Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: 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. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 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 21/12/2022. 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 Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. 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: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
  • 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

Next Directory and bailiffs help please.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5168 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

well, the SOGA is irrelevent, the sale of goods act 1979 as amended deals primarily with the sale of good, it implies terms into consumer contracts, it requires that goods are fit for purpose, as described, etc etc

 

it doesnt deal with the issues which are before the court here, the issue is that they are trying to sue to recover monies for goods supplied on credit under a regulated agreement

 

as for saying ive let myself down, well im merely trying to point out that sometimes, people come on here, read and regurgitate parrot fashion in court and when the other sides advocate throws a spanner in the works, because of a lack of understanding of the subject which they are arguing the person then becomes stuffed as hes been taken off of the CAG script

 

you need to know and understand the subject which you are arguing, so as to be able to counter any attempts from your opponent to take you off track, you need to be able to argue the case

 

and as for "we are not legally trained, so i dont need to defend sarnie2109 the same as you would" well i disagree, the duty is on YOU to take the law to the courts attention, the judge is there to apply the law to the facts as the judge finds them,

 

so the judge will not research the law, it is for you in your submissions to put forward your arguments not for the judge to do the work for you

 

sorry if you dont like what im saying, would you prefer me to say that everythings fine and set you up for a huge fall?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

thanks PT thats made far more sense, i wasnt having a go or trying to be rude.

 

as i say i have a lot of cases going around in my head, and im not trained like you....... but yes i take your point about the scripts from CAG hence my Q's

 

the point about the othersides advocate bringing up a 'spanner' i would simply say that it is not relevant to this case and could we please stick to the facts relating to this case, this case is run on credit and credit alone, so where is the CCA as thats what we are here today to discuss and you client has already admitted that they do not have one, you client has made a grave mistake in allowing credit to be given before the correct procedures had been completed as laid out in the CCAct.

 

i understand a fair amount relating to the CCA, not like you, but then i dont live and breath it 24/7 like you, its just i wanted, if there was any, points that we could bring up if the SOGA is brought up by the advocate and if he tries pushing that point.

 

if you can think of what points/sections, not because their correct, but just think like the otherside for me for a second PT and how/what sections of the SOGA would they feel helps them.. so i can read them and find sections of CCAct or SOGA to retaliate with. but yes i agree soga is not relevant but not being trained i wouldnt be able to retaliate as eloquently as you in regards to the CCAct so would be nice to be able to make some good points as to why the other side should stop going on about the SOGA, make sense??

 

then get the hearing back on the track of the CCA.

 

Appreciate you point about having to show the judge the law, they wont read up on it, but they did say they would take our not being legally trained into account, think she meant give us more time to speak and explain our point and look at references i have highlighted in the CCAct i have printed which we will take with us to court. I ownt be expecting any of that though.

 

i wouldnt expect ANY judge to do anything for me ever!

with respect, ive never seen a DJ thats ever known what hes gone on about to be honest, my point about if we get a cocky/clever lawyer who says the right 'sounding' points and the DJ thinks 'oh well he knows the law and these two debt dodgers are clutching at straws' the DJ will go with his law society mate, the lawyer, im not having a dig in regards to your profession here PT, its just life, wrong! but life.

 

And its not i didnt/dont like what you were saying, christ ive had far worse said to me, and my back is like rhino skin believe me.

Its just i didnt get an 'answer' just you telling me stuff we already knew and not answering my points, no offence meant or taken:).( i respect your opinion and knowledge buddy!)

 

Basicly i think, you think of this from 'your' point of view, with your knowledge. and how you handle yourself and cases in the court room..... ours will go through same procedure but it will be different because your not representing her, i am, and im not legaly trained. (i made a point of saying this last time, and she said thats fine we will take that into account and she was pretty good, not that we were in there long.)

Anyway, my point being and agreeing with yours, about my level of knowledge being a weakness in the court room against the lawyer and his 'spanners' is .....

help me fatten up my arsenal against his SOGA points he will make or enlighten me to where you think they me come from in regard to the SOGA, rightly or wrongly, but if i have an inkling of thier stand point i have a much better chance of not f&^%ing it up.

 

Im only asking about the SOGA, not because i dont understand its not relevant, BUT when i called(recorded) them the other day after getting their paperwork from the court asking for the re-hearing, the guy said hang on ill get the notes......... we have request the case be relisted for evidence to be filed, i asked him for their reasons for doing that, as next say they dont have a CCA,,,,he replied the claimant is looking into your WS and this isnt sued under a CCA matter its not run under that, its sued under a catalogue based account and so we will be defending on services and goods supplied.

there isnt a CCA agreement with next! you apply online or through a magazine or news paper article, nothing is signed.

