agrree to any form of Mediation always remember WS are not party to your mortgages you never signed any document making them a party to any procceedings or discussions, your legal action has certainly made them sit up so please do not allow WS anywhere near this just order MX to cease and desist all actions before any mediation without MX otherwise use the courts to show they are in breech and ask the judge to give some sort of rulling

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chillin,

Good to hear that you are in mediation with these guys. my advice to you is that I would be very careful and I would be extremely skeptical of anything they said, ensure all is in writing and play your cards close to your chest. They seem to be past masters on delaying tactics, remember this is a job for them. I would also suggest, if there have been breaches to a court order, it is important to deal with them separately from the claim and have it on file, it will only strengthen your position.

 

My impression of them is not the best but will keep this to myself for now, suffice to say that i will not trust a car salesman as far as i can throw them.

 

Regarding cca and BTL mortgages, its interesting that there aren't a lot of people out there bringing cases against banks, they might have a case against them as i dont think there is a time limitation on cca agreements or s140 and 140a.

 

I have a lot to say on this issue with btl mortgages and i am thinking of starting a new thread to share my experience further, bcos i am getting really annoyed at the way these guys behave, their arrogance and smug attitude towards borrowers, I am happy to share my experience to help others in the hope that the more people know about this and bring cases the more they will take it seriously, however, the difficulty for me is that I am conducting my claim myself and it is extremely time consuming and draining, but notwithstanding, I am convinced that certain aspects of the mortgage contract can be challenged successfully under the cca.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My advice and comments are 'without prejudice' based on my personal experience, research and what I have learned through the people. Please If in doubt or told to, do not hesitate to seek legal advice. I can not be held responsible as each individual's circumstance is different

 

Hi jutola

 

A thread might just help you as well as others because if you share your experiences others may see aspects which might help you moving forward.

 

I understand there is sometimes need to keep things off the forum, but it would really help to get some good practical advice for newbies looking for help and support.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Thanks for posts. It is a good point from Patrick that dont want to deal with WS as it is the fault of MX that this has got yards worser than it aleady was.

 

Anyways, in typical MX and WS style, they have tried to lead me down the garden path with a mediation meeting stringing me along that we dont need defence replies until mediation is tried. Only 1 week left before court, they have now decided to oppose the injunction hearing and forget about the mediation meeting. I think they were hoping that I would be resting on my laurels and not doing anything, however I am prepared to fight them all the way no matter how much time or it costs to get done! Right dirty scoundrels these people it ought to be highlighted everywhere but not many people are listening in the media.:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

good for you Chilli , yes go for the buggars, they never intended Mediation it was a delaying tactic in order to take you for as much as they could get before any hearing and for you to cancel legal actions, in otherwords to go for a potential Bankruptcy if that possible just to cut their nose of to spite their face ,i would also be looking at the people responsible for MX in other words their Bosses also the Goverment department that are supposed to be looking after the goverments interest or should i say Tax payers interest if you have any correspondance concerning the paymasters to MX B & B i think then ask for the judge to bring them forward aas witneses due to the fact that you are still awaiting excess amounts of Paperwork and data from MX that they are flatly refusing to pass over especially concerning WS and their paperwork and their NEGLECT OF DUTY or Fidicury duty ...could go on but i think you get my drift

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

some pointers here concerning MX useful points to take into account:

take a reasonably broad-brush approach as to what the claims are;

putting in different or additional evidence will not usually alter what the dispute is;

different or additional arguments don’t usually mean it’s a different dispute;

different claim amounts or calculations are not necessarily a pointer to the disputes being different;

don’t be over-awed by the amount of detail, evidence or analysis when comparing the two claims;

it is OK to look at the expressed motivation of the referring party and the given reasons for the new basis of formulation;the basis of bringing WS to the table is very much in favour of MX who wish to be in control

and impose their will also note notices of adjudication and referral notices have no compulsory form and do not need to be interpreted as if they were contracts, pleadings or statutes; thi part MX are well aware of and i am sure you know it is not binding whatever is said ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again all, OK well lets see how it goes this week.

 

They MX and Ws have come up with a load of BS and backtracking what they promised etc, anything to get out of it.

 

Lets hope the Judge sees the real people that they are.

Wish me luck everyone. May the best man win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this for mediation or a hearing?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Caro,

Are you working late again?

