Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • London1971
      friends paying a DCA on a 118118 PDL loan subject to ID theft - Help!

      By London1971 · Posted

      Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Margot the Snail
      friends paying a DCA on a 118118 PDL loan subject to ID theft - Help!

      By Margot the Snail · Posted

      Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • grumpy59
      eBay parcel worth £265, booked via Parcel 2 Go, 'lost' by Evri

      By grumpy59 · Posted

      That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • dx100uk
      MFC The Sofa Store - New sofa + chairs not what expected - Refund possible?

      By dx100uk · Posted

      it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • honeybee13
      The sub-postmasters scandal

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Aplins POC's so vague HELP!

Louisdebroglie

By Louisdebroglie
in Financial Legal Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4909 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

Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
Posted

Hi CAGGERs,

I've been milling around here for a number of years and this is post number 2 only.

I have a county court claim against me for a 2002 Sainsburys credit card that I have not paid anything against for 2 years or so.

I have dealt with at least 8 DCA's who have passed this around but finally now, Hillesden securities have instructed their solicitors, Aplins, to go for a "charging order" through Northampton CC.

I have received the claim form and acknowledged receipt pending posting my defence.

The Particulars of the claim are "The claimants claim is in respect of banking facilities provided at the request of the defendant and under which the amount shown below is now due and owing from the defendant"....

 

I have a copy of the original application form sent to me by Hillesdens which they claim does not need to have the prescribed terms on the "face" of the agreement as it is "not a fixed term agreement". (Signed 20/10/2002). This appears to me to be an acknowledgement that the terms are in fact not present.

 

Hillesdens have stated that it is not an application form and is in fact a copy of the original agreement.

 

My question is what do I put as my defence as they do not even claim that any agreement has been breached in their particulars?

 

Would I be tripping myself up if I refer to any agreement that is not referred to in the POC's.

 

I have until August 16th 2010 to file the defence.

 

Many Thanks

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi CAGGERs, (sorry, I started this thread in the successes area by mistake)

 

I've been milling around here for a number of years and this is post number 2 only.

I have a county court claim against me for a 2002 Sainsburys credit card that I have not paid anything against for 2 years or so.

I have dealt with at least 8 DCA's who have passed this around but finally now, Hillesden securities have instructed their solicitors, Aplins, to go for a "charging order" through Northampton CC.

I have received the claim form and acknowledged receipt pending posting my defence.

The Particulars of the claim are "The claimants claim is in respect of banking facilities provided at the request of the defendant and under which the amount shown below is now due and owing from the defendant"....

 

I have a copy of the original application form sent to me by Hillesdens which they claim does not need to have the prescribed terms on the "face" of the agreement as it is "not a fixed term agreement". (Signed 20/10/2002). This appears to me to be an acknowledgement that the terms are in fact not present.

 

Hillesdens have stated that it is not an application form and is in fact a copy of the original agreement.

 

My question is what do I put as my defence as they do not even claim that any agreement has been breached in their particulars?

 

Would I be tripping myself up if I refer to any agreement that is not referred to in the POC's.

 

I have until August 16th 2010 to file the defence.

 

Many Thanks

 

Loui

Link to post
Share on other sites
littlebert8

littlebert8

Posted
Posted

Search for the forum for 'Aplins' and you will find other threads with identical or very similar, but equally as vague, POC.

 

In my case, I have sent them a Part 18 request in order to clarify their POC. However, other suggestions are to enter an "embarrassed" defence or apply for a strike out.

 

Personally, I would be wary of being to quick to enter an embarrassed defence. You could probably outright deny the claim as I doubt that you have ever requested or indeed received 'banking facilities' from Hillesden.

 

Here is a link to my case http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/266553-bos-mbna-hilisden-dlc-3.html

 

Also, have a look here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/213405-hillesden-securities-ltd-dlc-4.html#post3069678

Link to post
Share on other sites
Docman

Docman

Posted
Posted

louis

 

First, you need to acknowledge service of the claim form through Northampton if you have't already done so.

