Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Discontinued claim... but now enforcing judgement??? robbersway/HSBC


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4708 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

I would wait to see what other trash they'll dream up. ;)

 

My line of thinking too... just getting sick and tired of the constant letters and phone contact.

 

They have been told where to go numerous times... they just can't leave it alone!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Aside from Cabot Lowell Portfolio/Financial/Red have one office with lots of desks with different names. They contacted me re a Capital One - I sent a s77/78 and Capital one eventually sent me a copy of the T&C July 2010. The last recorded payment to C1 was Oct 2004, there next contact to me was Dec 2010. I sent an SB letter to them - they said it wasn't SB because the date of DN was 19/03/11. I sent a follow up SB. They passed it from Lowell Portfolio to Lowell Financial and back and back again with various letters demanding payment. On 21st March 2011 I get a Letter from RED another Lowell desk. Now it's past the DN - so I sent the third SB... But to my surprise Red have sent yet another in reply to the SB threatening that they are now going to pass the account to there Special Recovery Team to 'Assess' my account and their best course of action for recovery. They are so insane. Should I really now just leave it to them or send a letter for my time and and ask for their complains procedure? Seriously Cupid Stunts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the first time they’ve done this.

 

A complaint to the OFT is what’s required. They are deliberately trying to mislead you by claiming that the SB clock starts when a default is recorded – that is not the case. The SB clock starts when the cause of action arises, ie. the first failure to pay a due payment, so that would be about a month after your last payment.

 

To ignore your letters is simply harassment, and according to the OFT, possibly criminal harassment. Please, please contact the OFT and complain loudly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the first time they’ve done this.

 

A complaint to the OFT is what’s required. They are deliberately trying to mislead you by claiming that the SB clock starts when a default is recorded – that is not the case. The SB clock starts when the cause of action arises, ie. the first failure to pay a due payment, so that would be about a month after your last payment.

 

To ignore your letters is simply harassment, and according to the OFT, possibly criminal harassment. Please, please contact the OFT and complain loudly.

 

Totally agree, I have decided to send the following SB second letter below. Then thanks to some useful information found at

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...dit/oft664.pdf and

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/..._creditors.php

 

I think that this letter gives the perfect springboard for complaining - I have been polite and replied to each letter and assuming it will be a continuation of the same computer generated/time based letters - Will be a formal complaint must be made to The Leeds Losers, my MP, The Credit Reference Agency concerned, The Data protection Registrar, The Financial Ombudsman and the OFT...

 

And Uncle Tom Cobbly 'n'all if he'll listen.

 

Letter going today:

 

This letter does not admit liability nor does it acknowledge the alleged debt.

Thank you for your letter 31st March 2010 contents of which have been noted.

 

I refer you to my letter of 1st April, in which my position was clearly described. To reiterate, you were informed that this alleged debt is Barred under Statute in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. I have included a copy of this original correspondence sent to Lowell for your perusal and ease of reference.

 

As your letter contests that this is the case, it is now your legal obligation to substantiate your claims and to prove that this alleged debt is indeed enforceable and not barred by statute. Please note that at no point have I been received a Default Notice and have never received any proof of acknowledgment in writing or payment.

 

You should be aware that I am fully familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance, which states that it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations by falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred. I also refer to 2.5 of the guidelines regarding Physical/psychological harassment

 

You should also be aware that if you are unable to substantiate your claims then your behaviour will be considered harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and may result in my choosing to pursue action against you.

 

In addition, I hereby demand that you now supply me with information regarding your complaints procedure. Failure to comply will result in the complaint being escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who will charge you for investigating my complaint.

 

Finally, I expect no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide clear evidence as to my liability for the debt in question, or your written confirmation that this matter is now closed.I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

SHS

 

Excellent letter!

 

I'll be interested to hear of any response - but I think they'll just crawl back under their stone now - and possibly try to sell it on to another sucker - Aktiv Kapital seem to be quite keen to buy unenforceable debts from my own experience!

 

I hadn't realised Lowell and Cabot etc. were all together - must be quite a stench coming from that particular office!