They decided to oppose the mediation 1 week before the injunction hearing (We dalyed to allow them time to mediate and put their defence in), nice and typical WS and MX fashion.

 

So here goes on the court case now, its up to the judge to decide which is the best way. They are conjuring up any sorts of arguments to get themselves out of it but it all depends on the Judge on the day.

 

Will keep you posted.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what a night owl I am chillin! :p

 

Wonder what the judge will make of their change of heart.

 

I think you know we all wish you good luck and will be waiting with everything crossed to hear how it goes.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all,

Well been trying to catch my energies back after a long few days...

 

Anyways, the high court Judge (Lasted a whole 8 hours!) struck the injunction out on the basis that I did not have the means to indemnify the defendants costs and damages if the injunctions was carried out. Costs were made against me for their 2 barristers (1 for MX and 1 for WS), 3 Solicitors and a puppet from MX. WS were so arrogant noone from there turned up.

 

From the moment we turned up MX and WS were all very snobbery and demanding we give up before they stick the knife into us. The Drydens solicitor was actually an OK guy and just doing his job for MX, tried to see if he can sort out beforehand. The Judge actually heard our side and understood but could not grant because of no indemnity provided. Our argument was even if we do lose the case after injunction I still have to pay costs anyways.

 

However the judge has ordered a preliminary trial to be heard over a particular issue to which he stated I may have a strong case and it is arguable which is good but it does not stop MX and WS from selling the properties although I understand it leaves them liable for damages now this is ongoing.

 

Well I am not giving up and I intend to continue fighting by getting an appeal in straight away! And I am going to prepare so much evidence it is unbelievable for the preliminary hearing that they cannot possibly win!

 

The battle is now on!:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to trial seems like a good result, even if you didnt get the injunction that you wanted.

 

Re the indemnity - Dont really understand this, what costs and damanges would MX & WS suffer if the injunction had been granted.

 

Think WS ans MX will be really feeling the pressure now, watch out for their next round of dirty tricks, watch especially for them filing out of time documents ordered by the court, and failing to make applications for late service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Diddled, the costs and damages if I were to lose the case after the injunction such as the extra interest, solicitors and barristers fees etc.

 

I personally think it is the wrong decision hence why I will go for the appeal next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that costs were usually "in the case", and as Judge has ordered your case to go to trial all and any costs would then be assessed.

 

Did they apply for security for costs?

If you had been in the position to be able to pay funds into court would you have been granted the injunction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had indemnified the other parties costs I think I would have got the injunction.

 

I was surprised the Jugde asked for this as either way I am still liable for the losses anyway. There was nothing I could offer in terms of security or assets for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chilling,Sorry to hear abt you injunction. Can you PM me pls What is the general gist of your case and what sort of evidence do you have against themI am happy to assist if i can, btw i received letter that lpa have been revoked on my properties interesting

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jutolo, Have PMed.

 

I asked MX to refrain from selling the properties until outcome of the case. Got a nice email of them to say they will not agree to any stay on actions. In other words they will press on and sell as much as they can now! So they have more of an excuse to justify what they are doing ASAP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Very useful thread. I have 2 business partners in similar situations and MX refused just about every proposal other than full payment. If full payment could be made, then why would someone be in arrears in the first place? Also the receivers they instructed are just as bad Walker Singleton. They agreed a deal sometime ago but only to deny that they ever did and mysteriously MX reappointed a different receiver!

I just received a letter for my wife's portfoilo of 16 properties where they stated that they have not heard from the borrower regarding Ground Rent / service charges arrears that was paid by the lender, which is 100% untrue. The portfolio manager dealing with her case stated that we could ignore her portfolio whilst I was settling and clearing my ground rent / service charge arrears. He also started ignoring my calls as of 3 months ago.

The MX letter dated 01/02/12 gives my wife until 8th Feb 2012 to clear all her loans with them because of her ignoring their repaeted attempts to clear these arrears. Failure to do so would result in them instructing a receiver to deal with her property on her behalf!!!!

Neither my wife nor I have mortgage arrears with them! I will update you guys after I have spoken to them on Monday. It seems to me that BBG/ MX have a very specific and hidden agenda with these so called toxic debts. My experiences with them so far is that they do not really want to help. They just want to find ways of clearing as many loan books as possible, even if the properties are to be sold at massive negative equity!

Any comments from anyone about possible hidden agendas from BBG?

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4053 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...