Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • Hi All,   I would really appreciate any help in this. I want to stop paying this and am wondering if I need to offer F&F or if I am good just stop paying. A few details first:   1.DMP with StepChange started circa 2010 2.Have been paying every month since 3.Want to stop paying/clear as want a new mortgage in the next 9 months or so 4. None are currently showing on my credit file   And the finer detail:     * = these were on my credit file until recently. I complained stating that they should have been defaulted as it was unfair. They have stopped reporting now - but werent able to add a retrospective default date.   I havent made any enquiries about CCA's etc. I want to just stop paying but also cant have any of them appearing on my credit file as need another mortgage etc. I understand most will likely not have a CCA but there is one overdraft related entry so not sure what to do about that one. Also I think they could CCJ but can they start reporting again - I know the ones with a default date cant but can the others?   Hopefully thats enough info. Would really appreciate your excellent guidance   Many thanks    
    • This sites getting less and less accessible every week   Got my vaccination invite over weekend   despite living on the edge of a large town with a number of other large towns just a few miles away in various directions, and a 'university' city only 8 miles away, nearest center with any vaccines is about a 10 mile drive away in a small village. Interesting that the maps link showing you the locations for my nearest (sic) vaccination points are wrong - this is from the NHS vaccine booking site.   Once you have selected a location to see when vaccinations are available, it also wont let you go back to select another location, and if you just close the page down (without booking) and open the site again and put in your identification data, its gives you a 'you have failed to attend and will have to book both appointments again' message - despite not booking anything. - wonder if thats how they've counted 20 million vaccinations?   Checked with 3 local surgeries including my own asking why none of them are an option and two haven't had any vaccines for over a week and haven't even been able to book all their own vulnerable for a vaccine, other has vaccine but is only booking its own priority people   Makes me think the claim of 20 million vaccinated is complete and utter 'Johnson      
    • there is a difference.........   pass = IGNORE a DCA (we write on behalf of our client xxx bank etc)   SELL = the original creditors issues a default notice, then latterly sells it on..if that happens there must be something seriously WRONG with a debt of + £10K if they do...won't happen IMHO. (you will get a Notice of Assignment - stating xxx bank etc have now sold the debt to us)   TBH: the quicker you get the pro rata plan running, the quicker the OC's might issue default notices (but not sell) and the quicker those DN's reach their 6th Birthday..... when the whole debt vanishes from your credit file preventing you from moving forward again...doesn't mean the debt is not still owed, just that prospective creditors can't see the debt anymore.   ok it's a 6yrs plan as such, but if you were to be honest to yourself, things are not going improve any in the short term so it's better to take control of YOUR money now and plan well ahead rather than worrying forever.   dx          
    • Hey,   I was hoping for a bit of help with a really old Talk Talk debt and BW Legal.   The debt is from 2014. I'm not sure that it qualifies as statute barred? I haven't heard off them for years, but within the past 6 months or so, they've been sending me their standard debt collection letters and emails. I have just ignored them and I haven't formally acknowledged the debt. However, recently they've been threatening to issue court proceedings, so I thought I would like to try and get them sorted out.   Am I right in thinking that this type of debt it an unregulated debt? As in it wouldn't be covered by the Consumer Credit Act? If that is the case, is there any precedence for doing a SAR request to ask for a copy of an agreement to provide their services? I am assuming that they would rely on some sort of original agreement between myself and Talk Talk to provide services?   Would It be worth doing a DSAR instead?   I am familiar with doing SARs for consumer debt, like loans and cards, but I haven't done one for a utility debt. Would someone be able to point me in the right direction please?   Many thanks 😀
    • Particular Of claim   1. By an agreement between Lloyds Banking Group & the defendant on or around 13/05/2003 (“the agreement”) Lloyds Banking Group agreed to loan the defendant monies.   2. The defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due. The agreement was terminated following service of a default notice.   3. The agreement was assigned to the claimant.   4. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS: 1) £8704.42 2) COSTS     Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claims are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) – failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is admitted that the claimant has sent details of a current account with an unknown account number but has no connection to this this claim or alleged debt. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the details of alleged debt the claimant refers to nor have they referred to any account number within its particulars. I have therefore sought clarity from the claimant and requested further in formation which at this time they failed to comply to my request.   3. Paragraph 2 is noted. However, as above the alleged debt is still unknown and further I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.   4.Paragraph 3 is noted. As above as the debt is unknown its immaterial and I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   5. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 77 request. The claimant has failed to comply with either requests and in particular my section 77 request and provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of my request and is prevented from enforcing the agreement they wish to rely on.   7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   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.               1. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.   2. However, I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3460 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A judge today held that Carey is not applicable in enforcement cases.

????? can you say where? is this published anywhere we can link to?

