Mrs Ski vs Howard Cohen / CL Finance

[ski1382]

Appreciate that this might be hard to answer as we are not in possession of the original default notice but...

 

• Using the form Donkey suggested would it be acceptable to state that the DN is clearly not original as:
  
  • the logo is different from the one on other GE correspondance
    
  • the grammar used suggests an original would have contained a remedial date rather than a number of days in which to comply (it also states '14 days' which I believe is unacceptable?)
    
  • other critical errors to suggest that this is not original (which I will not go into in a public forum, but am certain Dizzy (and many others no doubt) will understand).
    

Does anyone know where I can find documentary evidence to suggest that once a default sum has been settled, it cannot be used as the basis for legal proceedings? (ie, a new default notice would be needed).

 

Will put it up this evening for you all.

[dizzyblonde1966]

Ski1382

 

Even some of the originals as in my case dont have a date to remedy, just state either 14 or 21 days,so not really a discrepancy there on their recons versus the originals

 

Ide write to or phone cohens (make sure u get it in writing too though) and just ask them straight before making a court application, is theirs a recon or a copy of the original, after being rumbled a few times in the last few days they would be foolish to try and mislead,but if they were stupid enough to, you would have extra ammo to nail them with

 

Once in writing there is no going back for them,

I would also in the meantime ring the oc back up and record the call and get them to confirm what they have already told you.

you know just for your own cross referencing purposes

 

DB

Edited April 28, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[ski1382]

Just wondering if it would actually be in my interests to raise the issue with them, alert them to the fact that we have identified it as a forgery, or just wait until it gets to court then hit them with it.

Just about to scan doc.

[DonkeyB]

ski, I think you may want to change that 'f' word and replace it with 'unauthorised recreation'! Don't want to get into trouble!

[foolishgirl]

Just wondering if it would actually be in my interests to raise the issue with them, alert them to the fact that we have identified it as a forgery, or just wait until it gets to court then hit them with it

 

DEFINITELY do not warn them!!!

 

If you do, you are in danger of seriously undermining an almost perfect defence Ski.

 

No matter what GE say (& since when have you believed an OC or DCA - come on??) if the DN has been rectified & your account was then in order, to collect any future arrears beyond that point would require a fresh DN. Your proof is in the mandatory wording of the DN itself:

 

'IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH'

 

BTW folks - the DN has to state a specific date for rectification, not just some airy fairy so many days from receipt - 1983 Regs Schedule 2 (3c)

[dizzyblonde1966]

Ski1382

 

 

Mine was a different situation to yours as i needed to rely on my own copy in court so had to include it in my disclosure as i was going to be reliant on it in court to show cohens had not been 100% truthfull in their witness statement etc ,and knew that i would have to disclose it at some point otherwise i wouldnt be able to use it in court as per the judges order re disclosure list

 

But you dont have the original to have to disclose, and can use just their dodgy copy,

And remember cohens do follow these threads, in my case i dont care as they know who i am anyway ,but you might feel it suits you better if u stay annonymous, and just hit em on the day?

Edited April 28, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[dizzyblonde1966]

DEFINITELY do not warn them!!!

 

If you do, you are in danger of seriously undermining an almost perfect defence Ski.

 

No matter what GE say (& since when have you believed an OC or DCA - come on??) if the DN has been rectified & your account was then in order, to collect any future arrears beyond that point would require a fresh DN. Your proof is in the mandatory wording of the DN itself:

 

'IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN NO FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH'

 

BTW folks - the DN has to state a specific date for rectification, not just some airy fairy so many days from receipt - 1983 Regs Schedule 2 (3c)

 

Foolishgirl,

just out of curiosity,

isnt mrs Ski going to have to include the dn being invalid as part of their defence/witness statement pre trial if its an argument they want to defend on in court?

 

would disclosing it now sort of force cohens hand, as they wont be able to rectify the dn now they have already disclosed it,?(as long as account has already been terminated, or confident enough that the fact they have started enforcement action has now terminated the account anyway)

 

DB x

Edited April 28, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[ski1382]

An original DN (not for this account) from GE.

"Unauthorised Recreation" below

I have identified the following issues with the recreation, and one or two others that I am going to keep to myself for now.

