Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you!    It was bought on my debit card    
    • Hi. Welcome to CAG. How was the car purchased?  
    • 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
  • 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 
        • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5209 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 ok then here goes.

 

about 2 years ago i was stoped in a car that is owned by a relatyives garage, the car is registered at that business address under trade, it was in for work to be done to it, after the work had been done it was road tested,by me straight into a huge police road check, pulled over, no road tax, £60 fixed penalty notice given, off i go.

 

send of the part 3 form at bottom of yellow FP ticket to ask for court hearing to argue that it was under trade and was road tested with a currant MOT.(i would prob still get done but hey ho)

 

i heard nothing, after a year almost to the day i got a letter from the court i think, saying that there is now a county court bailif going to chase for the money, i rang the court, didnt want to help, so rang the ticket office and spoke to a woman and asked why i hadnt had a court date in a year, she said cause we havent had the part 3 form, i said well i sent it,she asked do you have proof, i said no and were on the form does it say i need to keep proof, send it recorded delivery or chase the courts if i dont hear from them, she said it doesnt, so i asked if they would sort it, she said she would look into it and i should write a letter to say i sent the form off, i said i wont send a letter as it doesnt say anywhere i have to or i have to chase the courts(unlike DVLA), so please get back to me with an answer....... almost a year later(3 days ago) a bailif is outside my friends house where the car is kept saying he is here to seize it, so my friend calls me and i call the bailiff on his mobile and tell him i would be there asap, he said how long or ill charge to wait.

 

so i get there and start to ask him why he is taking it and that its not my car, he said he didnt care and he will clamp it anyway, so i warned him not to or the owner will not be happy, he didnt clamp it, i then asked to see the warrant and paperwork 8 times he refused and said NO, your being awkward so im not showing it to you????

 

he then just kept hanging around and being a pain, not answering questions, or giving us 30mins-1hour to go and get the V5 to proov its not mine, he said no ill clamp it. so i rang the police, they PCN checked the car and said yes it registered as trade so he cant touch it and left, so did the bailiff.

 

the car has now been removed elsewhere.

 

ive called the ticket office and the court and all say its too late i must pay the bailiffs £300 odd including the £90 for the ticket..... its not going to happen even if i have to go inside, i will ou5t of principal.

 

i sent my part 3 off in good faith, its not my fault the court never got it, and there is no law that says i have to.

 

so the bailiff gave my friend on his arrival a notice of distress giving 6 days to pay and also a final notice filled out on the same day as the distress but saying he would be removing the car one day the same week, less than the six days???? is that ok to do ??

 

so if you could help out here i would be very gratefull as i dont like the sound of the site we found having to pay over £100 without an invoice, seems a bit risky to me??

 

ive not lived at this address for years so would never have got any paperwork anyhow, my friend lives there but not me, i gave that address for the fixed penalty notice though.

 

dont want to say too much on here to show who i am, so i can PM anyone who can help the finer details if needed.

 

Thanks:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll get better advice on here than using John Glat and his Bailiff Mediation website.

 

I have dealt with him a few times and the £125 he charges is a waste of money in my opinion. He's never had anything reduced with us and ended up asking us for advice on what to do!!!

 

 

 

Not sure why this site autocorrects his surname transposing the L and A though?

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

John Glat? Know him quite well and he does offer a good service. His speciality is council tax.

 

Now High Court Enforcer, why would a HIGH court enforcer ever be involved with council tax?

 

Sorry 'bout the spelling, I know I haven't read that much since I last had my eyes tested, but it still keeps coming out the same.

 

As Groucho asked 'You haven't got a baboon in your pocket have you...'

 

John Ga.

 

Lt.

Edited by Fair-Parking
Link to post
Share on other sites

HIGH court enforcers do not involve themselves with council tax.

 

I think HCE is saying he wears two hats!!

 

Strangely enough I recently went into court with my ex-claimant and they trotted in a Barrister who given the circumstances and with the finacial reward being so small had they been successful (they lost) he was in effect acting as a Solicitor...times must be hard for the legal profession.:roll:

 

WD

Edited by wonkeydonkey
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - I always thought that it was a magistrates court that issued distress warrants. Just how does the HIGH COURT become involved?

 

I think you may be missing something here. Just because HCE uses High Court in his name does not mean that is all he does. He has already stated he is also a Certificated bailiff as well which entitles him to collect Council Tax, Motoring fines etc as well as his High Court Enforcement work.

 

PT

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I know what I am saying.

 

High Court Enforcer posted derogatory comments about John Ga lt which he failed to show any evidence for as per his normal postings and as per normal bailiff procedure. These people expect you to take their word for everything even when they have nothing that authenticates either themselves or their authority.

 

Of course we could all take HCE's word for it, but having spoken to John on many occasions, I'm quite happy to support his professionalism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a forum which is full of peoples opinions. Mine is that John Galt is not worth the £125 he charges.

 

You dont have to believe me, but it is my opinion.

