Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 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. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be 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 it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
  • 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

Reminder Notice of assignment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4541 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 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 1 month later...

Just had the following from ICO

 

 

Thank you for your data protection complaint about Welcome FinancialServices Ltd (WFS).

I can onlyapologise for the length of time it has taken to reply but we have had asignificant number of requests for advice and information which have led to abacklog of cases and an inability to respond as quickly as we would wish.

Complaintsto the Information Commissioner’s Office

Under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA), those who collect and usepersonal information have to follow rules of good practice for handlinginformation (called the data protection principles). The DPA also gives rights to individualswhose information is collected and used.

When we receive a data protection complaint, we will make anassessment. This is our view aboutwhether an organisation has followed the rules of good practice properly. We do this by saying whether we think it islikely or unlikely that the organisation has complied with the DPA.

We will also give advice about handling personal information and willask the organisation to review its actions if we think things have gonewrong. Our main concern is to ensurethat organisations deal with personal information properly in the future.

Assessments can help us decide whether we should take action against aparticular organisation. If anorganisation refuses to take its responsibilities under the DPA seriously, thenwe may consider formal action to ensure it complies with the law. Please see the enclosed guidance note formore information.

Yourcomplaint to us

In your case, the matters you have raised that are relevant to the DPArelate to the sixth data protection principle. This states that:

‘Personal data shall be processed in accordance withthe rights of data subjects under this Act’.

Individualshave a right under the DPA to make a request in writing for a copy of theinformation an organisation holds about them electronically and in some manualfiling systems, commonly known as a subject access request (or SAR). They are also entitled to be given adescription of the information, what the organisation uses it for and who theymight pass it on to, along with any information it has about the source of theinformation.

Organisationsshould respond promptly to the request and, in any case, within 40 calendardays.

It should benoted that an individual is entitled to copies of their personal data inpermanent form, but not copy documents, or data in a specified format.

You are concerned that you did not receive all the personal data yourequested. In particular you havereferred to ‘exactdates of default, termination and sale, details and proof of exactly who soldto’, although you do not appear to have requested all of these in your requestto WFS.

What wehave done in this case

We have written to WFS to ask:

· what happened in this case;

· if it is likely there has been a breach of the DPA,what it has done (or intends to do) to put the matter right; and

· what safeguards it has in place to help ensure ithandles personal data properly.

This is so we candecide:

· whether it is likely or unlikely that it hascomplied with the DPA in this case; and

· whether we think that further action isappropriate at this point.

You should be aware that we cannot award youcompensation if an organisation has failed to comply with the DPA. However we may ask it to change the way itworks in the future. We encourage allorganisations to take steps to solve problems and to demonstrate to us thatthey take their responsibilities under the DPA seriously.

Ourdecision

We have now received a response from theorganisation.

In this case we have decided that it is unlikely that WFS has compliedwith the requirements of the DPA.

This is because it does not appear that WFS fully complied withyour SAR.

WFS explained that your SAR was received on 22April 2010 and that all the documentation it holds was sent on 11 May2010. WFS confirmed that the documentsincluded:


  • notes made on your account over the life of his loan; and
  • a Statement of Account.

It also explained that it received another letterfrom you on 1 June 2010 saying that you had not received all the requestedinformation. I understand that the samedocuments were resent to you on 4 June 2010. WFS then received two further letters from you on 3 August 2010 and 24February 2011, again asking that it to send all the information held for your account. In both instances WFS states it again providedyour personal data as held.

WFS explained that although all the information itholds concerning you was sent to you, it was not made clear to you what documentationWFS does not hold. WFS explained in referenceto your ten point list showing on your request that it no longer holds these,or has already provided them to you. Inany case, it should be noted that not all of these documents, such as terms andconditions, are considered to be your personal data and therefore you are notentitled to them under the right of subject access.

In terms of point ‘7’ of your list, describingthe use of your personal data, WFS considered this particular request not to beapplicable.