 

 

If anyone can identify anything else it would be appreciated.

 

I could really do with a copy of a letter from prior to December 2007 on a GE letterhead so as to further strengthen the case.

Edited April 28, 2010 by ski1382

[dizzyblonde1966]

Oh dear, similar to my recon version,not only have they not included enough days to remedy,they havent included an actual date either

 

i cant believe a team of alledgedly highly sophisticated solicitors cant even knock up a complaint dn,

Maybe they left your recon to the tea lady to knock up:D

[ski1382]

ski, I think you may want to change that 'f' word and replace it with 'unauthorised recreation'! Don't want to get into trouble!

 

LoL. I am reminded of a scene from the Simpsons involving Sideshow Bob, and in his immortal words - "Cheerfully withdrawn"

 

Maybe they left your recon to the tea lady to knock up:grin:

 

Maybe so, the issue is of course proving it is a reconstruction, I have not got the original to compare it with. I have an original but am concerned they might argue that the format altered after theirs was sent.

[foolishgirl]

i

snt mrs Ski going to have to include the dn being invalid as part of their defence/witness statement pre trial if its an argument they want to defend on in court?

 

would disclosing it now sort of force cohens hand, as they wont be able to rectify the dn now they have already disclosed it,?(as long as account has already been terminated, or confident enough that the fact they have started enforcement action has now terminated the account anyway)

 

DB x

 

The point of disclosure pre-trial is in principle correct DB. However in Ski's case, I gather (without re-reading the whole thread) this is somewhat arbitary as Cohens are the ones repsonsible for this disclosure - & on court order too!

 

This evidence will no doubt form part of their WS just as Ski's should but there are ways (or ways) of presenting it.

 

IMHO I would go for good clean kill on the courtroom floor not a fleshwound that they can try to elastoplast before the hearing.

[foolishgirl]

... the issue is of course proving it is a reconstruction, I have not got the original to compare it with. I have an original but am concerned they might argue that the format altered after theirs was sent.

 

Why would you want to prove or disprove the reconstruction? You have the original DN - that's the one that counts.

 

Also they have sent you a copy DN (on court order!!) that is for an already rectified account period.

 

As far as I can see, they're playing Twister & now don't know if their LH is their RH or on Ski's spot.

[dizzyblonde1966]

i

 

The point of disclosure pre-trial is in principle correct DB. However in Ski's case, I gather (without re-reading the whole thread) this is somewhat arbitary as Cohens are the ones repsonsible for this disclosure - & on court order too!

 

This evidence will no doubt form part of their WS just as Ski's should but there are ways (or ways) of presenting it.

 

IMHO I would go for good clean kill on the courtroom floor not a fleshwound that they can try to elastoplast before the hearing.

 

Thanks, understand more clearly now,

 

Also think we all have to also be aware of cohens little party trick, of changing solicitors, in reality not really a change, just a diversion ploy ,its still cohens but under their other trading name of cohen crammer,they did this to me and submitted an application to the court to change solicitors when they were made aware/realised they had cocked up the first witness statement/docs etc and then submitted a new WS from a differnt member of staff , and in my opinion was just an opportunity for them to have a second bite at the cherry ,and also in my opinion another attempt to cover up the tracks of the offending previous inaccurate WS

 

Seems cohens have been busy this last few weeks, is it just me or does there seem a lot of cohen threads and their questionable activity these last few weeks

 

I hope they try and fob off the sra investigation into my recreated dn as a one off case, theres at least half a dozen others in the same boat on this site alone:D

I would love the opportunity to p*ss on their party

 

DB

Edited April 28, 2010 by dizzyblonde1966

[ski1382]

Foolish, we do not hold THE original DN, only AN original DN. It relates to a different account and different date.

 

This is the reason I am wondering how to continue. Although I know it to be a recon, proving it is slightly more problematic. If i could find a letter from GE on a letterhead dated before the recon DN we would be laughing as we could show how their letters were formatted before and after the date of the recon DN.

 

Hope that makes sense.

Edited April 28, 2010 by ski1382
Must read posts more closely!