 

Second, as the solicitors have sent you an 'agreement', can you hide the personal identifyers and post up an image of the document?

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK,

 

I have acknowledged using MCOL stating that I intend to defend all. (The date of service was 14th July + 5 days = 19th July + 28 days = last day for submission of defence 16th August.)

 

I will post the "agreement" on the site tonight, but I am reasonably convinced, having been examining it for some time, that it is simply an application form without the required terms. (As Hillesdens have already told me, the terms "do not need to be on -the face- of the document".)

 

I have noted that there is another thread almost identical to mine where the tact seems to be to present a holding defence based on the POC's disadvantaging me from making any kind of defence being as vague as they are.

 

Thanks to all so far

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Littelbert...thanks.

 

I seem to be running two threads at the same time if the site team could splice them together that would be great.

 

I did notice your thread and subscribed.

 

I think the part 18 is the way to go as these have to be the vaguest POCs ever!

 

I'm posting my agreement up tonight...

 

Cheers

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

2 threads merged.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK,

Heres the CCA that Hillesdens sent me.

Clearly an application form without the prescribed terms.

The copy is really this bad.

Hillesdens say the terms don't need to be on the document. (Face of the document anyway)

 

Observations?

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
slick132

slick132

Posted
Posted

Hi Louis,

 

Hillesdens say the terms don't need to be on the document. (Face of the document anyway)
Well, they WOULD say that wouldn't they ! :rolleyes:

 

What matters here is not whether it's an Application or a Credit Agreement, but the fact that it does not have the Prescribed Terms as you have already noted.

 

Is this the only document they've sent you or is there another page containing the Prescribed Terms, which they say was part of the same document.

 

The document is barely legible in places and could conceivably be construed as illegible for the purposes of CCA 1974.

 

However, such matters may be decided by a judge on the day and that can be down to pure luck. Decisions recently seem to have favoured the banks and a judge may be swayed by your signature on the Application.

 

You should use the "embarrassed" defence which I assume you will have seen on other threads.

 

Have you reclaimed all penalty charges that have been added to the a/c.

 

:)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Thanks Slick..and for the PM too.

 

That's a really weird thing with the PDF and floating boxes. I'll get a different type up.

 

I received the microfiche copy of the "agreement" and 8 newly written out T&C's, although there is no claim that they are part of the same document, but rather that they must have been sent to me at the time.

 

It's actually 3+ years since Sainsburys sent me the default notice (28th November 2006) at which time the balance was £6K.

 

Hillesdens are claiming £6.5K so there must be charges.

I haven't been pursuing charges as I have been focused on playing communication ping-pong with all the DCA's that have handled this to date..there have been seven of them:-

(DLC-Robinson Way-Rockwell debt collection Agency-Fenton Cooper-Nelson Guest and Partners-Wescot credit services-Oliver and Scott limited)..Surely this must be a record!

I wonder if the fact that six DCA's have passed it on might tell us something about the perceived enforceability of this agreement.

 

Louis

Edited by slick132
changed to approx amounts for anonymity
Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

And while I think about it....I have a copy of the DN sent to me on 28th November 2006, which allowing for the service date of 2 days following posting, only allows 12 days for remedy.

 

I have noticed on a few threads, that a deficient DN appears to be fatal in a claim. Are there any special conditions that need to be met in order to make this so, or is the mere faulty construction of the DN sufficient for fatality? ( I ask because following the default notice of 28th November 2006 it is not until July 2009 that the account is assigned to Hillesdens.)

 

Cheers to all

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
citizenB

citizenB

Posted
Posted

Your Default notice might not be invalid as you think. If issued prior to 19th December 2006, only 7 days were required.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks CB....I guess I'll just have to rely on an illegible, improperly executed agreement then.

 

Filed my defence today:

1. The particulars of claim discloses no cause of action and are self evidently an abuse of process, in that they fail to deal with the basic rules of pleading in accordance with the CPR (even allowing for the constraints of the bulk issue system).