It also further clarified that your account wassold to HFO Services on 6 February 2008, but that these details are notrecorded within the information WFS holds for you and therefore not included inthe SAR documentation sent you received.

However, section 7(b) of the DPA states that anindividual is entitled:

to be given by the datacontroller a description of—

(i)the personal data ofwhich that individual is the data subject,

(ii)the purposes for whichthey are being or are to be processed, and

(iii)the recipients orclasses of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed’.

You appear to have requested these details in yourSAR, under points ‘7’ and ‘8’. It isrecognised that WFS sold the account prior to your SAR, however, WFS continuedprocessing your personal data by holding your details and, as a result, shouldhave provided the above details in response to your request. The fact that WFS has been able to providethe details of whom your personal data has been disclosed demonstrates thatthis information is available to it to be able to be provided. It is also unclear why WFS is not able todescribe to you the purposes for which your personal data are processed. These descriptions will usually cover thegeneral purposes for processing and the general class or type of recipient ofyour personal data, rather than necessarily the specific organisations.

In light of all of the above, WFS appearsunlikely to have complied with the DPA in this case.

However, the Information Commissioner has decided that furtherregulatory action is not appropriate at this time.

When deciding whether regulatory action is appropriate, we take intoaccount the organisation’s general record of compliance with the DPA (includingany previous assessments we have made) and any other information that is in ourpossession (including information given during the course of thoseassessments).

Next steps

Most organisations want to put things right when theyhave gone wrong and learn from complaints that are raised with them. Although we are not taking further regulatoryaction at this time, we have asked WFS to consider the information we haveprovided during the course of this assessment and take steps to prevent the situationfrom happening again. We haverecommended that WFS should provide you with the information you areentitled to under section 7(b), unless it has now already done so.

We will keep a record of your complaint and take this assessmentdecision it into account if we receive further complaints about WFS. The information we gather from complaints mayform the basis for action in the future.

This matter is now considered closed. Thank you for brining it to our attention.

CCA sent Crapquest ran away...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok a complaint to OFT with a copy of ICO response and a formal complaint to

HFO for the telephone harassment require them to remove the number from their data

base don't ask require the action forthwith.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Got a polite letter from Turnbull Rutherford Solicitors today telling me 21 days before action lol also the balance has been dropped by £900 since their last letter or rather HFO's last letter HFO have served me with a default notice with the date of default being 13-08-2005!!!???? Checked my credit file and this no longer exists there as it is Statute Barred. Should i ignore or send them the letter?

CCA sent Crapquest ran away...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you complained to the OFT? if not do so.

 

The issue is the reduction in the balance. Why was it so high initially, and why has it come down so much.

 

Answer is because they was trying to rip you off and scare you into paying an inflated figure to which they were not legally entitled. ( the offence they have commited begins wih F).

 

The new figure is the one they think they can get away with in Court.

 

Make sure you report these diffrences.

 

Here is another where they have done the same.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?320759-HFO-Welcome&p=3572391&posted=1#post3572391

Edited by dadofholly
Link to post
Share on other sites

They really have fecked up here.

 

First, in the letter, they state that you are in arrears. There is no arrangement to pay in place, so there can be no arrears. And they reckon they are allowed to split the claim, do they? They also say the DN is from their client – it is not. It is from HFO Services, not the owner of the debt.

 

Moreover, they have had the temerity to send this letter while in breach of a valid CCA request.

 

BUT...then the default notice says the breach is not capable of remedy!

 

WTF?

 

You must get these letters off to the OFT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, they sent you a letter ages ago stating clearly that the account was owed to HFO Services (and got mixed up with Barclaycard...)

 

http://i855.photobucket.com/albums/ab114/niteman33/scan0002.jpg

 

Hmm lot of confusion about who owns these accounts. Welcome have the same problem, they seem to knowit was sold to untill HFO ring them and ask them to change details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...