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree, I have decided to send the following SB second letter below. Then thanks to some useful information found at

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...dit/oft664.pdf and

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/..._creditors.php

 

I think that this letter gives the perfect springboard for complaining - I have been polite and replied to each letter and assuming it will be a continuation of the same computer generated/time based letters - Will be a formal complaint must be made to The Leeds Losers, my MP, The Credit Reference Agency concerned, The Data protection Registrar, The Financial Ombudsman and the OFT...

 

And Uncle Tom Cobbly 'n'all if he'll listen.

 

Letter going today:

 

This letter does not admit liability nor does it acknowledge the alleged debt.

Thank you for your letter 31st March 2010 contents of which have been noted.

 

I refer you to my letter of 1st April, in which my position was clearly described. To reiterate, you were informed that this alleged debt is Barred under Statute in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. I have included a copy of this original correspondence sent to Lowell for your perusal and ease of reference.

 

As your letter contests that this is the case, it is now your legal obligation to substantiate your claims and to prove that this alleged debt is indeed enforceable and not barred by statute. Please note that at no point have I been received a Default Notice and have never received any proof of acknowledgment in writing or payment.

 

You should be aware that I am fully familiar with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidance, which states that it is unfair to mislead debtors as to their rights and obligations by falsely stating or implying that the debt is still legally recoverable and continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred. I also refer to 2.5 of the guidelines regarding Physical/psychological harassment

 

You should also be aware that if you are unable to substantiate your claims then your behaviour will be considered harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and may result in my choosing to pursue action against you.

 

In addition, I hereby demand that you now supply me with information regarding your complaints procedure. Failure to comply will result in the complaint being escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who will charge you for investigating my complaint.

 

Finally, I expect no further contact be made concerning the above account unless you can provide clear evidence as to my liability for the debt in question, or your written confirmation that this matter is now closed.I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Good afternoon Sevenhorse

With reference to the above letter, I would like to post some information for you in respect of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Administration of Justice Act 1970

s.40 (1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he;

a) Harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

b) Falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;

c) Falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or

d) Utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.

2) A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.

3) Subsection (1)(a) above, does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose –

a) of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to the persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or

b) of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.

An individual is offered no civil remedy under the said act, therefore, an individual holds no right to bring an action under said act, any such proceedings commenced under the said act would be subject to criminal proceedings and so an individual holds no standing in court to present a criminal prosecution.

Instead of quoting said act in your letter, might I suggest that you instead refer the creditor to;

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

s1 (1) prohibits a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another.

s3 provides that a breach of s1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings. Damages may be awarded for anxiety and any financial loss caused by the harassment.

Please do bear in mind that I make no criticism of your fine letter, I am simply informing you (and any others) that you would be told by the courts that you have no right to argue any breach of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 as it is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to exercise and that would be subject to upon being presented with evidence by the Constabulary (the Police Force).

You should then (in my view, which is based upon what you have reported here, so also please keep in mind that I do not have knowledge of your full case details), state in your letter (under the harassment part)

“ that you are considering on taking the necessary action under s3 of said act and therefore this letter is intended to put you on notice as to the same, as a Data Controller you do of course, have duties that ought to be complied with not only under the said act but also to me as the subject of the data and a potential claimant therein”

As you have notice of a potential claim, I require your written confirmation that you will now ensure your compliance with your obligations under said act within 14 days of receipt hereof”

I hope this posting will help you somewhat.

Kind regards

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you TM for that. This is information I have gleamed from a number of sources and have seen the Administration of Justice Act 1970 quoted on every letter template I have seen. Quoting as you said Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes more sense. I have already sent the letter - which is a shame. But will see what comes back. Cheers for that excellent information which I will employ in the future and will be good to have out there for others in the same SB situation.

 

Hi BD - Cabot and Lowell are two separate companies.

 

Lowell of Leeds, hides behind 4 company names in one building - Lowell Portfolio who buy the debt - Lowell Financial is the second desk to get you to pay - RED is there third desk involved in escalating their attack and the the forth is Hampton for when your account is very serious.

