Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. 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.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

Welcome Secured Loan Mess!


Martel
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4747 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

  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

martel

 

any response to my letter in post 65

 

times up

 

Nope. Well, they sent me a letter saying I had to send them £1 for the CCA request and £10 for the SAR. I wrote back and pointed out they'd rec'd these fees ages ago and had even deducted £1 from my account (!).

 

The agreement they previously sent me looks kosher - but there was lots of to-ing and fro-ing about it at the time it was originally issued (because I didn't want PPI, which they had added to the agreement, and they had to reissue the agreement) and I believe Welcome sent me the money weeks BEFORE the date on the signatures (i.e., no cooling off period). Also, the DN doesn't have a precise date by which remedy could've taken place. Additionally, there's also that unwitnessed legal charge.....

 

Anyway, I'm primed to be programmed.....should I do anything or sit tight?

 

Post, thanks so much! MX

Link to post
Share on other sites

IME POSTING UP SOME LETTERS

DO NOTHING WITH THEM

THEY NEED TO BE FILLED IN

 

IN THE XXXXXXX COUNTY COURT Claim No:

 

 

 

 

 

 

IN A PROPOSED ACTION

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

[ ]

Claimant

and

[ ]

Defendant

draft/ORDER

UPON [hearing the claimant and the defendant]

 

AND UPON [reading the witness statements of [ ] and [ ]

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

 

  • the Defendant by [Date] shall confirm in writing to the claimant, which of the following documents are still in their possession
     
    1. The Credit agreement which is signed by the claimant and in its original form
     
    2. Any terms and conditions associated with the credit agreement being those which were relevant at the time the agreement was signed
     
    3. notices of variation (if any) which vary the terms of the original agreement in accordance with s82 Consumer Credit Act 1974
     
    4. The underwriting sheet or other document showing any commissions paid either by the Defendant to a third party or by a third party to the Defendant in respect of the loan agreement between the Claimant and Defendant

 

  • if any of the above listed documents are not in the possession of the Defendant, the defendant shall give to the claimant an explanation as to what has happened to them

 

 

  • The defendant by [date] shall supply the claimant copies of the documents listed in paragraph 1 which are still in the defendants possession

 

  • The defendant shall pay the claimant’s costs of this application to be assessed by the Court and paid within 14 days of the assessment

 

 

Dated the day of 200

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE XXXXXXXX COUNTY COURT

IN A PROPOSED ACTION

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

[ ]

Claimant

and

[ ]

Defendant

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

I, [NAME] of [home address of individual] make this statement in support of my application for an order for pre-action disclosure against the Defendant and will state as follows:

 

 

  • The facts and matters referred to in this witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise. Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief. I have stated the source of my information or belief.
  • There is now produced and shown to me a bundle of documents marked “ABC1”. The exhibit “ABC1” contains copies of correspondance between the claimant and defendant and identifies the documents in respect of which I seek disclosure in this Application
  • on xxxxx i entered into an agreement with the Defendant. the agreement was for a loan of £000000 ./ Credit card . the agreement number is 00000000000 and the loan / credit card is secured upon.../ is unsecured

 

The claim against the defendant

 

 

  • I have reasonable rounds for a cause of action against the defendant. The grounds are as follows
     
    a) I believe that the agreement is improperly executed and not compliant with the requirements of section 61(1)(a) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore the claimant would be entitled to seek a declaration from the court pursuant to section 142(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974
     
    b) The loan / Credit card has payment protection insurance which I did not request, disclosure of the agreement will show this as such a policy will be incorporated within the agreement and should be clearly particularised within the agreement as required by section 18 Consumer Credit Act 1974
     
    c) the Defendant has been levying charges which were not set out within the original agreement and therefore are not permitted by the contract
     
    d) .................... ( add any other relevant information)
     
     
    e).......................