 

2. Further to that above the defendant is unable to plead effectively or at all. The defendant is embarrassed.

 

Also sent a CPR 18 request, as per previous posts.

 

I'll keep everybody informed.

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
Docman

Docman

Posted
Posted

CB,

 

You are correct that the Default Notice Regulations 2006 did take effect from 19 December 2006. However, the change from 7 to 14 days is to be found in S14 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006. This section took effect from 1 October 2006. In effect, the old Regulations were changed with effect from 1 October and then the Regulations were updated with effect from 19 December. I believe the statute takes precedence over the Regulations, so there is a good argument that 14 days should have been used after 1 October 2006.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It is interesting because the form of the DN clearly tries to apply 14 days. It is due to the fact that they have not allowed for the required 2 days to post that it comes down to only 12 days. So it seems clear that they thought 14 days was required.

Out of interest, which is the stronger case: Illegible improperly executed application form OR Faulty DN...or is it a case of two strong arguments?

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OK. Posted my defence well within the time frame.

Aplins have replied to me at home saying they are surprised that I have requested more particulars as they had sent me a CCA previously, but have resent them to me again anyway.

 

Can I expect them now to re-issue particulars that refer to the agreement?

Do I need to amend my defence now that they have written to me?

Does the defence stand as the particulars are so vague, or can they continue with vague particulars and say "well we sent him documents even though they are not mentioned on the claim"....

 

Obviously I don't want to fall foul of the process....

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

Lou I see Docman has prev been advising here-I will alert to your recent questions,.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Docman

Docman

Posted
Posted

Hi Louis

 

It is a bit difficult to advise without knowing what you actually said in the defence you filed. Was it exactly as quoted in post #16 above?

 

You need the permission of the court to submit an amended defence. Ususally, there is a paragraph added at the end of the 'embarassed' defence asking for permission to file an amended defence if the claimant's subsequently come up with documents that support their claim and submit an Amended Particulars of Claim.

 

Can you post up the wording you used if it is different from that in post #16 and scan in the agreement again. The jpeg image is very small and with a bad copy in the first place, it is also a bit difficult to read as well.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Cheers for the reply Docman.

 

The defence is exactly as posted.I did not add in any request to amend my defence as the POC's disclosed nothing at all, no reference to documents at all. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that if Aplins did not amend their POC's that the defence would stand as I have never requested them to provide me with "banking facilities", and there appears to be no case to answer.

I suppose the question is, even if they have sent me documents in the past and have corresponded with me over the last 12 months, are they allowed to make a claim with such unspecific POC's and simply rely on the fact that I must know what the claim is actually about because of all the previous correspondence, even if this is completely unreferenced in the POC's?

 

I can't repost the CCA until tomorrow when I get access to my scanner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Docman

Docman

Posted
Posted

I think you wait until Aplins take the next step. They have 28 days to respond to your defence or the action will be stayed. If they do go ahead and the case is transferred to your local county court, Allocation Questionnaires will be issued and then either there will be an Allocation Hearing or probably a Case Management Conference [CMC] called by the District Judge. You will need to have be ready to argue your case at that hearing (effectively you will have written out your amended defence as your argument). The DJ may order Aplins to submit amended POCs at which point you should get a further 14/28 days to file an Amended Defence.

Alternatively, they could just go for summary judgment at which point you submit a witness statement opposing the application and set out your reasons for doing so (again effectively your amended defence).

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites
Louisdebroglie

Louisdebroglie

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks Docman.

 

I feel pretty secure that the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable as it does not contain the required terms.

Aplins have not needed to reconstruct the agreement as they claim that the application form IS the agreement. I feel that this strengthens my argument that the terms are therefore definitely missing in the original. I have a further assertion that the copy that they wish to rely on is so illegible as to be useless to them.

 

Anyway, I'll wait to see what Aplins do next, and thanks for the heads-up.

 

Louis

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...