My CCA skeleton argument to use in court -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cabot/115280-useful-information.html

 

Useful Letters (CCA request is letter N)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html

 

CAG A-Z list of useful places in CAG -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/69359-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

Introduction to Consumer Litigation -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/108467-basic-introduction-consumer-credit.html

CABOT THREADS -

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/131321-cabot-threads.html

 

ALWAYS SEEK A PROFESSIONAL OPINION FROM QUALIFIED ADVISORS - any advice offered is from my own experience and knowledge - I am NOT qualified.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A judge today held that Carey is not applicable in enforcement cases.

 

Given the bizarre nature of the decisions on what constituted enforcement I'm not surprised. I never understood how a creditor could instigate litigation as that wasn't enforcement but then could not take advantage of that litigation as securing a judgement is classed as enforcement :confused:.

 

Hopefully some sense will come of this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can assure you things would be very different if I was a judge! I always liked Judge John Deed on the TV. Did what was necessary and if the establishment was wrong so be it. We need more judges like him who aren't scared of alienating their 'superiors'. No wonder the legal system, including criminal, is such an antiquated dinosaur :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can assure you things would be very different if I was a judge! I always liked Judge John Deed on the TV. Did what was necessary and if the establishment was wrong so be it. We need more judges like him who aren't scared of alienating their 'superiors'. No wonder the legal system, including criminal, is such an antiquated dinosaur :rolleyes:

 

We need Judge Judy! :D

I have no legal qualifications whatsoever, so please check any input I have for accuracy. And please correct me if you disagree!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought it was mcguffick v rbs which was relevant to what constituted enforcement not carey v hsbc :confused:

 

Think Carey is the enforcement one but I could be corrected on that?

 

Carey covered running account credit and I believe will not be appropriate for other forms of credit...again could be wrong on this!

 

Wasn't Mcguffick a different form of credit like a personal loan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes mcguffick was fixed term credit (s77)

 

81.

Once it is recognised that the bringing of proceedings is not enforcement, it necessarily follows that activities (iii) to (vi) do not constitute enforcement, since they are all steps taken prior to the commencement of proceedings and therefore by definition, at most, steps taken with a view to enforcement.

 

82.

I do not consider that either reporting to the CRAs or the related activities referred to in (i) and (ii) come anywhere near amounting to enforcement if activities (iii) to (vi) are not enforcement. These activities are concerned with reporting to CRAs or other third parties and are not even steps taken prior to enforcement such as threatening proceedings would be. Even if one accepted (which for reasons given earlier in this judgment I do not) the claimant’s somewhat pejorative categorisation of reporting to CRAs as being motivated by the desire to pressurise the claimant into paying the outstanding balance, at its highest that is an attempt by indirect means to persuade the claimant to pay. If demanding payment directly or through a third party does not amount to enforcement, it is difficult to see how such indirect means could do so, even if the claimant were right as to the relevant motive of the bank.

 

mcguffick - rbs

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought it was mcguffick v rbs which was relevant to what constituted enforcement not carey v hsbc :confused:

 

carey was about reconstituted agreements being acceptable in response to s78 requests

 

i think the poster was stating that a judge has ruled that this cannot be held to be the case where a creditor is seeking to enforce an agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites
carey was about reconstituted agreements being acceptable in response to s78 requests

 

i think the poster was stating that a judge has ruled that this cannot be held to be the case where a creditor is seeking to enforce an agreement

 

thanks for clearing it up for me. That is good news.

Link to post
Share on other sites
and with current Terms: roll eyes...

Spot on.

 

There should be a scale of fees for enlightening solicitors. I know the law is a huge area, but these folk specialize.

 

I have just had one solicitor, point me towards Wodchester, as proof the a DN does not have to be accurate????????

 

Oh well, back to repairing the head shaped hole in the wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are getting into over dissection again. Carey v HSBC was in fact a series of LEAD cases not TEST cases as has been stated and verified on this thread previously. For reference check the case management conferences which took place early in October 2009 at Manchester Mercantile Court.

 

These LEAD cases were put together to be heard in order to attempt to establish some ground, procedural and "housekeeping" rules due to the overwhelming number of cases being brought before the courts by CMC's on behalf of clients claiming unenforcability of their alleged agreements under Section 78 of the CCA1974.

 

Whilst much is constantly made on here about reconn agreements etc. these according to HHJ Waksman QC may, note may be acceptable in response to a section 78 request by an alleged debtor or their representatives (note the questions in his words actually in the judgement handed down re substance) however in his OWN WORDS in his summaries particularly section 234 if memory serves correctly he stressed the word ORIGINAL and even placed further difficulites on the banks and CCs by stating they had to provide the original at every variation along with the modified T & Cs right back to date of inception.

 

Our solicitors were THERE!

 

Representing a client who insisted on proceeding as a claimant and not waiting to defend. Hence the confusion that seems to be spreading about this case and which has just been ruled by another judge as irrelevant in enforcement via the courts. Exactly as HHJ Waksman stated it to be so.

 

Hope that this provides a little clarification for those a little concerned by this case. It may well be that the actual Carey v HSBC case itself may well be taken to full trial, in which case only evidential facts will be acceptable to the court, not the assumed facts that HHJW ruled upon.