 

Previous requests

 

 

 

  • Previous requests for these documents have been made on the ........... and the ............. and in this regard I refer to exhibit “ABC1”. The Defendant has failed to respond to the requests for the documents and the only way that the Claimant can now make any progress with the claim is by making this application to the court. Unless the Defendant discloses the requested documents the Claimant cannot prepare accurate pleadings. This may lead to delay or additional expense if proceedings are issued and later need to be amended once standard disclosure is given.

 

Part 31.16 CPR 1998- pre-action discovery

 

 

 

 

  • This application complies with Part 31.16 of the CPR 1998 because:

a)It is supported by evidence in the form of this statement and the exhibits attached hereto

 

b)The Claimant and the Defendant are likely to be parties to subsequent proceedings

 

c)If proceedings are started the Defendant duty by way of standard disclosure as set out in Part 31.6 CPR 1998 would extend to the requested documents. Care has been taken to identify specific documents and to explain to the Defendant which issues that particular document relates to.

 

d)It will allow anticipated proceedings to be fairly disposed of because a cards on the table approach will be taken by each party. Currently the Defendants have failed to do this and have ignored the Claimants requests to do so.

 

e)It will assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings being necessary because once disclosure is given each party can see the strengths of their respective cases and informed negotiations may then be undertaken with the aim being to agree settlement without the need for proceedings to be issued. The Claimant does intend to put forward settlement proposals in correspondence upon disclosure of the requested documents, which may lead to the claim being settled with having to use valuable court resources.

 

f)It will save costs because full proceedings may not be necessary. The Claimant will not need to continue to write unnecessary letters reminding the Defendant to disclose documents. Both parties can deal with the claim more quickly and economically.

 

 

Part 31.6 CPR 1998- standard disclosure

  • Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only-
    a)The documents on which he relies
    b)The documents which
    i)Adversely affect his own case
    ii)Adversely affect another party’s case
     
    iii)Support another party’s case; and
    c)The documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction.
  • there is no relevant practice direction here,the claimant is seeking disclosure of documents as referred to within para 10 (a)&(b)as set out above in this statement
     
    Part 1 CPR 1998 – the over ridding objective
  • The application has been made with the overriding objective in mind. The Claimant has at all times tried to ensure that the overriding objective has been complied with. Due to the failure of the Defendant to give voluntary disclosure or any good reason for failing to give such disclosure this application has become necessary. The application fulfils the requirements of the overriding objective by using as little of the courts time as possible to put the parties on an equal footing in relation to the evidence that they hold and to avoid proceedings being issued unnecessarily

 

 

 

Case Law

 

 

 

  • The documents requested go directly to heart of the claimant’s case. In accordance with the guidance given by Lord Justice Rix in Black and others v Sumitomo and others [2001] EWCA Civ 1819 (and in particular para. 72 of his judgment) care has been taken to ensure that the disclosure request is narrow and that the documents requested are determinative of the dispute between the parties. At paragraph 88 of his judgement Rix LJ states that when determining whether to grant an application for pre-action discovery the court will consider “the nature of the injury or loss complained of; the clarity and identification of the issues raised by the complaint; the nature of the documents requested; the relevance of any protocol or pre-action inquiries; and the opportunity which the complainant has to make his case without pre-action disclosure”. These points have been repeatedly addressed through out the claimants attempts to obtain the documents which are at the heart of this application

 

 

  • SES Contracting Limited and others v UK Coal Plc and others [2007] EWCA Civ 791 addressed the issue of costs in pre-action discovery applications. Lord Justice Moore-Bick decided on that occasion that both paties should bear their own costs of the application. However, both parties where commercial organizations. In the present application the Claimant is an individual seeking disclosure against a large financial institution. In SES Contracting there was no breach of a pre-action protocol. In the present case the pre-action protocol practice direction has been broken by the Defendant in that the Defendant has failed to comply with paragraphs xxxxxxxxxxxxxx IDENTIFY WHICH PRE ACTION PROTOCOLS HAVE BEEN BREACHED BY THE L:ENDERS NON COMPLIANCE. Paragraphs 2.1; 2.3 and 3.3 of the protocol invite the court to take such breaches into account when making orders for costs. An award of costs against the defendant is likely to discourage a failure to comply with the protocol in future thereby obviating the need for an application to the court. An award of costs will also satisfy paragraph 2.4 of the pre-action protocol in placing the Claimant in no worse a position than he would have been in had the protocol been complied with. Any other order would place the Claimant in a worse position due to the Defendants non-compliance.
  • For the reasons which I have outlined above I ask the court to grant the relief sought as detailed within the draft order

