Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
  • 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

No OC Default then sold onto DCA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4929 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

Can an OC 'sell' a debt onto a dca without issuing a DN?

 

Looking around the forum it seems the majority of OC serve a default notice & terminate accounts before selling debt onto dca's.

 

I have a Store Card debt that has been 'sold' to a dca who has issued their own DN & their solicitor is threatening court action.

 

The OC, when I fell on hard times, withdrew credit facilities and said they would issue a default notice (none was issued & confirmed by CRA search).

 

Did a SAR to the OC & regarding a DN they stated that DN were 'electronically generated' and they dont keep copies, they couldnt confirm the date one was issued but enclosed a template DN as an example.

 

By withdrawing credit facilities would that be considered as 'termination' resulting in the debt being incorrectly sold to a dca as it was not 'live'.

 

Just trying to cover all angles ready for the next step from the dca & solicitors ( both well known on CAG - especially the underhanded tactics of the solicitors by what I've read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mines a Pint

As far as I'm aware, they can sell the debt to anyone they want while the account is still active, providing the buyer is licenced to operate in that area of consumer credit.

 

It's more usual to sell after default/termination though.

When was this card taken out, and have you done a CCA Request?

 

Elsa x

PS ...mine's a brandy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PS ...mine's a brandy...

 

:)

 

Thanks Elsa,

 

Store Card taken out 1989, yes have done cca request as part of the SAR, the OC stated that due to the age of the account they no longer have the agreement.

 

CCA request to the dca & they provided an unreadable photocopy of a microfiche, their solicitor then informed my of intended court action was then given CPR 31:16 & again provided a bad copy of a microfiche & T&C's which I cannot connect to the agreement.

 

Incidently, I chased the OC for ppi T&C's that applied when I took out the card, they provided some T&C's stating that they were the correct ones BUT looking closely in the bottom corner there was a 'version'date of 2008

I cancelled ppi in 2005.

 

I am sure the dca doesnt have a licence to provide 'revolving credit facilities' & by the OC informing me that facilities had been withdrawn & no longer able to use the card the account couldnt have been live when sold on.

 

Hope this makes sense.

 

MaP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rocky,

 

Thanks for the pm, sorry I havent had time to reply, will do so later - I have not checked the agreement yet - will do so in the morning.

 

I still feel that by withdrawing credit facilities Santander effectively terminated the account without first issuing a DN so selling it off to a dca was incorrectly done.

 

I also have another query/problem that has just come to light - had an ALERT from Experian and I found that the alert was a change in CL's report, the type of account has changed from 'Credit Card/Store Card' to 'BANK' CL is certainly NOT a bank is it?

 

Also the amount outstanding has changed from £**** to £0 and is marked as 'SETTLED' but then on looking at the actual report itself CL has registered a Default & the balance is £12 more then last time I looked - really confusing.

 

I do have a query if anyone can assist - I intend counterclaim for PPI (I have good reasons) when they issue their court claim - on checking (on what I can read) is that APR for PPI is zero as GE charged **p per £100, does this mean I cannot claim compound interest either at card APR or 8% Statutory (compounded) on each premium paid?

 

Any help/advice would be most welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Santander could have simply reduced your credit limit to zero. That would be in the T&Cs, and would not require a DN.

 

This is becoming more common for accounts handled by Cohen – suggest you trawl the forums for similar cases. There are plenty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope someone can advise on this one, in addition to what i've already posted I've been trawling through the paperwork from my SAR and have found something I am convinced makes the assignment to CL wrong.

 

Firstly in the comms log it shows that the debt was 'sold' to CL * August 2007, however, the NoA obtained from Cohen shows a date of ** August 2008?

 

Furthermore, I have also found a letter from GE quote 'Credit facilities have been withdrawn. Please cut in half and return to us any cards issued to you (and additional cardholders) for this, and any other GE Money accounts that you hold' so surely this confirms 'termination' without a Default Notice being issued first and that as a result it could not have been sold to CL as a LIVE debt?

 

I really value any thoughts on this.

 

MaP

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...