 

The OP will have to make there own mind up on whether they spend their £125 or take the free advice afforded by posters on CAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I am a certificated bailiff also and the companies I work for cover CT also.

 

Aha! We have caught you out! I believe you to be male. You cannot possibly multi-task. Hoist with your own petard! [Which, incidently, is a saying with a very fascinating history]. :p

 

Best wishes.

Rae.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha! We have caught you out! I believe you to be male. You cannot possibly multi-task. Hoist with your own petard! [Which, incidently, is a saying with a very fascinating history]. :p

 

Best wishes.

Rae.

 

Sorry Rae but HCE can multi task. I know that it is NORMALLY the case that only us females can multi task ( the male variety find this almost impossible!!).

 

Some companies do have bailiffs working on an exclusive bailiffs working on EITHER council tax OR PCN recovery ( which of course attracts a different fee scale).

 

With companies like Marston Group in particular, the situation can be a NIGHTMARE. This is because, up until only 3 years ago, MG traded as Drakes bailiffs. However, Drakes never quite recovered from the dreadful "Whistleblower" TV expose on the bailiff industry (CCCS suffered even worse).

 

MG then purchased a High Court Enforcement firm called John Marston & Co and changed their name to Marston Group.

 

This also allowed the company to branch out in High Court Enforcement work.

 

However, over 75% of the turnover with Marston Group comes from the enforcement of Magistrates Court Fines with HCE work making up the balance. A small part of the business is from PCN recovery with almost nothing from council tax

 

This means that they have High Court Enforcement Officers working Writs of Fi Fa, (sorry Rae but some of them are certificated bailiffs as well) and there is also the situation that any of them can work Magistrate Court warrants for unpaid court fines. This is because of the stupid clause within the contract that provides for a bailiff to work for 6 months with being certificated!!

 

Not only are the regulations completely different for each debt type, the fees scales are different as well,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ok then here goes.

 

about 2 years ago i was stoped in a car that is owned by a relatyives garage, the car is registered at that business address under trade, it was in for work to be done to it, after the work had been done it was road tested,by me straight into a huge police road check, pulled over, no road tax, £60 fixed penalty notice given, off i go.

 

send of the part 3 form at bottom of yellow FP ticket to ask for court hearing to argue that it was under trade and was road tested with a currant MOT.(i would prob still get done but hey ho)

 

i heard nothing, after a year almost to the day i got a letter from the court i think, saying that there is now a county court bailif going to chase for the money, i rang the court, didnt want to help, so rang the ticket office and spoke to a woman and asked why i hadnt had a court date in a year, she said cause we havent had the part 3 form, i said well i sent it,she asked do you have proof, i said no and were on the form does it say i need to keep proof, send it recorded delivery or chase the courts if i dont hear from them, she said it doesnt, so i asked if they would sort it, she said she would look into it and i should write a letter to say i sent the form off, i said i wont send a letter as it doesnt say anywhere i have to or i have to chase the courts(unlike DVLA), so please get back to me with an answer....... almost a year later(3 days ago) a bailif is outside my friends house where the car is kept saying he is here to seize it, so my friend calls me and i call the bailiff on his mobile and tell him i would be there asap, he said how long or ill charge to wait.

 

so i get there and start to ask him why he is taking it and that its not my car, he said he didnt care and he will clamp it anyway, so i warned him not to or the owner will not be happy, he didnt clamp it, i then asked to see the warrant and paperwork 8 times he refused and said NO, your being awkward so im not showing it to you????

 

he then just kept hanging around and being a pain, not answering questions, or giving us 30mins-1hour to go and get the V5 to proov its not mine, he said no ill clamp it. so i rang the police, they PCN checked the car and said yes it registered as trade so he cant touch it and left, so did the bailiff.

 

the car has now been removed elsewhere.

 

ive called the ticket office and the court and all say its too late i must pay the bailiffs £300 odd including the £90 for the ticket..... its not going to happen even if i have to go inside, i will ou5t of principal.

 

i sent my part 3 off in good faith, its not my fault the court never got it, and there is no law that says i have to.

 

so the bailiff gave my friend on his arrival a notice of distress giving 6 days to pay and also a final notice filled out on the same day as the distress but saying he would be removing the car one day the same week, less than the six days???? is that ok to do ??

 

so if you could help out here i would be very gratefull as i dont like the sound of the site we found having to pay over £100 without an invoice, seems a bit risky to me??

 

ive not lived at this address for years so would never have got any paperwork anyhow, my friend lives there but not me, i gave that address for the fixed penalty notice though.

 

dont want to say too much on here to show who i am, so i can PM anyone who can help the finer details if needed.

 

Thanks:confused:

 

 

 

Can you please confirm something.

 

Does this debt relates to a FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice) or to a PCN (Penalty Charge Notice).

 

I suspect that it is the FPN. If so, is the debt with either Marston Group, Philips, Swift Credit or Excel. You do not need to provide the name of which one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...