Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. 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 of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. 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.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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

Mis-sold PPI claimed against a debt with DCA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5260 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

also this account is currently in dispute with the DCA, (since Nov 09)does this shoot holes in that argument as such we're saying it's unenforceable with no legal executed agreement yet made a successful claim against said account?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my case, i've used PPI as another reason why the accounts are disputed. Eg if you find an enforceable agreement then i;ll claim back PPI & Charges + interest.

You really need to look at the value of the ppi and only try to reclaim if the account is enforceable or the PPI + interest exceeds the alleged balance of the account. Seems to have worked in my case as DCA'S seem to go quiet when you tell them the account contains PPI and you would be making a counter claim.

The point i'm trying to make is don't try and be greedy, if you are going down the no enforceable agreement = no payment route don't try to claim PPI back just be happy that you aren't paying anything.

Off course if you recieve a claim then you can use this in your defence and/or make a counter claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my case, i've used PPI as another reason why the accounts are disputed. Eg if you find an enforceable agreement then i;ll claim back PPI & Charges + interest.

You really need to look at the value of the ppi and only try to reclaim if the account is enforceable or the PPI + interest exceeds the alleged balance of the account. Seems to have worked in my case as DCA'S seem to go quiet when you tell them the account contains PPI and you would be making a counter claim.

The point i'm trying to make is don't try and be greedy, if you are going down the no enforceable agreement = no payment route don't try to claim PPI back just be happy that you aren't paying anything.

Off course if you recieve a claim then you can use this in your defence and/or make a counter claim.

 

 

 

thats the thing we're not being greedy we started the ppi claim 18 months ago with some firm hadn't heard anything about it so started this CCA process off a few months ago then out of the blue we've got notice that we're due some ppi but it's only about15% of the debt owing, but we've been told it might go straight the DCA as it's in default, so it's to late to threaten them with i will claim as it's already been done

 

 

i thought i'd read somewhere that ppi issues could invalidate and agreement i'm not that fussed about the amount or even if it doesn't come to us, the fact that there is one could help , if it could be used as another argument to stop them bleating on about an application form

Edited by Gaznkaz08
Link to post
Share on other sites

thats the thing we're not being greedy we started the ppi claim 18 months ago with some firm hadn't heard anything about it so started this CCA process off a few months ago then out of the blue we've got notice that we're due some ppi but it's only about15% of the debt owing, but we've been told it might go straight the DCA as it's in default, so it's to late to threaten them with i will claim as it's already been done

 

 

i thought i'd read somewhere that ppi issues could invalidate and agreement i'm not that fussed about the amount or even if it doesn't come to us, the fact that there is one could help , if it could be used as another argument to stop them bleating on about an application form

I understand it all depends how the PPI was added to the agreement. I think you might find some info on this thresd.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html

Edited by jon888999
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it all depends how the PPI was added to the agreement. I think you might find some info on this thresd.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/171037-multiple-agreements-falling-within.html

 

 

 

would the fact that halifax have agreed to pay it back not indicate it was not correctly added,

 

the only ref i have to it was it was on this application form(sent in reply to a CCA)

 

all details name address etc and "X in the box" were pre printed

 

 

img022-2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've just asked the site team to help. I probably notified them in the wrong way. Sorry to the site team.

To start with How much is the outstanding alleged debt and how much is the PPI?

 

 

lol thanks

 

roughly 1400 allegedly outstanding with the DCA, apparently we have 174 enroute (gonna lose 50% of that to the claims firm,) and had 234 in unfair charges sent direct to us about 9 months ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hinits all about where the PPi payment is placedin the agreement . Your ppi seems to have geen requested ie it was not a term of the loan yu chose to takeiton and it was not a condition of getting the loan.

In this case the premium can be added to the total credit and you will pay interest on it.

 

If the PPi had been a condition of the loanor you where lead to believe that it was it should have been include within the total charge for credit along with the interest payment and fees,

 

If it was the apr and the total credit figures would be different and this would make the agreement unenforceable, under section127(3) if executed before april 2007. If after this dte you may still have a shot at the sectin

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

hinits all about where the PPi payment is placedin the agreement . Your ppi seems to have geen requested ie it was not a term of the loan yu chose to takeiton and it was not a condition of getting the loan.