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signed ________________________

Dated ________________________

 

 

To identify which practice direction pre action protocols have been infringed as per the witness statement see this link PRACTICE DIRECTION – PROTOCOLS forumbox_top_left.gifforumbox_top_tile.gifforumbox_top_right.gifforumbox_left_tile.gifclose.gif

__________________

 

 

 

 

DOWNLOAD THE N244 FORM FROM THIS LINK

 

Her Majesty's Courts Service -Forms and Guidance

 

part 1 write your name

 

part 2 you are the claimant

 

in box 3 write the following

Quote:

An order (a draft of which is attached) that the Defendant do search for and disclose the documents listed in the Schedule attached to the draft Order ("the Schedule") because the applicant and the respondent are likely to be parties to the same subsequent proceedings, the respondent's duty of disclosure in those proceedings would extend to the documents listed in the Schedule and disclosure is desirable in order to dispose fairely of the anticipated proceedings .

 

This application is made pursuant to s.33 Supreme Court Act 1981 and CPR 31.16.

part 4 tick yes

 

part 5 at hearing

 

part 6 0 hours 20 minutes

 

part 7 N/A

 

Part 8 District Judge

 

Part 9 Proposed Defendant / Respondent

 

Part 10 tick witness statement

 

 

DONT DO A THING YET

 

TRY AND DIGEST IT

 

IT WILL COST £75 WHICH YOU WILL GET BACK IF NOT ON BENEFITS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Post. I will have to read it (post 83) several times in order to make sense of it.

 

Am assuming the strategy is to rattle Welcome's cage and maybe even get rid of the loan????

 

MX

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Whole Point Of This Is To Force Welcome To Release The Underwritng Sheets

 

It Shows All The Commission Payments They Made To Themself

 

Welcome Elite Brokers

 

They Will Have To Comply

 

They Will Sooner Say Lets Get Rid Of You Rather Than Release That Document

 

If They Say There Is No Underwriting Sheet

 

I Have Many Documents That Say Welcome Elite Brokers As Evidence

 

And If They Respond To The Court No Underwriting Sheets,

God Help Them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post, even your typing is super confident! Okay, will really concentrate on absorbing the claims.

 

Sorry to go 'off thread' but I am panicking about another problem in the Legal Issues department. My thread is 'Big overdraft must respond to court claim issued by Incasso please help' (I know, not exactly catchy!). Hungrybear drafted my defence but I need help completing my AQ, which is due a week from tomorrow. I know ODs are a specialist area but might you know any Caggers who could advise me?

 

Sorry to hijack my own thread (is that even possible?) - hope I haven't transgressed a CAG law but I am worried!

 

Thanks,

MX

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill Go On 180 Months

 

Amount Of Credit £24914.18 Over 180 Months, With A £235 Acceptance Fee At An Apr Of 21.7%

 

That Gives A Monthly Repayment Of £433.89

Interest Will Be £53,187.56 (ouch)

Total Repayable £78101.74 (double Ouch And Criminal)

 

So Now We Add The Acceptance Fee £235 To The Interest £53,187.56 Gives A Charge For Credit Of £53422.56

Now Add That To The Amount Of Credit (advance) £24914.18

 

Gives A Total Repayable £78,336.74 (got The Brandy)

Devide By 180 Months Gives A Monthly Repayment Of £435.20

 

When You Have Paid Off This Agreement, You Will Be Short By £299.54

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...