Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
    • Hey people, I've been browsing this amazing forum for the past year and recieved a letter today which has made me require some help. Received a claim form from Cabot in the Civil National Business Centre in regards to an Aqua Credit Card taken out in 2018. I failed to make payments due to financial hardship and have not taken out any credit or uses any forms of credit since. Received a lot of letters from Cabot and their solicitors Mortimer Clarke which I've ignored    By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua& the Defendant on or around 26/03/2018 ('ths Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue Defendant with a credit card. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due. The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice. The Agreement was assigned to the named Claimant. Cabot Credit Management Group Limited, acting as servicing agent of the named Claimant through its Appointed Representative (Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited), has arranged for these proceedings to be issued in the name of the Claimant. The named Claimant may be entitled to claim interest under the Agreement but does not seek such interest and instead claims interest under Section 69(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p.a.from03/03/2023 until date of issue only, or alternatively such interest as the Court thinks fit THE NAMED CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 1. 3800.82 2. INTEREST OF 379.84 3. Costs How would I go about this and what could happen? I don't remember much details about the card either.
    • cause like you said in post one, 99% of people think these are FINES (it now reads charge). and wet themselves and cough up. they are not, they are speculative invoices because the driver supposedly broke some imaginary contract by driving onto privately owned land which said owner may or may not have signed some 99% fake contract with a private parking co years ago, thats already expired or has not been renewed or annually paid to employ them dx  
  • 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

Sisters Barclaycard debt & HFO


247orbital
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4573 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

This is their usual ‘your debt has been sold to us, and you are now subject to our standard terms and conditions’.

 

No way, Jose. As said, the only T&Cs that can ever apply are the originals – if they can find them – unless there is agreement between the parties, or unless there is a clause in the original agreement which says they can be varied in this way – ie. once again, if they can find the T&Cs. Which they hardly ever can, and usually they simply bung in any old T&Cs roughly from the period. Beyond about six or seven years ago, Barclaycard, for example, never microfiched the T&Cs with the application, so HFO are always guessing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 months later...
My SAR went off today apparently, Barclaycard are normally good at returning SAR's. What sort of time frame should I expect?

 

within the 40 day timescale.

US President Barack Obama referred to Ugland House as the biggest building in the world or the biggest tax SCA* in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually tell people to list previous and new address and send a Utility bill, but others have sorted it over the phone with BC. BC are normally reasonably quick at

sending some information but may send additional data withing the 40 days so you do have to wait.

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Coledog, will do upon my return, I just want all the paper work when I arrive to start the action against HFO. I know an SAR has 40 calender days for response, but I was under the impression that Barclaycard were quite prompt with SAR's.

I won't post any more on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update:

 

Had SAR information back from Barclaycard, written proof account was defaulted in late Jan 2004! Barclaycard did not register the default until March 2005, 14 months later. Barclaycard have removed their default last year (2010) after they were contacted.

 

HFO are confirmed as purchasing the account May 2007 and yet show the date of default as Nov 2006.

 

The account has nearly £500 worth of charges and yet the original limit was only £500.

 

I also have the date of last payment and the alleged debt is long SB!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will give HFO the chance to remove the incorrect entry on my CF, 28 days, then 10 days failing that a LBA and complaints to the OFT, ICO etc.

 

Now can someone advise me on these charges and what to do regarding them etc. There is also PPI on the Barclaycard account.

 

Also not that to date there is no CCA from Barclaycard at all but they do have another few weeks yet to fully respond to the SAR.

 

Contact with HFO is on hold until then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Due to all the recent influx of HFO posts I think it can come to one conclusion, these mainly Barclaycard debts are nearing the end of there 6 year life. Hence all the activity. These all seem to stem from HFO purchasing them around 2006/07, in my experience these will be from accounts that defaulted in 2004/05.

 

I strongly urge anyone who has had recent contact from HFO to SAR Barclaycard (or the OC), double check the default date listed on your credit file as HFO are well known to have altered these to when they purchased the debt. Check all the charges, check for the valid CCA (in my case even Barclaycard can't come up with one). Check for the date of last payment, very important for SB status.

 

HFO have sat on these accounts for a very long time and it seems these are lemons and they know it. We all know DCA's play the numbers game for every 10 calls or letters they write you can guarantee that only 1 in 10 knows their rights under law. Its not about avoidance its about not being bullied by questionable companies who use deceit and lies for their own gain.

 

All the average consumer wants is a decent chance at repayment of debt, if the OC's were more approachable and not so quick to write off their losses and sell to these parasitic DCA's. Repayment would be direct to them. Its a question of common sense and fairness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I can not stress strongly enough COMPLAIN!

 

To the ICO, Trading Standards, OFT, your MP, Consumer TV shows such as Watchdog. Complain to the CRA's, demand complaints procedures.

 

An influx of complaints will set alarm bells ringing somewhere and hopefully bring about change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...