Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you will also need a copy of the CCJ and the particulars of claim on the claimform as... you'll need the particulars of claim as we don't know the judgement sum nor if post judgemental interest was allowed. did you defend it? did you ignore it? did you not get it?  did you know nothing about it?   its very rare on welcome debt either taken to court by welcome (doubtful in 2013) or a DCA (more likely)  i will suggest the debt was already at £18k before the CCJ so nothing bar court charges were added   please advise  i love bashing welcome and DCA but we can't help until we know our actual target and who did what and when.                
    • Janet Yellen confirmed as first female US Treasury secretary in Senate vote View the full article
    • I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airport  ByeLaws 2020. which will help you no end.     https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/board-approved-london-southend-airport-byelaws-100220-d14ca659.pdf   If you go to Section 5  the headline reads 5. Prohibited acts on parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:   In other words the roads on the airport are either governed by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws- neither of which are classed as relevant land. Therefore PoFA DOES NOT APPLY throughout the airport.   Take a copy for the Court and point out that the VCS WS is somewhat lacking in accuracy. It is inconceivable that VCS have not read the Byelaws since they are operating there.    So looking at their WS it reminds me that a good few years ago it was said about the WSs of  parking companies that they and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.   This practice should stop since were the authors to have to appear in Court and challenged, their perjury would not only be clear to see but it would put a stop to the practice. If they don't turn up in Court they get away with their lies and are able to repeat them ad nauseam. And this WS is full of lies and misdirections -not that you can say in Court they are lies but you can point out where there is contradictions shall we say and let the Judge decide.    The WS says in point 31 that they robustly deny that their sign is prohibitive.    You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach.   The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway.   It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.   All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”   And of course VCS cannot sue for trespass as they are not the landowners.  
    • Send Smart a two-line letter informing them of your new address.  It will save you from the threat of a backdoor CCJ later on.   As for DR+, just laugh at their standard letters.
  • 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
      • 31 replies

Legal Action: how to start off. IMPORTANT IF YOURE BEING SUED


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3516 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

 

IMO you would be wasting everyones times seeking to obtain judgement by default t because you or the court were served a few days late

 

the court may well argue that it is not for you to decide if the court has been inconvenienced

 

It is now three weeks late, not a few days. This will be the second time they have failed to file a defence on time and this time it was by a date ordered by a judge not just court protocols.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 344
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

then i would imagine (IMO) that the court will look at whether you have been prejudiced by the late service

 

if you are claiming that you do not have enough time prior to trial to digest and respond to what is in the papers then the court will probably grant you an adjournment to give you that time- rather than seek to give you judgement by default

 

i am afraid that the creditor would have to P*ss the judge off a lot more than one or two late submissions- before he would give you a default judgement- thats just the way things are

 

courts give a lot more lattitude to sols and creditors due to their heavy workloads- than they would a LIP

Link to post
Share on other sites
they need only send the agreement between you and the OC together with proof that the debt has legally been assigned to them

 

the assignment (if valid) merely substitutes them for the OC

 

clearly you cannot expect them to produce that which does not exist ( a signed agreement between you and the assignee)

 

 

My colleague has passed me a Cabot letter in relation to Egg in which they state they have Legal Assignment and then state that because of this they inherited the rights and interest....that they have ''purchased the loan'

 

I reminded them that in addition to rights and interests that because it is a Legal Assignment that they also take the 'burdens and duties'

 

Also DD is this is all academic UNLESS there is a POWER to assign in the original agreement between the Original Lender/Creditor and debtor by the lender to a third party/assignee in the first place.And ONLY IF that POWER exists can THEN the question of s136 LPA 1925 can be properly considered

 

 

m2ae

Edited by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites
then i would imagine (IMO) that the court will look at whether you have been prejudiced by the late service

 

if you are claiming that you do not have enough time prior to trial to digest and respond to what is in the papers then the court will probably grant you an adjournment to give you that time- rather than seek to give you judgement by default

 

i am afraid that the creditor would have to P*ss the judge off a lot more than one or two late submissions- before he would give you a default judgement- thats just the way things are

 

courts give a lot more lattitude to sols and creditors due to their heavy workloads- than they would a LIP

 

Hmmmm, seems the defendants when a finance company can do literally anything then and get away with it.

