Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Try CPR 31.15 Possibly but a party is not compelled to disclose any documents pre allocation
    • Hi, I shown my key worker a letter that was sent to me saying that I owe £1200, she setup a standing order around 2021, this was to pay back money I owed, with my mental health status I have had complex issues to deal with and I just simply forgot about this standing order so it has been running for about 3.5 years acording to my key worker, anyway I'm not worried about the money that was sent that I call a overpayment, it went towards supporting my child's household so I am just happy with that, I am a little sad that I am being told I still owe this £1200, I have sent bank statements over 3 years worth but they have not taken away this £1200 bill and still say I owe it   Thank you
    • She did try contacting EON in the early days of the debt but they refused to speak to her because she could not pass the security checks. She didn't know the answers on an account she hadn't opened?   I also saw this article recently which could be what has happended here: Debt collection agencies in the UK are using fair means or foul to link people to an address where an unpaid debt has been run up, sometimes years after they have moved out The Guardian Anna Tims Mon 22 Apr 2024 The letter from the debt collection agency arrived out of the blue, and it was intimidating. It informed Joshua Simpson* that he owed £2,212 to Octopus Energy, and accused him of ignoring previous requests to settle the bill. If he did not stump up within 14 days, he was told, further action would be taken to recover the money. Simpson checked his Octopus account – it was in credit. Then he noticed the address where the debt had been accrued between 2022 and 2023. It was his childhood home – which his family had sold 18 years previously. "Since I was only 16 when we left the property, I was astonished that they'd linked my name [to it]," he says. "The debt collection agency insisted I provide a tenancy agreement to prove how long I've lived at my current address. I couldn't, since we bought our home. "They are now actively pursuing me for this debt, causing me a huge amount of stress. We are about to remortgage, and if this debt prevents us switching to a better deal, we will face real financial hardship." Simpson had been sucked into the shadowy world of "identity tracing", whereby investigators recruited by creditors seek to locate individuals who have moved home without paying their bills. It is an unregulated sector where anyone can set up as an agent in a back room without a licence, or scrutiny, and use fair means or foul to identify debtors. Reputable companies join a trade association that operates a code of practice, but membership is not mandatory, and mistakes are common. Last year, a teenage boy was chased for a debt of more than £900 by debt collectors acting for the energy company Ovo. A "trace agent" had somehow linked him to the debt because his parents had previously rented the property in question. An investigation by the Observer established that the debt had been run up by a subsequent tenant. The consequences of mistaken identity can be catastrophic. Individuals who are erroneously linked to a debt face, at worst, court action, bailiffs and a ruined credit rating. At best, they can endure weeks of stress and paperwork in order to prove they are not the debtor. It is estimated that 20m identity traces are made in the UK every year, many on behalf of companies that are owed money. Personal data is often obtained from credit reference agencies, which record applications for credit, and details are supposed to be verified with several different sources before being used for debt enforcement. In practice, however, this does not always happen. Simpson's details had been passed along a chain of intermediaries before the demand was issued. Octopus had given the unpaid account to a debt collection agent, which had contracted a tracing service, GBG, to find the debtor................ Full Article: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/04/a-cry-for-help-energy-providers-play-the-villain-in-dramas-to-chill-the-blood ..............The Financial Ombudsman Service, which investigates complaints about financial firms, states that debt collection agents have to produce convincing evidence to link an individual to a debt, rather than rely on names, addresses and birth dates. According to the trade association, the Institute of Professional Investigators, an unknown number of investigators and trace agents are operating below the radar. Many more are merely inept, as data protection compliance training is not mandatory. "We have been campaigning for many, many years to try to get all private investigators regulated," says secretary general Glyn Evans.
  • 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

HFO Services/Capital/Turnbull barclaycard debt


vjohn82
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4759 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

It is a term/condition! not a 'paragraph'! it is 'operative' as you say! :confused:

and it is what they rely on in court ie the formal demand and dn! plus it is consistent with statute (if done properly of course).

it also clearly shows their 'intention'. repudiation comes to mind, as has been discussed on cag.

