Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • 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
  • 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

Why no news coverage in the media re manchester test case judgements last week?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4949 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

How are you supposed to be able to supply evidence of something that never happened?

 

I think thats the whole point middlemess!

The idea now is to back off and let the creditors do the running. That way, any burden of proof is solely on their shoulders.

It does make any CCA request a bit more of a gamble now. They may now be able to supply a "reconstituted" version of an original agreement, but that still doesnt detract from the axiom of why would they not simply produce a copy of the original if they still have it - after all, if they do have it then they almost have you bang to rights so to speak. Couple that with the fact that they now have to tell you if they have the original agreement cannot bode well for them in court should they then "fail" to produce it. This is of course, that you have this statement re the agreement in writing.

The more I read this, the more I am convinced that apart from a little bit more care placed on the consumer, the burden now lies heavily with the lender. A lender cannot now make claims that cannot be justified evidencially in court - if it gets to court then the lender MUST produce the original agreement. Having said that, the consumer MUST insist on seeing it and keeping the proceedings within those confines. Otherwise, from the many posts read on here, the opposition, even the judge may deliberately sway those proceedings away from the crux of the matter, hoping ( and I think this is what all this is about) that the consumer will become confused and lose/give in by default.

So how will this bode with the DCAs? Personally I think in the main they are pretty much stuffed. If you previously CCA them and they do not respond, surely its still game over for them?

Can you imagine the fun to be had, taking into account how lax OCs and DCAs have already been over the last few years with agreements? Now imagine an OC and a DCA working together not just to produce a reconstituted agreement, but also to explain its provenance and legality?

Nor can I see the DCAs ceasing their attempts to draft some ridiculous pieces of paper together in the hope that the consumer will "accept" them as an agreement - maybe its time to CCA both DCA and OC in the hope that this will happen, if to do nothing more than create a "cloud" of confusion of our own! After all, if you appear in court and the OCs and DCAs have both sent their own differing "versions" of the agreement, what could be better?

I can see a lot of cock-ups between them here - and it wont take a genius to spot them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

very true.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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

From the above...

 

He went on to strike out claims from two individuals, pointing out that they had failed to supply any evidence at all that they had never signed their loan agreements in the first place.

"The absence of a copy of a signed executed agreement is no evidence that such an agreement was not made," ruled Judge Waksman.

 

How are you supposed to be able to supply evidence of something that never happened?

 

I always thought it was impossible to be able to prove a negative!

 

As they were the CLAIMANT in this action, they were supposed to prove their case; not the lender. That's how it works....

Link to post
Share on other sites

pennys dropped.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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

The penny has certainly dropped.

Dont be a claimant, be a defendant and put the onus on them.

 

Can someone confirm that a cc company or a DCA MUST now tell you, when asked, if what they have sent you is reconstituted, and also MUST they tell you whether or not they hold the original agreement?

 

I have CCA'd 3 different companies over 6 months ago and so far received nothing more than present day T & Cs; can I now write to them and ask if they hold the original agreements, and are they obliged to tell me?

 

BF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read.

May I add my thoughts on a couple of points?

 

With regards to OC's being able to supply a reconstructed CCA to fulfill s78 request, I sort of see his point. IMO, the scope of s78 probably wasn't meant to be a way of checking the legality of a CCA, but more for information purposes, such as if you have lost your copy and want a replacement, and a reconstruction (assuming you trust the banks etc!) would fulfill this. Doesn't explain why you wouldn't provide an actual copy if you had it, but I do see his point - Joe Bloggs on the street may not care if the bank has the original document he signed, he just wants to know what it was he signed.

 

Regarding the 'well we normally ask for a signature, so I'm sure we would have in this case' - as a defense, I think is quite common practice (note defense for those still a little unsure) If they can show they took Due Diligence, then this is a fair defense. Same principles apply elsewhere - if a retailer sells tobacco to someone underage, but can show they normally check for ID and refuse people (such as a log of refusals), this is acceptable defense and is usually taken no further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basil F, yes according to this they must tell you if it is reconstituted and if they do not have an enforceable agreement. The copy must contain exactly what the original had, but the rub is that they can send the t & C's valid at the time (inc the prescribed terms) even if the were not on the sheet you signed.

Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer 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

Ok... read through it and copy/pasted the relevant parts. Will post up if necessary....

 

To summarise, there is some mention of the CCA 1974; sec 127 (3) aspect of law that needs to be satisfied in order to have the Agreement re-enforced in a court, but the Judge does seem to be skating around this issue rather than dealing with it directly; referring to the risk (instead) that a creditor may come up with an enforceable Agreement at some point in the future and start legal proceedings.

 

Also, the burden of proof was on the claimant to prove his case all the time (Mr Adris et al)... which they failed to do.... as I've always maintained was the case here

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basil F, yes according to this they must tell you if it is reconstituted and if they do not have an enforceable agreement. The copy must contain exactly what the original had, but the rub is that they can send the t & C's valid at the time (inc the prescribed terms) even if the were not on the sheet you signed.