 

So far the defendant has:

 

  1. Failed to acknowledge original claim
  2. Failed to file defence to original claim
  3. Missed a set aside hearing
  4. Failed to file defence after judges order

 

I may as well withdraw. :rolleyes::(

Link to post
Share on other sites
My colleague has passed me a Cabot letter in relation to Egg in which they state they have Legal Assignment and then state that because of this they inherited the rights and interest....that they have ''purchased the loan'

 

I reminded them that in addition to rights and interests that because it is a Legal Assignment that they also take the 'burdens and duties'

 

Also DD is this is all academic UNLESS there is a POWER to assign in the original agreement between the Original Lender/Creditor and debtor by the lender to a third party/assignee in the first place.And ONLY IF that POWER exists can THEN the question of s136 LPA 1925 can be properly considered

 

 

m2ae

 

i take it you mean a "power" contained within the T & C's of the agreement?

 

the short answer is i dont know- as i am under the impression that irrespective of the T & C's of the agreement (unless they specifically forbid the sale or assignment of the loan)- that as an asset belonging to the OC- the law in general allows them to sell trade secure upon it etc etc without encumbrance

 

but you might need to confirm that

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmmm, seems the defendants when a finance company can do literally anything then and get away with it.

 

So far the defendant has:

 

  1. Failed to acknowledge original claim
  2. Failed to file defence to original claim
  3. Missed a set aside hearing
  4. Failed to file defence after judges order

 

I may as well withdraw. :rolleyes::(

 

sorry basa i have not followed in detail- if you have filed a claim against anyone (financier included) and they have failed to file a defence at all (not even a holding defence) then of course you can apply for SJ

 

the danger is of course that they then immediately apply for a set aside for some spurious reason so then it is best to allow them enough rope - via applications to the court- to hang themselves - before you apply for the SJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

the short answer is i dont know- as i am under the impression that irrespective of the T & C's of the agreement (unless they specifically forbid the sale or assignment of the loan)- that as an asset belonging to the OC- the law in general allows them to sell trade secure upon it etc etc without encumbrance

 

Totally agree DD - in the eyes of the law it is 'just another asset'.

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sorry basa i have not followed in detail- if you have filed a claim against anyone (financier included) and they have failed to file a defence at all (not even a holding defence) then of course you can apply for SJ

 

the danger is of course that they then immediately apply for a set aside for some spurious reason so then it is best to allow them enough rope - via applications to the court- to hang themselves - before you apply for the SJ

 

As they have already had a set-aside for a Default Judgement, I agree with DD that maybe applying for Summary Judgement would be the way forward.

 

A Summary Judgement is 'more formal' than default - there will be a hearing to which the defendants will be invited - you have to submit paperwork etc.

Will cost you £70 which you will get back with your time etc if you win.

 

Apply using N244

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i take it you mean a "power" contained within the T & C's of the agreement?

 

the short answer is i dont know- as i am under the impression that irrespective of the T & C's of the agreement (unless they specifically forbid the sale or assignment of the loan)- that as an asset belonging to the OC- the law in general allows them to sell trade secure upon it etc etc without encumbrance

 

but you might need to confirm that

 

 

It appears they cannot!

 

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (c.31) - Statute Law Database

 

 

 

1. Right of third party to enforce contractual term.

 

— (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—

(a)the contract expressly provides that he may, or

(b)subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him.

 

(2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.

 

(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.

 

(4) This section does not confer a right on a third party to enforce a term of a contract otherwise than subject to and in accordance with any other relevant terms of the contract.

 

(5) For the purpose of exercising his right to enforce a term of the contract, there shall be available to the third party any remedy that would have been available to him in an action for breach of contract if he had been a party to the contract (and the rules relating to damages, injunctions, specific performance and other relief shall apply accordingly).

 

(6) Where a term of a contract excludes or limits liability in relation to any matter references in this Act to the third party enforcing the term shall be construed as references to his availing himself of the exclusion or limitation.

 

(7) In this Act, in relation to a term of a contract which is enforceable by a third party—

“the promisor” means the party to the contract against whom the term is enforceable by the third party, and

“the promisee” means the party to the contract by whom the term is enforceable against the promisor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a debt has been lawfully assigned, the contract itself is also assigned (as to whether that actually happens is another thing)

 

Once that has happened the new owner is not a 3rd party, they simple replace the OC in the original contract. i.e. the contract is then between you & them not the OC.

 

This is the whole issue surrounding whether the debt/receivables/rights get assigned or the whole contract...

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As they have already had a set-aside for a Default Judgement, I agree with DD that maybe applying for Summary Judgement would be the way forward.

 

A Summary Judgement is 'more formal' than default - there will be a hearing to which the defendants will be invited - you have to submit paperwork etc.

