Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. 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. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
  • 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

Asset Recoveries UK hassling re mortgage shortfall from 2000- ** Statute barred ** :)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4651 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

Not yet Humbleman.... but Aruk have claimed that they're acting for Phoenix who bought it under The Law of Property Act, 1925; by Absolute Assignment.

 

:)

 

What seems to be happening is that the OC sell the debt to Carvel and then let the DCA's make up their own story as to who the owner is. Most of the time telling porkies.

 

Must be a way of getting the OC to comply with a request as to who they have really sold the debt to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 332
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What seems to be happening is that the OC sell the debt to Carvel and then let the DCA's make up their own story as to who the owner is. Most of the time telling porkies.

 

Must be a way of getting the OC to comply with a request as to who they have really sold the debt to.

 

The problem with playing games like this is that when the alleged debtor becomes a bit more clued up on their rights, or has access to a forum such as this and they legally ask the dca to simply "prove it"

 

They will have already fabricated a wonderful tale in their reams of threatening letters which cannot be supported or proven in court

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with playing games like this is that when the alleged debtor becomes a bit more clued up on their rights, or has access to a forum such as this and they legally ask the dca to simply "prove it"

 

Agreed

 

They will have already fabricated a wonderful tale in their reams of threatening letters which cannot be supported or proven in court

 

If you have followed my case I in fact served a NOTICE TO PROVE DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL almost 1 year before the trial.

 

At the trial the Judge said that I had not made any representation until the day of the trial and in any case it was just a technical issue and although they can't prove absolute assignment they claimed equitable and was happy to proceed to judgment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed

 

 

 

If you have followed my case I in fact served a NOTICE TO PROVE DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL almost 1 year before the trial. I haven't followed your case

 

At the trial the Judge said that I had not made any representation until the day of the trial and in any case it was just a technical issue and although they can't prove absolute assignment they claimed equitable and was happy to proceed to judgment.

 

Unfortunately, as fool proof as a defence might be, there will always be a judge who proves that they're a bigger fool. confirming ownership of a debt would seem to be an important part of judging a case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

AC,the information commissioners office dont have a UK address for phoenix. They told me that on phone.

 

No, but they know that the corp behind phoenix is: Cargill/Carval;

they just will not tell you! (DPA)

 

The following is the only uk company listed under phoenix recoveries (UK) Limited:

 

Companies House:

 

 

Name & Registered Office:

PHOENIX RECOVERIES (UK) LIMITED

26 WILMOT STREET

LONDON

E2 0BS

Company No. 06756754"

 

Looks to be a non-trading company.

 

Bethnal Green...Charming toy museum; all sorts of puppets.

Edited by angry cat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that address but the information commissioners office said they dont have one, could only give me address in luxembourg.

They were also keen to ask as to why i wanted UK address so I told them I had sent sar and it was being returned, they seemed interested as to why it was being returned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but they know that the corp behind phoenix is: Cargill/Carval;

they just will not tell you! (DPA)

 

The following is the only uk company listed under phoenix recoveries (UK) Limited:

 

Companies House:

 

 

Name & Registered Office:

PHOENIX RECOVERIES (UK) LIMITED

26 WILMOT STREET

LONDON

E2 0BS

Company No. 06756754"

 

Looks to be a non-trading company.

 

Bethnal Green...Charming toy museum; all sorts of puppets.

Yes AC but they told me its not the same company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore this IW.... it may have crossed with your letter to them.

 

In any case, it's been sent purely to un-nerve you. These people have no legal rights at all and if they were to ignore your specific instructions not to call at your home (as in your letter to them)..... you could action another complaint (the more the merrier).... before telling whoever turns up to go forth and multiply.

 

Note the "potential" home visit... :rolleyes:

 

File away and ignore... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem P1. Its already filed with other ones. I am so pleased I have you all on here to help and talk to cos if I didnt I probably would have had a breakdown by now. You all have given me strength.

 

That's what we're here for... :wink:

 

It's actually quite a stupid letter in light of their non-compliance with your SAR, but no surprise there. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, well P1, I have been invited out to my sisters for the evening cos she is a bit worried about me so I am going to have a couple of glasses of wine, Have to watch what I drink as its been 4 years since I had one. Maybe I can relax a little and take my mind off things. thanks again. Your a treasure.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, well P1, I have been invited out to my sisters for the evening cos she is a bit worried about me so I am going to have a couple of glasses of wine, Have to watch what I drink as its been 4 years since I had one. Maybe I can relax a little and take my mind off things. thanks again. Your a treasure.:D

 

Hope you have a lovely evening.... :)

 

Hic! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The arrogance of these people is incredible

 

They claim they are going to send someone to YOUR home ''to obtain a full review of your financial circumstances.'' Just how TF do they propose to do that standing on the footpath outside your home. They have NO LEGAL POWERS WHATSOEVER.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you enjoy being with your sister and relaxing.

 

They clearly have been fishing hoping you will have enough money to pay them now, even though the debt is quite old. The arrogance of their letter is crazy, "this is wholly unacceptable....." Keep it safe with the other letters.

 

We are always here to listen and help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, Well after yesterdays phone call rejection this is what I recieved today. Funny how its on different coloured paper.

5tharuk.jpg?t=1266689969

 

Send them this and by Recorded Delivery;

Head it up:

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY OR, ANY COMPANY THAT YOU CLAIM TO REPRESENT.

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/590-letter-used-when-a-dca-threatens-a-doorstep-visit-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my lord, what a pretty picture these people paint for a judge to see th arrogance and predatory nature of their business. "We reserve the right to produce this letter in court in future.....?" that's not a threat is it?

 

You owe us the money because ......well we say you do?

 

IW if you become concerned about a doorstep visitor actually attending, I'm close enough to pop over and lend six feet and 18 stone of "moral support" if you need it

Edited by spamheed
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...