[ski1382]

Going to need some help to put together another statement, needs to be in by 25th May

[foolishgirl]

we do not hold THE original DN, only AN original DN. It relates to a different account and different date.

 

OK, now I understand ski.

 

This thread is so long now, if you can please post a short synopsis of where you are up to, CAGers might be able to pitch in more easily with further help on your submissions.

[tiokim]

subscribing

[DonkeyB]

This thread is so long now, if you can please post a short synopsis of where you are up to, CAGers might be able to pitch in more easily with further help on your submissions.

 

Excellent idea, fg. There are so many of these DNs knocking about on the forum, if I get time I might just start a thread to pull them all together, identifying the real ones and the not-so-real ones.

[ski1382]

Right, received a letter today from Santander - they were very helpful indeed both on the telephone a couple of days ago and have followed it up with a lovely letter (from our point of view anyway)

So, this letter poses an interesting question for Cohen's. If the original creditor is not able to produce a copy of a DN, how can they? :-?

 

It also clarifies that the DN that Cohen's are reliant upon was in fact settled and the account 'removed from the collections process'. So, how can they be relying upon this "DN" to demonstrate that the correct procedure was followed?

 

They also very helpfully provided a copy of the DN wording in force at the time that this "DN" was issued, to say there are some huge differences would be an understatement. However, for fairly obvious reasons, I have decided not to upload a copy of it!

 

Thanks Santander!

[DonkeyB]

Interesting.

 

Can you show us the 'true copy' they sent? Would be interesting to look at it forensically and compare with other Cohen 'reconstructions'. I wonder if the 'true copy' has the wording they used at the time? Or more recent, compliant wording?

 

More to the point, how did Cohen's come by the DN they are relying on? Maybe I've missed something.

[ski1382]

Interesting.

 

Can you show us the 'true copy' they sent? Would be interesting to look at it forensically and compare with other Cohen 'reconstructions'. I wonder if the 'true copy' has the wording they used at the time? Or more recent, compliant wording?

 

The "true copy" is still non-compliant so I am rather inclined to believe that this is the genuine wording in use at the time. Ultimately though, I have it in writing that it is a "true copy", let Cohen's prove it isn't (after I have torn theirs apart)!

 

Am reluctant to upload a copy of it, simply because like I have been told before, Cohen's do like to view these boards and I would hate to give them the correct wording to use in future cases. If you wish however, I will gladly email you a copy if you PM me!

 

More to the point, how did Cohen's come by the DN they are relying on? Maybe I've missed something.

 

Indeed, this is the point - how did they obtain a copy of the DN when GE / Santander cannot it themselves?! Does this essentially mean that all DN's "obtained" by Cohen's from GE / Santander are infact (to quote a learned gentleman / lady) "un-authorised recreation"?

[DonkeyB]

[ski1382]

LoL.

 

Am I being over confident here do you think??

[foolishgirl]

 

So, this letter poses an interesting question for Cohen's. If the original creditor is not able to produce a copy of a DN, how can they? :-?

 

It also clarifies that the DN that Cohen's are reliant upon was in fact settled and the account 'removed from the collections process'. So, how can they be relying upon this "DN" to demonstrate that the correct procedure was followed?

 

They also very helpfully provided a copy of the DN wording in force at the time that this "DN" was issued, to say there are some huge differences would be an understatement. However, for fairly obvious reasons, I have decided not to upload a copy of it!

 

Thanks Santander!

 

Thanks indeed ski - this is dynamite!! What great evidence for you.

T!

 

Am reluctant to upload a copy of it, simply because like I have been told before, Cohen's do like to view these boards and I would hate to give them the correct wording to use in future cases.

 

Very wise

 

Indeed, this is the point - how did they obtain a copy of the DN when GE / Santander cannot it themselves?! Does this essentially mean that all DN's "obtained" by Cohen's from GE / Santander are infact (to quote a learned gentleman / lady) "un-authorised recreation"?

 

Hmm...probably

 

 

Can you give a quick run down of your progress to date on this ski?

eg. have you submitted WS or got a hearing date etc?

[ski1382]

Can you give a quick run down of your progress to date on this ski?

eg. have you submitted WS or got a hearing date etc?

 

Certainly will, just have to eat then will get onto it!