 

You are missing the point... If it is a heading... it is only for information only... and not to be construed as anything else. If you want to get into the fact whether something is a term or not, then that is a different kettle of fish but the title of a paragraph, and I will re-iterate, paragraph as that is often used in contracts to explain a group of terms or representations is not a term. There is no authority that a title is a term and which is why most contracts have that clause in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

What about when the DN says if the arrears aren't paid by xx date, the contract will be terminated and full payment demanded? Surtely that should be sufficient?

THen follow up question, but you make very reduced payments, does this negate the termination?

Thamk you

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about if they did it twice with defective DN's? and the agreement endured under duress :???:

 

Technically, if you did not accept the repudiation, then the contract survives.... the real world is not that simple though and there are other mitigating circumstances involved. The best thing is to accept the faulty DN as soon as you are aware of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about when the DN says if the arrears aren't paid by xx date, the contract will be terminated and full payment demanded? Surtely that should be sufficient?

THen follow up question, but you make very reduced payments, does this negate the termination?

Thamk you

 

I started something didn't I... :) by going against the doctrine of cag, I was kinda expecting this...

 

In that case, there is an intention of termination but when the letter for the full amount came, did it have termination in then... that is the key question. If no, and it just a demand, it can be argued that this was just a possible consequence of not adhering to the DN and that the Creditor is entitled to change their mind afterwards. Also, there is no statute requirement for how the final demand must look like and can even not have any amount in there.... there is case law on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started something didn't I... :) by going against the doctrine of cag, I was kinda expecting this...

.

 

It is better to be forewarned to hopefully have arguments to counter this. Just hope this thread is limited to genuine members of CAG;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My intention was not disparage or put off caggers... it was only for information... if the average DCA got a very competent barrister to argue the points of contract law as well as cca, then yeah, there would be an issue but most DCAs I have encountered via their counsel couldn't argue any of those points above. It is nothing to be concerned above but just shows that if repudiation is seen, it should be acted on immediately. It is better to go via the DN route rather than the above because using the above, you are still liable for the arrears whilst using the DN, enforcement is not attainable. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the point... If it is a heading... it is only for information only... and not to be construed as anything else. If you want to get into the fact whether something is a term or not, then that is a different kettle of fish but the title of a paragraph, and I will re-iterate, paragraph as that is often used in contracts to explain a group of terms or representations is not a term. There is no authority that a title is a term and which is why most contracts have that clause in there.

 

imo, you're missing the point, not me. :) it is a term/condition that is relevant.

anyway, make of it what you will. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, if you did not accept the repudiation, then the contract survives.... the real world is not that simple though and there are other mitigating circumstances involved. The best thing is to accept the faulty DN as soon as you are aware of it.

 

Ty :)

 

My duress involves another party not related to the agreement. I was only curious if another party agreed and provided a witness statement, then there may be a case for redress.................

 

Oh well..... looks like I may have a chance at a cheap shot, so I guess wth :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ty :)

 

My duress involves another party not related to the agreement. I was only curious if another party agreed and provided a witness statement, then there may be a case for redress.................

 

Oh well..... looks like I may have a chance at a cheap shot, so I guess wth :-(

 

Not sure I follow...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I follow...?

 

I have 2 DN's and up against an OC who has transferred the agreement, all rights and enforcement to another party.

 

http://yfrog.com/iynatloantransferp

 

My problem is that the DN's and the threat of legal action made me pay them instead of another party, who shall we say had greater rights to that money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.. still not 100% clear...

 

Let's say you had a pot of money... and you owed the OC a certain amount of money. This OC (party A) assigned the debt to party B. Party B then demanded payment and you paid them from that pot of money you had.

 

Then come party C, who was also entitled to your pot of money but because you already paid B, you didn't have any? Am I correct? How did party C have greater entitlement to your pot of money than B or A?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.. still not 100% clear...

 

Let's say you had a pot of money... and you owed the OC a certain amount of money. This OC (party A) assigned the debt to party B. Party B then demanded payment and you paid them from that pot of money you had.

 

Then come party C, who was also entitled to your pot of money but because you already paid B, you didn't have any? Am I correct? How did party C have greater entitlement to your pot of money than B or A?

 

It's more like A gave me money then passed everything to B, then A issues a claim in the county court. The HMRC are C unfortunately, so I'd obviously rather owe more to B than C.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... interesting... when A passed it to B... was it a legal assignment, an equitable assignment or was it just as an agent of A.

