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

can rossendales refuse a statutory declaration


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5212 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

hi my new partner sent rossendales a stat dec to say all items in this property was hers and not mine this is the reply i got was wondering can they do this

 

dear sir /madam

 

further to your correspondence i am in forming you that due to the nature of some of the goods levied distess on them we are unable to accept your stat dec we require a full inventory of goods owned by miss L ****

in the meantime please contatc your van baliff to arrange immdiate payment ??

 

 

can they refuse a stat dec why ask for an inventory as the stat dec a legal document states all items are miss grey's

 

 

please help dont know what should be next step ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok but do they have to ignore the stat dec or does that still stand ????

and why ask for a inventory ???

 

 

In my opinion there at it a stat dec is a legally binding document its not up to them where they agree with it or not

 

would they go to court and stand up in front of a judge and say this I think not

Link to post
Share on other sites

and thats exactly what i have put in a letter was just hoping someone else would have same thought i mean why have something thats not legal but then not accept the document signed under oath ???

 

also i requested a ring back from a manager at 10 am and still waiting ?????? me thinks they know there wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

A statutory declaration does not have to be accepted. However, if the bailiff removes goods that he believes are yours and it is later proved in court that they are not then the company will leave themselves open for costs.

 

I'm not suggesting you are, but so many unscrupluous debtors use Stat Decs to try and worm out of debts they owe.

 

More important is the fact that you should try to arrange a payment plan so that goods will not need to be removed, whoever it's claimed they belong to.

 

Quite why Hallowitch thinks a formal complaint is the next step is beyond me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A statutory declaration does not have to be accepted. However, if the bailiff removes goods that he believes are yours and it is later proved in court that they are not then the company will leave themselves open for costs.

 

I'm not suggesting you are, but so many unscrupluous debtors use Stat Decs to try and worm out of debts they owe.

 

More important is the fact that you should try to arrange a payment plan so that goods will not need to be removed, whoever it's claimed they belong to.

 

Quite why Hallowitch thinks a formal complaint is the next step is beyond me.

 

 

yet again.... ur advise is pay the bailiff...... !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite why Hallowitch thinks a formal complaint is the next step is beyond me.

 

because the bailiff company are employed by the council

and if the bailiff does remove the goods then the council are also responsible for the loss of the owners property

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As HW says, the buck stops with the councils CEO. Make sure you clearly mark your letter FORMAL COMPLAINT.

Best wishes.

Rae.

 

NB: Wasn't there another thread about this??? :confused: [always best to keep it all together so we can get a full picture...]

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, is there a reason that the bailiff company would have reason to doubt the Stat Dec?

 

It sounds sexist but are some of the goods she is claiming usually owned by men? EG: Builders tools etc

 

Does this mean that women can't claim for Mr Muscle products!

:cool:

 

PT

  • Haha 1

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, is there a reason that the bailiff company would have reason to doubt the Stat Dec?

 

It sounds sexist but are some of the goods she is claiming usually owned by men? EG: Builders tools etc

 

It sure does! I know female builders, plumbers and mechanics. No offence to you personally, HCE, but if that's how the average bailiff thinks than they really are stuck in the dark ages...

Rae.

 

NB: I wouldn't personally consider any of the above. I appreciate my manicure too much and don't have the time inbetween cooking, cleaning, embroidery etc :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sure does! I know female builders, plumbers and mechanics. No offence to you personally, HCE, but if that's how the average bailiff thinks than they really are stuck in the dark ages...

Rae.

 

Kelcou, dont be silly now, you know what I'm getting at. I'm trying to understand why the bailiff company refuses to accept the Stat Dec.

 

If it is on the goods that the OP details then they havent really got a leg to stand on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that in a case of a joint tenancy or where there is a counter claim to property the bailiff has attempted to levy against then a bailiff can assume that the property is owned by the person named on the order unless shop receipts are provided to prove the ownership.

 

However a stat dec is a legal document recognised by the courts and sworn in the presence of a court officer, this would supercede any mere assumption made by any unqualified or semi skilled bailiff even a superstar boss bailiff. It is not their place to suggest that the legal document is a fabrication, only to act within the law....... Doh!!

 

High School Musical likes to make people think he knows what he's talking about even when he doesn't, That's why he's suggesting that you enter into a repayment plan when the bailiffs are clearly in the wrong.

 

As advised, make a complaint to the CE of the council

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spamheed is laughably wrong as usual. Not sure how his little mind works.

 

A Statutory Declaration is a sworn claim for something. This can be challenged but the bailiff would have to have good reason to do so. From what you have posted it would appear he does not.

 

The point remains that you owe Council Tax and this needs to be paid somehow, whether it be through the bailiffs or the council I didnt state.

Edited by High Court Enforcer
Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

A Statutory Declaration is a sworn claim for something. This can be challenged but the bailiff would have to have good reason to do so..

 

Hows this for a Stat Dec.

 

I SWEAR the bailiffs and HCEOs will NEVER get another penny out of me.:D:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

high court enforcer my argument is not about paying i accept that i need to clear this its just when they say they are going to takem my g/f stuff and i wanted to make sure the charges were correc ti will post all details on here up to date so those people that are truely helpful will know what is going on

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...