 

Regards

oilyrag.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spot on.

 

There should be a scale of fees for enlightening solicitors. I know the law is a huge area, but these folk specialize.

 

I have just had one solicitor, point me towards Wodchester, as proof the a DN does not have to be accurate????????

 

Oh well, back to repairing the head shaped hole in the wall.

 

Tripe; utter Tripe!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we are getting into over dissection again. Carey v HSBC was in fact a series of LEAD cases not TEST cases as has been stated and verified on this thread previously. For reference check the case management conferences which took place early in October 2009 at Manchester Mercantile Court.

 

These LEAD cases were put together to be heard in order to attempt to establish some ground, procedural and "housekeeping" rules due to the overwhelming number of cases being brought before the courts by CMC's on behalf of clients claiming unenforcability of their alleged agreements under Section 78 of the CCA1974.

 

Whilst much is constantly made on here about reconn agreements etc. these according to HHJ Waksman QC may, note may be acceptable in response to a section 78 request by an alleged debtor or their representatives (note the questions in his words actually in the judgement handed down re substance) however in his OWN WORDS in his summaries particularly section 234 if memory serves correctly he stressed the word ORIGINAL and even placed further difficulites on the banks and CCs by stating they had to provide the original at every variation along with the modified T & Cs right back to date of inception.

 

Our solicitors were THERE!

 

Representing a client who insisted on proceeding as a claimant and not waiting to defend. Hence the confusion that seems to be spreading about this case and which has just been ruled by another judge as irrelevant in enforcement via the courts. Exactly as HHJ Waksman stated it to be so.

 

Hope that this provides a little clarification for those a little concerned by this case. It may well be that the actual Carey v HSBC case itself may well be taken to full trial, in which case only evidential facts will be acceptable to the court, not the assumed facts that HHJW ruled upon.

 

Regards

oilyrag.:)

 

Thanks Oilyrag, this is very useful insight. It confirms what I've been saying all along, which is that in s.78 requests we can demand a copy of the original because all our agreements have been varied if we're looking at those made before April 2007.

 

I would be very interested to learn all the differences between LEAD cases and TEST cases...can you provide more info on that? Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we are getting into over dissection again. Carey v HSBC was in fact a series of LEAD cases not TEST cases as has been stated and verified on this thread previously. For reference check the case management conferences which took place early in October 2009 at Manchester Mercantile Court.

 

These LEAD cases were put together to be heard in order to attempt to establish some ground, procedural and "housekeeping" rules due to the overwhelming number of cases being brought before the courts by CMC's on behalf of clients claiming unenforcability of their alleged agreements under Section 78 of the CCA1974.

 

Whilst much is constantly made on here about reconn agreements etc. these according to HHJ Waksman QC may, note may be acceptable in response to a section 78 request by an alleged debtor or their representatives (note the questions in his words actually in the judgement handed down re substance) however in his OWN WORDS in his summaries particularly section 234 if memory serves correctly he stressed the word ORIGINAL and even placed further difficulites on the banks and CCs by stating they had to provide the original at every variation along with the modified T & Cs right back to date of inception.

 

Our solicitors were THERE!

 

Representing a client who insisted on proceeding as a claimant and not waiting to defend. Hence the confusion that seems to be spreading about this case and which has just been ruled by another judge as irrelevant in enforcement via the courts. Exactly as HHJ Waksman stated it to be so.

 

Hope that this provides a little clarification for those a little concerned by this case. It may well be that the actual Carey v HSBC case itself may well be taken to full trial, in which case only evidential facts will be acceptable to the court, not the assumed facts that HHJW ruled upon.

 

Regards

oilyrag.:)

 

Agree.

 

Furthermore, that has been the view of many, including mine, for some years now!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Solicitors are still trying to use carey as justification for producing a reconstruction in court:rolleyes:

 

 

Spot on Vint. There are two cases in Scotland just now

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/scotland/212092-bombshell-dropped-today-advice.html

and

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dealing-debt-scotland/176298-need-help-court-defence-8.html#post2774061

 

where RBS (your "national" bank) is trying to enforce Two agreements for which inter alia they dont seem to have the originals. Basically their argument seems to be "lending took place; here's a reconstruction of the "original agreement", and the statements as proof; can we have an order to make them pay up?"

Neither of them has been at full hearing yet, but these will take place in March - think the first of them (the second thread above) is 5th March. Interestingly - again in the second thread case - Carey has been mentioned positively by OS.

I know these are Scottish cases, and the procedure and jargon will be different but it is always the Consumer Credit Act, so if anyone on this thread thinks they MIGHT have something to offer, please drop by, have a look and leave a view. I think they are important cases - very important for the people involved - but important for us all as cases heard early after Manchester where the banks are trying to fundamentally misuse Carey, which I see as a s78 case, with little to do with s61 and enforcement. I think its important that this is stood on firmly at an early stage. I think these two guys have cases which, properly presented, could do this.

Thanks

SFU :)

Edited by seriously fed up
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...