Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

disputed debt passed to DCA-advice pls


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5271 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

Hi there,

 

I'm just wondering if anyone has any advice they can give me on my situation.

 

I have a 'debt' for council tax/housing benefit overpayment that is currently in dispute. I have seen a solicitor who agrees that I was fully entitled to the money the local council are trying to reclaim from me and he has written to them on my behalf. This 'debt' is also in the middle of an appeal with the DWP. Unfortunately, and despite all this, the council have passed the 'debt' onto a DCA.

 

I received a 1st letter from the DCA this morning and have typed up the following to send to them later today:

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/574-letter-when-account-has-been-passed-on-whilst-agreement-request-is-in-dispute

 

Does anyone know what is likely to happen when they receive that letter?

And is there anything else I could/should do at this point?

 

Any advice gratefully received

 

Miranda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi try one of these letters or put in a search dispute with DWP court action.

 

1 ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXX

 

Dear Sirs

 

Re: Account in dispute

 

I am writing to clarify that I am currently in the process of requesting a refund of bank charges unlawfully made to my account.

 

I note from your latest correspondence that you are proposing to issue me with a Default Notice on this account. I need to make you fully aware that I am disputing the sum owed and, as such, you must refrain from any further action until this dispute is fully resolved.

 

The current Banking Code (Section 13.6) states: We may give information to Credit Reference Agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

 

* You have fallen behind with your payments,

* The amount owed is not in dispute; and

* You have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand.

 

I would also like to make you aware of The Office of Fair Trading Code of Guidance in which it states: putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive This includes ignoring disputes about whether money is owed and refusing to freeze action if the debt is in dispute.

 

 

If you do not stop this default action and proceed by making any adverse comments on my credit reference files, I shall be forced to take legal action against you under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

I therefore hope to receive your full co-operation in this matter and would like to request a written response to that effect.

 

just edit bits

 

hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 Send this letter if the bank or DCA threaten court proceedings:

 

 

ACCOUNT NUMBER: XXXXXXX

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I refer to your letter of **/**/** , in which you advise of your intention to issue court proceedings with regard to the outstanding balance of my current account overdraft.

 

As you are aware, this account and the balance thereof is currently subject of a dispute. I can only assume your letter has been sent in error, as you must surely be aware that action such as that you propose would constitute breaches of the banking code. This matter has been discussed in correspondence with your clients ******** department and on **/**/** I received a letter from ******** , which acknowledged no such action should be taken on a disputed account and did in fact apologise for previously suggesting otherwise. A copy of the correspondence to which I refer is enclosed for your reference.

 

Additionally, this action you propose is clearly quantifiable as retaliatory due to my own claim against your client to recover unlawfully levied penalty charges. To proceed as you have indicated would therefore be contrary to the statement of the Financial Services Authority of 6th July 2006 in which it ruled such action to be discriminatory. I also believe this action to be tantamount to a sanction imposed merely for pursuing my legitimate right of seeking a judgement from a court.

 

I trust your client is committed to upholding the standards of the Banking Code to which it subscribes, and would not hold its regulator, the FSA, in such contempt as to ignore its 6th July statement.

 

I will allow you 7 days to reply to me, in writing or by Fax only, withdrawing the threat of action imposed in your letter of **/**/**. If you do not do so, I will draw your client’s transgressions to the attention of the Financial Services Authority and the banking code standards committee, by making formal complaints and enclosing copies of all recent correspondence.

 

I look forward to your prompt response.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Send this letter asking a second DCA to return the account in dispute to the original creditor:

 

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to yourselves, as it is in dispute with the **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE 2007. Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My last letter from **original creditor/DCA** was DATE and intimated that my complaint would be resolved on **DATE**, this obviously hasn’t happened. As **original creditor/DCA** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, OFT Collection Guidelines, *Subject Access request and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi moon,

 

You are taking this dca way too seriously. Write to them, tell them in dispute with OC, do not recognise your legal entitlement in this matter, will not respond to you again and that if they write again it may constitute a criminal breach of dpa and is contrary to cputr 2008, something that you will take up with the OC. then ignore them.

 

If you really want, write to oc and tell them that it is contrary to CPUTR 2008 and the DPA to pass this matter to a third party whilst it is disputed hence you do not recognise the the dca's role.

 

BTW - the local council sent a dca to our house once over £10 that she didnt even owe!!! Idiots.

 

In my experience, councils dont seem to have any procedures to deal with situations where they are wrong and even might be wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...