Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah I figured, unlikely I'll need credit anyway mortgage all paid off etc so I'll take that on the chin and learn from the experience. Probably would've beaten that too had I remembered the protocol, first time ever going through the process though sob it wasn't familiar to me  Oh well  
    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
  • 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

Devils Advocate


disneyman
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6599 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 All,

 

I was thinking the other day about a possible scenario which I would like some legal clarification on if someone can help.

 

Joe Bloggs borrows £1000 from a creditor; Joe gets sacked from his job and is therefore unable to repay the loan. The creditor begins legal proceedings against him and eventually Joe winds up with a CCJ against him for around £1300 now as the interest and legal fees have been added.

 

Joe is still unemployed and is still finding it difficult to maintain payments on the loan. The creditor then sells the debt to a debt collector who in turn is also having trouble receiving payments from Joe. The debt collector then also begins legal proceedings against Joe and Joe winds up with yet another CCJ as a result of being unable to maintain payments to the debt collection agency.

 

Query: Can Joe wind up with one or possibly several (should the debt collection agency decide to sell on Joes debt again) CCJs for the same debt?

 

I do not have anyone in particular in mind with this scenario it has just occured to me while thinking about creditors selling debts onto debt collection agencies. It would appear on the face of it to be a very unfair system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware you can only have one CCJ for a debt. If a debt is assigned from a creditor to a debt collector, then the creditor's rights under the CCJ are assigned too. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting point. I cannot see how a third-party (the buyer of the debt) can possibly take legal action as the debtor has not made any contract with them.

 

Having said that, it would be possible that the agency my TRY to, on the basis that the debtor is more than likely going to just admit the claim.

 

Of course, should the debtor put in a defence on the two legal arguments that a) the plaintiff has no contract, and b) this claim is already lodged as an outstanding CCJ, I would expect the claim to get thrown out.

 

Please however note that this is the view of a lay person with a limited knowledge of the law.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a creditor can bring a CCJ claim. A debt collection agency (DCA) can fill in the paperwork but it would be acting on behalf of the creditor and the action would be in the creditor's name.

 

A company trading as a DCA can only bring a CCJ in its own name if it has purchased the debt. As the owner of the debt it is now the creditor. In this situation the only reason why the DCA would purchase the debt is if the original agreement with the creditor allowed them to assign it to a third party.

 

There are some DCAs out there that just collect debts on behalf of others and there are others that specialise in buying debts. If you being chased by a DCA it's essential to discover whether they are an agent or the owner of the debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but would an already issued CCJ allow the debt to be sold and a new "creditor" assigned, or would a CCJ prevent this from happening.

 

Im not refering to anyone in particular or any case for that matter. My point is that Debt collection agencies purchase debts to make a profit if it is seen that they are failing to make a profit then what action can they take? other than to comence legal action (but would they be entitled to do so on a judgement which has already been made?).

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware a debt can be assigned after a CCJ has been issued. All rights of enforcement would pass to the new owner.

 

The most likely circumstances for this to happen are when the debtor has very few assets and low income. The company purchasing the debt would pay a lot less than its nominal value in the hope that the debtor came into some money.

 

In reality, I believe that most debts are sold before the CCJ stage is reached.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true most debts are sold prior to getting to the CCJ stage. I am trying to establish if the scenario above would be possible i.e. if the Debt Collection agency took over the role of creditor after Joe was awarded a CCJ and then the DCA then took legal action and Joe was awarded another CCJ thats all!!!.

 

I am only being a Devil's Advocate over this issue. My reasons for this are that in my current circumstances it has become blatantly obvious to me that it appears to be all to easy for a creditor to obtain a CCJ against you. With yourself having little or no say in either the process or grounds for appeal if you later find out that part of the debt was unlawful. In my opinion the CCJ process should either be tightened up in the favour of the defendant placing more of a onous of proof on the creditor and relaxing the rules on time limits following a judgement to allow for appeals (to me 7 days to apply to have the judgement set aside is to short a time frame). As in my case I find out 2 months following the judgement that all of the debt was unlawful due to the charges which were incurred over a 6 year period. This made the process of reclaiming the funds more complicated on the basis that I failed to submit an application to have the judgement set aside.

 

On the flip side if the process was tightened up then the burden of proof on site members reclaiming funds from bank would also be tightened ??? but the banks normally quit prior to getting into court and any changes to the CCJ process to allow for appeals would only affect the few who took the system the whole distance.

 

Maybe we should begin a campaign to get the CCJ system overhauled!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is called res judicata (The thing is is judged) - it is really the double jeopardy rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The important thing is to make the Debt Collection Agency aware that you have a judgement. We had a judgement against us for an A&L Credit Card from a few years ago (too many unfortunately). The Order was made that we paid £5 per month.

 

It was then assigned to a DCA who we have been paying ever since. During the period we had voluntarily agreed to increase the payments to £6.50.

 

For some reason, a payment went missing, and they then sent a letter saying that we were £31 in arrears, and threatened they would issue a CC summons.

 

We got in touch and pointed out that the payments had been made on time, and that in fact we only had to pay £5 according to the original CC judgement anyway - so how could we be "in arrears" - especially to the figure they were claiming.

 

A few days later we received a letter "accepting" our proposal to repay at £6.50 per mont. BTW the debt is about £1300!

 

I think the problem is that they often have "processes", that follow a set track, and unless they are told that the debt is already subject to a CCJ, then they may just keep rolling the process along.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily The Consumer Action Group has processes which just keep rolling along too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how many times can a debt be sold on. is there any ruling to this at all. i had heard something along the lines of it cant be sold more than twice, how true this is i dont know. its just hear say to me so far. i have tried looking but not getting anything confirmed yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6599 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...