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

*** Let's Start Fighting Back - With 1p Cheques ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4886 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

you should have got a notice of assignment. From looking at the letter you received from hillesden regarding no cca it looks like hillesden are only collecting on behalf of citi as they state 'their client'. 'If' this is the case then hillesden will simply send the account back to citi if you cause them grief.

 

I think in any case you need to get citi to remove the default as they defaulted you not hillesden.

 

Just thinking outloud... Have you asked hillesden or citi to remove the default or told them why you are sending 1p cheques ?

 

The letter actually states:

 

"Account numberXXXXX Formally CitiFinancial Europe/Peoples Bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Also George, the 44p odd is the cost to the bank, not Hillesden. I think most business accounts charge something like 5p - 10p for each cheque banked. But it's still 5x - 10x what they get from me & the time it takes them to process them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think how miffed you'll be if some future litigation results in them repaying the money to you....

 

.......... in 1p cheques!

 

:lol:

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think of the size of the paying-in slip.

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, it would annoy me if they folded them up and stapled them loads though :p

It would annoy the banks, as well, if the staples went straight through the magnetic numbers at the bottom of the cheques.

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

-------------------------------------------------------

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

------------------------------------------------------

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will not get the Default removed by paying hundreds of 1 penny payments;

all that will acheive is, constantly re-affirming the debt.

 

Not a wise route, for anyone to take!

 

Having asked a few times, can you show how you've used your method via the ICO to beat them ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, now that I'll be using the FREEPOST address, I am able place a recorded delivery sticker on it and as it's a FREEPOST address, I ONLY pay the 74p for the recorded and DLC pay the rest under their freepost agreement with royal mail.

 

Having done quite a bit of DIY, I have plenty of heavy bits of plsterboard etc to send them, along with................. a 1p cheque (per box).

 

To all those that doubt this will work, all I ask is please come back in say 3-6 months.

Edited by Mr_Homer_J_Simpson
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a valid and genuine dispute, why havn't you logged a formal complaint with the ICO ?

 

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/detailed_specialist_guides/default_tgn_version_v3%20%20doc.pdf

 

I have already told you!

 

And quoted the following:

 

You need to understand the, Data Protection Act as well as the CCA/Regs!

 

:

 

"Unresolved disputes

42 Lenders are faced with difficult decisions when considering recording defaults which are disputed by the customer. It is not our role to arbitrate in disputes between borrowers and lenders. However, when we consider complaints, we will conclude, where there is clear and sufficient evidence that a default has not occurred, that it is likely that the lender has not complied with the data protection principle which requires that personal data are accurate.

43 If we conclude that there is a genuine, reasonable and unresolved dispute between the borrower and lender, then we are likely to find that personal data have been processed unfairly if a default has been filed. Defaults filed in these circumstances may also be inadequate for the purpose of credit referencing in that they do not provide meaningful information about the creditworthiness of the customer.

44 These are difficult judgements to make. Although none of the following will necessarily be conclusive, we will take into account these factors.

Is the customer able to produce evidence that they disputed that a default occurred?

Did the customer dispute the default before the lender announced their intention to file a default or after?

What is the nature of the dispute? For instance, does the customer allege that the agreement has been breached, for example, because the goods supplied were faulty, or does the customer simply dispute the amount of the default?

What evidence has the customer produced to support their side of the dispute?

Has the lender simply ignored this evidence or have they produced evidence to support their version of events?

If the goods financed were supplied by a third party, has the lender taken reasonable steps to check the accuracy of the information supplied about the dispute?

Version 3 Defaults: A guidance note

02.08. 2007

16

Does the customer argue that payment is owed not by them but by a third party such as an insurance company, and, if so, is there any evidence?

Has the customer told the lender that they are exercising set- off rights?

Is the customer defending a court action by the lender to obtain a judgment, and what is the nature of their defence?

Has a court refused judgment to the lender and, if so, on what grounds?

If the dispute has not been before a court, is the lender prepared to test their claim by seeking a CCJ or decree against the customer? If not, why not?

45 We will not necessarily ask a lender to remove default records while they are carrying out their initial investigation to establish whether a dispute is genuine, reasonable or unsolved. However, there should be no unnecessary delay in this investigation. In these circumstances, defaulted accounts under investigation should be marked as ‘under query’ on the credit reference agency file."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked you if you had been successful with this and you said yes, but you keep just posting the same thing. Can you show me your success ?