Will cost you £70 which you will get back with your time etc if you win.

 

Apply using N244

 

Hmmmm :confused:

 

CPR 24.4

 

(1) A claimant may not apply for summary judgment until the defendant against whom the application is made has filed –

 

(a) an acknowledgement of service; or

 

(b) a defence,

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it was assumed that an acknowledgement was done- but that's an interesting scenario

 

 

it would be judgement in default if no service was acknowledged- but i think in this case it must have been since the court had already issued instructions that the defendant had not complied with

Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears they cannot!

 

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (c.31) - Statute Law Database

 

 

 

1. Right of third party to enforce contractual term.

 

— (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—

(a)the contract expressly provides that he may, or

(b)subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him.

 

(2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.

 

(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.

 

(4) This section does not confer a right on a third party to enforce a term of a contract otherwise than subject to and in accordance with any other relevant terms of the contract.

 

(5) For the purpose of exercising his right to enforce a term of the contract, there shall be available to the third party any remedy that would have been available to him in an action for breach of contract if he had been a party to the contract (and the rules relating to damages, injunctions, specific performance and other relief shall apply accordingly).

 

(6) Where a term of a contract excludes or limits liability in relation to any matter references in this Act to the third party enforcing the term shall be construed as references to his availing himself of the exclusion or limitation.

 

(7) In this Act, in relation to a term of a contract which is enforceable by a third party—

“the promisor” means the party to the contract against whom the term is enforceable by the third party, and

“the promisee” means the party to the contract by whom the term is enforceable against the promisor.

 

as GH has said , tyhis relates to third parties acting - not to a third party who has bought the debt (so then becomes the first party)

Link to post
Share on other sites
i think it was assumed that an acknowledgement was done- but that's an interesting scenario

 

 

it would be judgement in default if no service was acknowledged- but i think in this case it must have been since the court had already issued instructions that the defendant had not complied with

 

The court (and me) has yet to see any acknowledgement or defence. The defendant applied for (and obtained) a set aside after I obtained the first default judgement. The only witness statements received were in their application for the set aside and were concerned with why they did not acknowledge or defend, but did include a broad outline of their defence strategy. Would that count?

 

The current order of the court for the defendant to submit a full defence (still not filed 3 weeks late) were as a result of the set aside hearing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
then you now need an unless order (IMO)

 

i would make a witness statement in support of the unless order and suggest that the defendant has abused the court in seeking the set aside when it would appear that they have no intention of defending the action

 

I really don't see the point of that - it just gives the defendant yet another chance to remedy their ongoing abuse of process.

 

I'd be better off requesting default judgement which will force them to pay again for a set aside. Plus I would imagine the judge hearing the set aside app. would be far from impressed by their current performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i see your logic- but judges don't always see it the same

 

 

however you have the benefit of differing advice - now it's your call

 

Don't I know it, IMO the defendants case is as weak as they get yet they still got the set aside. I fully expect them to get another, but there is always the hope that another judge will see sense.

 

I will weigh up the advice for which I thank all who commented.

 

At least this is all good practice. I've been in court 4 times now! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you *could* write to the Court. The DJ will reject your letter, but they normally give subtle guidance as to how they would like you to proceed.

 

just another possible track

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't I know it, IMO the defendants case is as weak as they get yet they still got the set aside. I fully expect them to get another,

 

What were the grounds? not receiving? if so they can hardly plead that again...

If their grounds were that they had a defence then it's a bit of a pain :lol: sorry ;)

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What were the grounds? not receiving? if so they can hardly plead that again...

If their grounds were that they had a defence then it's a bit of a pain :lol: sorry ;)

 

Usual grounds - "the claimant had the benefit of the credit, they must have signed or we wouldn't have given a card" type of cr*p!

 

Grounds for not acknowledging/defending - "the secretary filed the papers in the 'completed' drawer"!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

Sorry to change the subject but I have a quick question.

 

Which section of which act is it that forbids a creditor from claiming statutory interest on a CCA claim?

 

I am about to write a letter to a DCA this morning.

 

Thanks if you can help.

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) Section 2 (3)(a)

 

 

  • Haha 1

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something but is a SARN request to the OC and or DCA not supposed to reveal exactly what's been done with or to your account?

 

We shouldn't let them hide behind smoke and mirrors and confuse things by not disclosing excatly who the creditor is and what exactly the relationship is in regard to anyone actually contacting you.

 

It is their standing in the matter that informs how you deal with them in the first place. If one is confused in that regard then they can play games with you!!!

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...