 

so i said well next gave credit, so its run under the terms of a CCA, he said what do you mean, so i say something is ordered next supply it and its paid for the following month= credit.

he then just backed of and said he will be getting all the documents from next in regard to the WS and will be taken from there (so they may well back out, maybe just maybe! but i doubt it) so i asked him again what exactly are they basing their claims on, he said hang on then said same again, services and goods provided under a catalogue with them.

 

so as you can see their very keen on the idea!!

 

surely these muppets know SOGA's not right:rolleyes:

 

also been thinking of asking you if it would be productive to write to cohens and say listen, here are the facts, are you really wanting to go to court? or do you advise against and wait for court PT

 

 

I always prefer to be told what i NEED to know not what i want to hear :wink:

 

Mucho Appreciate your time and opinion on this PT:)

Edited by troubleman
Link to post
Share on other sites

oh forgot to say i included with the WS to court and sent a copy to cohens the video from the BBC news website calledd .. warning "secret" store cards .. in which it shows how the site fools you into a credit based account its only 2.5 mins long but is very good, i wonder what cohens will think after seeing that.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Warning over 'secret' store card debts

Link to post
Share on other sites

it may assist to write to them and set out the case, also place them on notice that if they proceed to a contested hearing in full knowledge of the fact that they will not succeed then you may be represented and may seek costs as a result of their unreasonable conduct.

 

Invite them to discontinue the matter, you may be surprised what they do ;)

 

I cant assist any further, im not feeling too well, so i am retiring for the evening

Link to post
Share on other sites

now were getting somewhere ;):D:D thanks !!! it was proably me not explaining/typing it out properly, i hate typing.

 

Ok so i think i need to have more confidence in my gut feelings and what ive learnt with all these CCA stuff.

RE the letter to cohens, im glad you agree, thats how i seeit, cohens are told by next to 'go get our money' and as of yet cohens dont know 'this' account does fall under the CCAct, but think when they get the WS from next and then a letter from us......... fingers crossed.

 

Glad were on the same wave lenght now and hope ive not offended you.

 

hope you feel better!

 

thanks again.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...With all due respect to those that have kindly helped us, we have got this far and now we are at the important/difficult stage all the replies and help seem to have dropped off and seem to have been left to help ourselves which i think is not doing this site or the people using it any good at all...

 

troubleman, asking for advice about bailiffs on a bailiff forum will - not surprisingly - elicit many responses about bailiffs. Asking for advice regarding consumer or credit law on a bailiff forum will attract far fewer replies. Should you require it, there appears to be a very good legal forum on this site...

Best wishes.

Rae.

Edited by RaeUK
type o
Link to post
Share on other sites

troubleman, asking for advice about bailiffs on a bailiff forum will - not surprisingly - elicit many responses about bailiffs. Asking for advice regarding consumer or credit law on a bailiff forum will attract far fewer replies. Should you require it, there appears to be a very good legal forum on this site...

Best wishes.

Rae.

 

the thread has progressed from bailiffs, if you feel it should be moved,or would benefit from the move then be my guest :). i think its linked from there anyway.

It's sarnie2109's thread, im helping her with the others she has on the other part of the forum.

 

thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Au contraire, I have been reading throughout the life of this thread. It doesn't need moving but, as the advice has naturally trickled down due to the progression of subject, I was musing that perhaps you'd gain more response on a more specialist forum. But if you're doing that already then all is well :)

Best wishes.

Rae

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I would like to say a HUGE thank you to everyone for there input but especially PT who took on this for me after Cohens decided to take me back to court.

Today Cohens have discontinued on behalf of Next Directory. :D:D

 

Thank you so much PT for everything, you have been fantastic, THANK YOU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to say a HUGE thank you to everyone for there input but especially PT who took on this for me after Cohens decided to take me back to court.

Today Cohens have discontinued on behalf of Next Directory. :D:D

 

Thank you so much PT for everything, you have been fantastic, THANK YOU.

 

 

Well done! Did this result from PT's suggestion in #104 above to write and suggest they discontinue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets just say, i wrote to them and they decided not to fight on

 

thanks PT. Currently stuck between a rock and a hard place:p Have consulted local sols who have warned me that representation at final trial on 9th April would be at least £4K and could rise. Wanted to use them as I don't want to fall at the final hurdle but think I'm going to have to do it myself:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks PT. Currently stuck between a rock and a hard place:p Have consulted local sols who have warned me that representation at final trial on 9th April would be at least £4K and could rise. Wanted to use them as I don't want to fall at the final hurdle but think I'm going to have to do it myself:(

what is the amount in question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

£5600 + claimants costs of £3K. Bank should read BOS and not RBS!

Basically they don't have original agreement as confirmed in their WS, sent copy of blank template DN only, with computer records showing that it was sent out plus there are about £700 of charges in the amount they are seeking to claim. Sols are SCM in Hove.

 

Here's my thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/158754-court-action-rbs-aa.html

 

Many thanks, Debs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...