 

But how can the copy contain exactly what the original had in the absence of the original? IE, where do they get that information from? Their own records? If so, where is the proof that their records are accurate and/or have not been fabricated? The terms and conditions, at this point, have no bearing. Any individual, or institution can claim that something is true, but in a court they must prove it, and in the absence of a signature - what can be proven? The balance of probabilities is not balanced by the claims of one party.

A record of payment may help the creditor within the confines of CCA 2006, but not within CCA 1974.

So lets take this one step further. Lets assume that a defendant ( in this case the debtor) has reached the point where he KNOWS there is no original agreement, yet the Claimant, ( in this case the creditor) has already tried to submit a reconstituted agreement to the court.

Under CCA 1974, this must fail. But putting law aside for a second - it can only fail if the defendent controls the proceedings within that court. The defendant MUST assume that the court, the judge and obviously the claimant are the collective enemy, and INSIST on the keeping within the burdens of CCA 1974 with regards to the creditors claims.

If the defendant is successful in this action (as he/she should be) then where does this leave the creditor? To my mind this leaves them at best open to false representation, and at worst, open to fraud.

Its too obvious.

So whats happened here? I think Judge Waksman has purposely and deliberately "merged" the options available to a claimant within both CCA 1974 and CCA 2006.

CCA 1974 is very definative in its demands for legal proof of a unilateral contract - ie, there MUST be a signed agreement. Whereas CCA 2006 does not have that requisite. And anything Judge Waksman says cannot alter this.

So the judge has tried to screw the consumer. But in reality he has screwed the lender - purposely or not - what he has done is leave the claimant ( the creditor) open to legal attack through false representation or fraud because the creditor has to admit, in advance, the existence or non existence of an original signed contract.

So if the creditor admits to the existence of an original contract ( which obviously must be signed by the debtor) yet cannot to produce it, preferring to furnish the court with a "reconstituted" agreement, how does this fair with wasting the courts time with this "agreement"?

Im other words what has changed here? How would a court look on a creditor saying they have an original and signed agreement but only giving the debtor a "reconstituted" version of it, and then producing it in court?

This has got to be wasting the courts time.

 

Anyway, Im smashed on Guiness, Jack Daniels, and Vodka. Its New Years Eve, I didnt finish work till 2.30am and Im now making up for it!

As usual all comments please - especially that bloody gorgeous PriorityOne! ****, am I going to regret this tomorrow!

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!!!!!!!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, Im smashed on Guiness, Jack Daniels, and Vodka. Its New Years Eve, I didnt finish work till 2.30am and Im now making up for it!

As usual all comments please - especially that bloody gorgeous PriorityOne! ****, am I going to regret this tomorrow!

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR ALL!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'm flattered.... lol.:D That alcohol must have been working a treat... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've started another thread on this because of all the mini threads popping up.... and people beginning to panic across the boards

 

Will get the link in a minute...

 

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

 

Good Idea. This thread seems to have a life of it's own. As 'i've said before don't make a claim. It's far easier to defend then to win a claim.

Then the onus is on the the claimant to prove what they say>

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone (alleged debtor) who tries to persuade a court as claimant re the enforceabilty or otherwise of any agreement is tugging the tiger by the tail

 

this is utter lunacy-sit back and put the onus on the DCA's and OC's to prove their case

 

silly move IMHO

 

Fully agree, mox=st cases they know they can't prove it in court, so they never go to a court. Prefering to harrass instead

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the standard goodbye letter from Lowells for Sharkleycard.

 

We dont have a CCA and neither do Sharkleycard.

 

The alleged debt £8000 odd includes £4000+ charges plus interest levied thereon.

 

Ive been debateing whether to reclaim the charges.

 

Where does the Madchester judgement leave me?

 

They admit they dont have the CCA and state in the goodbye letter, that they wont trouble me again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the standard goodbye letter from Lowells for Sharkleycard.

 

We dont have a CCA and neither do Sharkleycard.

 

The alleged debt £8000 odd includes £4000+ charges plus interest levied thereon.

 

Ive been debateing whether to reclaim the charges.

 

Where does the Madchester judgement leave me?

 

They admit they dont have the CCA and state in the goodbye letter, that they wont trouble me again.

 

If the debt includes charges, then by re-claiming them... you're just reducing a debt; which could be classed as an acknowledgement, even though it can't be re-enforced in court. Confused?... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the standard goodbye letter from Lowells for Sharkleycard.

 

We dont have a CCA and neither do Sharkleycard.

 

The alleged debt £8000 odd includes £4000+ charges plus interest levied thereon.

 

Ive been debateing whether to reclaim the charges.

 

Where does the Madchester judgement leave me?

 

They admit they dont have the CCA and state in the goodbye letter, that they wont trouble me again.

 

CL Finance/HSBC have admitted no CCA in this case:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/239383-hsbc-cca-going-court.html

 

but have still gone to court. :rolleyes:

 

Will be interesting to see how that pans out and whether they try exploit this judgement.

 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...