 

 

 

No, because I question your motive.

 

However, having given you the key: ICO Technical Guideance it is up to you to follow same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My motive ?

 

To beat them, what else ?

 

See first post:-

 

Q. Why do you want to achieve with this ?

A. The primary goal is to have the account either settled for a very small amount (say 5%) and have it completely removed from my credit file, not marked as 'settled' or 'partially settled' as well as remove the default. The second goal is to cost them time & money each month until I achieve my first goal !

 

having given you the key: ICO Technical Guideance it is up to you to follow same.

 

And as I've said, they (ICO) along with the FSA & OFT are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Edited by Mr_Homer_J_Simpson
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, now that I'll be using the FREEPOST address, I am able place a recorded delivery sticker on it and as it's a FREEPOST address, I ONLY pay the 74p for the recorded and DLC pay the rest under their freepost agreement with royal mail.

 

Having done quite a bit of DIY, I have plenty of heavy bits of plsterboard etc to send them, along with................. a 1p cheque (per box).

 

To all those that doubt this will work, all I ask is please come back in say 3-6 months.

 

For anyone still reading this ridiculous thread....

 

Homer has an UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT. Yet he is paying anyway :lol:.... albeit in loads of 1p cheques, plus the 74p in postage each time (see above), plus paying for printer ink. So in a nutshell he is paying them to cash these cheques. It may be costing them more than it is Homer, but Homer is paying them anyway, when they don't have any legal right to receive his money anyway... 1p or otherwise.

 

They may well get p*ssed off with your 1p cheques Homer.... but will not remove the default merely because they are p*ssed off with your 1p cheques. The best you can hope for is for them to stop cashing them and leave the default standing.... thereby achieving absolutely nothing at all except making payments for.... well.... nothing at all!

 

That's why you're funny... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Priority !:lol: And there is more! The bit that would be amusing if it wasn't a sign of total stupidity is that he keeps preventing the debt from ever becoming SB'd with every cheque he sends AND this is his quest to get them to remove a default - only he forgot to tell them why he is doing it! LOL!:lol::lol: You couldn't make it up!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it folks. Ignore the troll.

 

Didn't take you long to come back did it ?

 

Not forgotten to tell them at all, was checking to see if they would actually cash them. And I'm glad they did as they are now already out of pocket. Once highlighted to them, they should realise that it's not an empty threat and that I will continue to send them money by means that will lose them money.

 

But of course you and priorityone will continue to make usless posts and no doubt clear off once I posted that they give in.

Edited by Mr_Homer_J_Simpson
Link to post
Share on other sites

1p cheque in a box with a load of plasterboard = one less trip to the tip = save money on fuel.

 

74p on recorded delivery ensures I can prove they received the item, and therefore payed over £5 for the 'FREEPOST' and then another few pence to cash the cheque.

 

 

Total cost to me, 75p (which is offset by the saving in fuel) = over £5 for them as well as the hastle.

 

If they don't want to accept the plasterboard as partial payment, they could always send it back to me at their expense.

Edited by Mr_Homer_J_Simpson
Link to post
Share on other sites

by Priority One:

For anyone still reading this ridiculous thread....

 

Homer has an UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT. Yet he is paying anyway .... albeit in loads of 1p cheques, plus the 74p in postage each time (see above), plus paying for printer ink. So in a nutshell he is paying them to cash these cheques. It may be costing them more than it is Homer, but Homer is paying them anyway, when they don't have any legal right to receive his money anyway... 1p or otherwise.

 

They may well get p*ssed off with your 1p cheques Homer.... but will not remove the default merely because they are p*ssed off with your 1p cheques. The best you can hope for is for them to stop cashing them and leave the default standing.... thereby achieving absolutely nothing at all except making payments for.... well.... nothing at all!

 

That's why you're funny...

 

Priority !:lol: And there is more! The bit that would be amusing if it wasn't a sign of total stupidity is that he keeps preventing the debt from ever becoming SB'd with every cheque he sends AND this is his quest to get them to remove a default - only he forgot to tell them why he is doing it! LOL!:lol::lol: You couldn't make it up!

 

Homer, your course of action is ridiculous and makes for no sense!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...