In this case the premium can be added to the total credit and you will pay interest on it.

 

If the PPi had been a condition of the loanor you where lead to believe that it was it should have been include within the total charge for credit along with the interest payment and fees,

 

If it was the apr and the total credit figures would be different and this would make the agreement unenforceable, under section127(3) if executed before april 2007. If after this dte you may still have a shot at the sectin

 

 

hi this is actually on a credit card, i take it thats different.

 

My main query is that if Halifax are crediting it back then surely that is an admission of it being misold therefore, would that make the agreement unenforceable, if it had been requested then they wouldn't reutrn it would they? or would they i don't know

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

No the assertion will simply be that you were missled in making the puchase they admitted this and refunded your money. The ppi was not a term of the contract so you cannot say it was mistated.

 

peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

No the assertion will simply be that you were missled in making the puchase they admitted this and refunded your money. The ppi was not a term of the contract so you cannot say it was mistated.

 

peter

 

 

ok i'm with you i think, lol

 

so it was mis sold not incorrectly added then, not making it unenforceable.

 

so does being granted a ppi refund against the defaulted account, have any bearing on us disputing it under a CCA request?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i'm with you i think, lol

 

so it was mis sold not incorrectly added then, not making it unenforceable.

 

so does being granted a ppi refund against the defaulted account, have any bearing on us disputing it under a CCA request?

 

Hi

 

No i dont see how it would have any bearing on the enforceability of the agreemet.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to butt in, I have 2 questions to ask the answers to which may be useful for others... aside from which, I dunno where else to ask.

 

Does a lender, in this case Sainsbury have to disclose the commission they receive from a single premium PPI policy attached to a capital loan? The SAR shows the figures.

In this case the gross premium (added) was £3000 and the NET premium paid to the insurer was £1000 for the entire loan term.

If you take £3000, add the apr (2004 rates) you end up with a lot more. My son is self employed and nets before tax £12000 (has two kids too).

He accepted the PPI because he was in a bad situation with his van without which he cannot earn. Now he is wiser, had he not been in such a panic he would have looked closer and would have discovered he could've got the same policy hugely cheaper and would have declined. Hindsight is wonderful.... still, he swears he did feel pressured at the time.

 

I'd also appreciate any thoughts.... this agreement was challenged last year and having only recently discovered Defaults, find that the DN doesn't comply... out by 2 days. The rest of the agreement is okay, so, would it be a reasonable bet to tackle them on the basis of cancelling the whole agreement and not chllenging the PPI.

 

I ask the above question re disclosure because they are FSA registered and those selling insurance are supposed to declare commission.

Thanks

Charlie

Edited by charlie*
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to butt in, I have 2 questions to ask the answers to which may be useful for others... aside from which, I dunno where else to ask.

 

Does a lender, in this case Sainsbury have to disclose the commission they receive from a single premium PPI policy attached to a capital loan? The SAR shows the figures.

In this case the gross premium (added) was £3000 and the NET premium paid to the insurer was £1000 for the entire loan term.

If you take £3000, add the apr (2004 rates) you end up with a lot more. My son is self employed and nets before tax £12000 (has two kids too).

He accepted the PPI because he was in a bad situation with his van without which he cannot earn. Now he is wiser, had he not been in such a panic he would have looked closer and would have discovered he could've got the same policy hugely cheaper and would have declined. Hindsight is wonderful.... still, he swears he did feel pressured at the time.

 

I'd also appreciate any thoughts.... this agreement was challenged last year and having only recently discovered Defaults, find that the DN doesn't comply... out by 2 days. The rest of the agreement is okay, so, would it be a reasonable bet to tackle them on the basis of cancelling the whole agreement and not chllenging the PPI.

 

I ask the above question re disclosure because they are FSA registered and those selling insurance are supposed to declare commission.

Thanks

Charlie

 

probably be better to start you own thread as it might not get many views in here:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...