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

black horse (is it a personal loan or is it a hp they dont seem to know


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5083 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

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 2 weeks later...

hi guys, just to say still not heard from bh,,,,,,time is running out i think for them,,,,,what does concern me is the ruling of a judge that now says that the loan(bank)company can reconstruct a loan agreement(including singnatures) and prove that you have taken out this agreement,,,,not fair i think and has blown a lot of cases out of the water including lots fron cartel and credit card killers,,,not that we signed up with or dealt with them////

just thought i would update you pinky and dotty as you were good enougth to help me

 

bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say a reconstructed agreement will be accepted as proof of a debt? As far as I am aware what the judge said in the McGuffick case was that a reconstrucion would fulfil a S77/78 request but you would still need the original to enforce the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from waht i am told the lender may reconstruct the original agreement basied on the deatils they had at the time or to hand withthem now and do not need the original signature???? i may be wrong and if i am thats great, but i think you may find out that if they send you the reconstructed agreement the court are saying you are on the hook for it,,, another big uk goverment bail out of the (*ankers)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am sorry if this reply is short(LONG), as it was quite long to start with but this system does not let you to come back to the page you have written on goes down///

i do understand what you say but if you read into this ruling you will see that the bank/lender have the right to reconstruct the agreement and hold the credit file in negitaive against you for ever until u settle this matter (so much about inicent until proved guilty...good british law)

we are faced with a poisition where lots of banking and loan compines staff and work people know they made lots of money from pleb`s like me and u in commisions.....these some of these loans were not executed or written up correctley but never the less NO GOVERMENT will own up to this and we are all stuck with this///

i am not sticking up for compnies like cartel or credit card(CCK) as that would not be my reason,,,,but there seems to be a big--BIG swing against all us plebs(liitle wage earners(skint people)))))..... and for all of us plebs who have paid lots of money to the likes of the these aformention companies i do think the MOJ should be paying these customes back in cash as the (moj) are the regulators that should have seen this comming....shame on them......sorry i will now get off my pullpit now but i think we all have been lead a merry dance and why should it be us the plebs who have to suck the mop over and over again...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it say a reconstructed agreement will be accepted as proof of a debt? As far as I am aware what the judge said in the McGuffick case was that a reconstrucion would fulfil a S77/78 request but you would still need the original to enforce the debt.

 

Hi Bill,

 

I am with Pinky on this one.

 

If your daughter has still not heard anything, this may be an indication for you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi pinky and dotty,

 

i think i do undersatnd the position that the judge made and in reality he has sat on the fence again,,,,,,

by this judgement he has said that while a case waits to go to court the customer will still be marked down as missing a payment and therefore there credit file will be marked so and this will destroy the customes credit rating...

then when it goes to court and they can not come up with the correct papper work we still have not been told what will happen....

the judgement has just in real terms helped the banks to fend off our claims against thier bad practices just like the bank charge rulings...

it is such a shame that they can get away with it...

if you remeber my daughter also had a claim against the dealer has she had been sold ppi and other things,,,the update on this is we are still waiting to hear from them as they have 8 weeks to respond..

i thank you for your feedback

 

bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hi guys,

though i would just let you know that we have recived payment for the ppi miss selling and also the gap insurance that was taken out at the time the car was purchased, so 1 down and 1 to go,,,,,black horse keep on sending threatening letters abou thloan as we have now stoped paying it completely, we have doen the subject to access and just got all docs back and are looking throug them now, but according to the letter they were posted 30 days ago????. will keep u informed...many thanks,,,bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

just thought i would tell u it looks like my daughter is going bankrupt and blackhorse are trying to take the car back although its in my name and i have paid her for it and i have owned it for 5years,,,any advice please

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...