Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
  • 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

Some solicitors using Split Claims -- how does one defend


jimbo45
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4504 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

Hi there#

 

Judging by various HFO posts it seems that a new tactic is being employed here - a tactic also much favoured by the one and only (in)famous Bryan Carter

 

(He's Mutch mentioned in "despatches" on these Forums).

 

A threat of a CCJ for the arrears / part of a debt is issued.

The DCA or their Solicitors say but you also STILL owe YYYY. I can also provide for legitigation on that too so PAY UP or else.

 

Issuing a CCJ for only Part of the claim without specifying what else is owed seems to me a TOTAL ABUSE of the legal process and surely it's actually ILLEGAL as well.

 

If XXX says you owe me money then its up to XXXX to say HOW MUCH and FOR WHAT.

 

This seems a particularly insidious way of going about Debt recovery -- it really shows there IS NO BOTTOM to the depths these people will stoop to.

 

Any decent "complaint" templates on the site regarding this practice.

 

In defending a CCJ of this type should the "split" be mentioned to the Court as well in defence.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi there

They could possibly argue that CCJ nr ONE is for "Charges / Services" or whatever that means and CCJ nr TWO is for the actual money -- arguing that these are two separate debts and therfore should be treated as two separate entities.

 

The fact that the "Services" are associated with the first claim would appear not to matter a jot.

 

I DO hope that I am wrong on this one otherwise a whole slew of these types of claims will start emerging once these DCA's know they have another nice new shiny toy to play with.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

Worrying about CREDIT RECORDS is itself counter productive -- if you are being chased for debts or are defending CCJ's I DOUBT if you'd really be interested in getting credit again for a VERY long time if ever. Once they can't threaten you with "credit references" then thats another whole lot of stuff you DON'T have to bother with again.

 

The first thing to do is get the debt quashed --the fact that it doesn't show up in Credit records is irrelevant --it should always be in the COURT records if you need a paper trail.

 

I tend to agree with a pevious poster -- pay a minimum amount on the CCJ just to keep them fromhaving the money as long as possible and then you've effectively got the BIGGER part of the debt written off.

 

OK it might remain on your details --who cares - the main thing is to GET OUT OF DEBT and DONT TAKE ON ANY MORE CREDIT.

 

It's not impossible to live without Credit cards or borrowing money.

 

I'm always amazed on these Forums when people have got themselves in many thousands of pounds worth of debt that they are STILL worried about Credit Files -- forget them -- move on -- because - that part of your life is OVER.

 

Just get rid of the debt - and if the CCA is unenforceable tell the DCA to go and lump it.

 

Living without Credit IS possible and not too difficult either. Just needs a slightly different approach to what you've been used to before.

 

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited by jimbo45
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

 

Opinion seems divided on this one -- Basically you could risk having the whole debt blown out of court, or pay the small amount on which a CCJ is being prepared and then you will not have to pay the rest.

 

You will need to wait for the POC from Northampton before paying otherwise you'll be slapped with a new CCJ for the WHOLE amount -- which without the CCJ threat for the first piece you wont be able to defend on the ground that this claim is split.

 

It's a bit like a poker game here -- you pays your money and you takes your choice.

 

My gut feel is that if you have a reasonable certainty that all the paperwork is NOT in order then defend the entire claim but if you are slightly more risk averse and the "first" CCJ claim is only around 5% of the total then you could pay this as you've STILL got off 95% of the debt.

 

If you go down this route DONT PAY UNTIL A CCJ CLAIM IS SENT otherwise as I said you'll get a new CCJ for the rest and you wont be able to prove that its a split claim.

 

Don't waste time worrying about Credit records -- if you've got as far as being threatened with CCJ's then the best thing to do is forget about credit again -- THAT PART OF YOUR LIFE IS NOW OVER and its time TO MOVE ON.

 

Its not so bad living without credit once you've got out of debt and its another LESS thing to have to deal with.

 

But remember you need to be very careful in dealing with slippery snakes like Bryan Carter and their ilk.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Edited by jimbo45
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
'old boys' and 'network' spring to mind.

 

Hi there

perhaps you could refer to "A recent Discussion with Fellow Lodge members ......".

 

That might scare them up a bit as they wouldn't know which way to make the power play.

 

It's easy Out B/S 'ing a DCA -- these guys are total Morons in any case.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...