 

Cabot are in West Malling and don't bother with desks as they are a bunch of vampires that will bleed there own dry.

Edited by sevenhorsestakes
Link to post
Share on other sites

No problemo memo Sevenhorses

 

Yes, the Harassment Act offers the protection and will deliver the message with the required velocity. The AOJA 1970 can put the wind up the creditors, but when they realize that the consumer can not enforce any breach thereof, the creditors just carry on with their usual unacceptable conduct.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having sent the letter which includes requesting their Complaints procedure. Lowell are also in breach of the CPUTR 2008 by threatening action which they know they cannot legally take and also by breach the guidelines of their trade organization the CSA. I can prepare various complains to OFT, CSA, FOS and DPR - have download their forms and they all ask you to call before writing. So they have the package and I can prepare and research the complaints procedure. So unless they come up with some amazing piece of evidence against me I have plenty of ammo if they don't call off the dogs.

 

Many thanks for your information - it's such a minefield and though we treat these DCA with contempt the understand when people are just taking a letter template here and there from the internet without thinking it through.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi All...

Have just received an encrypted CD SAR from Cabot. I was worried as to how much they would go into, but am surprised that it's less that I thought.

 

They have not provided as requested copies of recordings and transcripts there of - but have very vague notes written down about the conversation.

 

The main defence was going to be Statute Barred - In the initital trapping on the phone I agreed to let them take £10 from a Monument Card. But I don't remember and they don't have the records of the conversation to prove that I gave them permission to take £10 from each of two accounts. There a re some vague emails and am not sure if I fully hang myself in them.

 

So it may be possible to defend as statute barred but not for sure.

 

In terms of the agreements - the Alliance and Leicester never provided a copy of the agreement. So is unenforceable under s77, s78. The have however continued to add interest.

 

The Abbey terms and conditions do not contain a signature - but I know that that isn't necessary, However it does not contain my name, but does contain the address at the time.

I haven't had the agreement audited properly - would it be worth doing asap? If so does anyone know where to go to get it done for a relatively small charge.

 

The Monument is the one I know I agreed to them taking £10 over the phone. So no quarry with that - The terms and conditions though does not contain my name or address at the time.

I haven't had the agreement audited properly also.

 

I have have asked for 28 days to respond - what do you think is the best way forward?

 

As a Postscript - Lowell have at last given up on Statute barred and said they will take no further.

action.

 

Hope to have someones thought on the way through as to what would be the best policy.

 

Regards,

 

SSS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Alliance and Leicester- have they provided nothing at all?

 

On the other agreements it is not worth having them audited. Recent cases have ruled that if an agreement is a 'true copy' (ie it contains the prescribed terms) than it is enforceable if the debtor admits they borrowed the money. The courts seem happy that the reconstituted 'agreement' contaning (only) the prescrribed terms is (on the balance of probabilities) an enforceable agreement. Prescribed terms are given in schedule 6 of the Consumer Crdit (Agreements) Regulations 1983

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

 

I issued a s78 and they did not send a copy of the T&C just hold a copy of the application dated 2000.

 

The other two come with application/confirmation form and original T&C 1996/2001.

 

I've read so much about the auditing and enforcement of the s61/65, but everything seems to be so contradictory. I thought that the T&C had to have the name and address at the time, plus a cancellation form for starters to be enforceable - but, from what you say, auditing is simply a waste of time whether they are legally unenforceable or not as the courts a re more likely to come down on the side of the creditor.

 

Re: Prescribed terms are given in schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 - I've just had a look and it is hard to make sense of in essence they could be unenforceable, but it's the take on the judge.

 

On your unenforceable page on...

 

Summary

 

2. An agreement that is not properly executed and was signed before 2006 is not enforceable unless it has the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms in the same document.

 

3. The enforceability of an agreement that is not properly executed, signed after 6 April 2007 and not having the debtor's signature and the prescribed terms in the same document may not be enforceable but it's enforceability has to be argued on a case-by-case basis (you cannot use section 127(3)).

 

What advice would you give as a course of action? is it worth looking at the T&C at all?

 

Regards,

 

SSS

Edited by sevenhorsestakes
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...