 

B did not chase you for the money in the CC, A did and A won the judgement. Correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please clarify then which point I am missing... likewise :)I understood that you are referring to the heading which is a term? whatever you want to call it, it is relevant! :) as per my posts. all imo of course! :)

 

Edit: This is in reply to Ford. :)

 

anyway, don't want to get involved in a 'ding dong', so let's call it a day.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... interesting... when A passed it to B... was it a legal assignment, an equitable assignment or was it just as an agent of A.

 

B did not chase you for the money in the CC, A did and A won the judgement. Correct?

 

Haven't filed a defence yet, it's still in the CC. I posted a link to the letter I received before the claim, looks like they've signed a deed so legal.

 

http://yfrog.com/iynatloantransferp

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fair enough... :) but I have not seen any authorities which state that the title of a..

 

1.) section

2.) paragraph

3.) group of terms

 

... is construed as part of a term and I have not seen any arguments for or against the construction of a title. As an added caveat, the disclaimer mentioned above is put in there just to dispel any ambiguities in case one arises. :)

 

My advice is just be careful if you are going to use that argument and read the whole contract. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fair enough... :) but I have not seen any authorities which state that the title of a..

 

1.) section

2.) paragraph

3.) group of terms

 

... is construed as part of a term and I have not seen any arguments for or against the construction of a title. As an added caveat, the disclaimer mentioned above is put in there just to dispel any ambiguities in case one arises. :)

 

My advice is just be careful if you are going to use that argument and read the whole contract. :)

 

Yep! will do :)

 

I do have a section 86 section notice from A before the claim and now a section 86 notice from B.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops.. sorry sickboy.. that was for Ford... :)

 

In your case, and by the way, this is based on a few minutes reading your case... if the assignment was done to Nationwide Building Society and Nationwide Trust Ltd is raising the CC, then based on what you have said, I would opt for a strike out because they have no title to sue you.

 

It would be better to raise a new thread and put all your info on it as it would be easier for caggers to advise you on it and talk about the double DN.

 

Ps... also mention which part of s 86 you received.. B/E... DN is s 87.

Edited by rhodium78
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops.. sorry sickboy.. that was for Ford... :)

 

In your case, and by the way, this is based on a few minutes reading your case... if the assignment was done to Nationwide Building Society and Nationwide Trust Ltd is raising the CC, then based on what you have said, I would opt for a strike out because they have no title to sue you.

 

It would be better to raise a new thread and put all your info on it as it would be easier for caggers to advise you on it and talk about the double DN.

 

Ps... also mention which part of s 86 you received.. B/E... DN is s 87.

 

lol ooops! :D

 

I have two section 86 notice of sums in arrears, which clearly state who is the creditor. Also the two section 87 DN's.

 

Keeping my thread quiet at the mo ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a debt purchase agreement, not a deed. It states an agreement to transfer the creditor's rights, but is silent about obligations.

 

This bunch of comics have probably pleaded in their Statement of Claim that they acquired the creditor's obligations as well. They need to do so in order to qualify as a creditor under s189 of the CCA 1974.

 

If they've pleaded othere was a trandfer of bligations and the purchase agreement says not, then they're lying.

 

If you look at the assignment clause of the original credit agreement, and duties aren't assignable, they're buggered that way as well.

 

State in your defence that you neither admit nor deny any assignment. That puts them to proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Breach of contract = termination when... and only when you have notified the creditor that they are in breach of contract. By not notifying the creditor, you are sidelining the breach of the faulty DN. There is no time limit on when a breach of contract has to be notified to the creditor BUT if by the debtor's actions, it leads the creditor to think that the breach of contract via the faulty DN has been elected to be disregarded by the debtor, then in contract law, it can be argued that the contract is still alive.

 

In essence, that leaves the debtor to only pay the arrears.

 

We are delving more into contract law and less into cca here.

If I may ask so that I can understand when a debtor having received a faulty DN

could accept (notify) the creditors breach of contract:

1) without needing to wait for anything in writing from the creditor whether or not specifically stating that the creditor had terminated?

2) or only on a receipt in writing specifically stating that the contract is now terminated?

3) or merely on a demand for the full balance of the contract, whether from the OC or a DCA?

4) or without the necessity of any of the above?

 

thx

Edited by mot22
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...