Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be 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 it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
  • 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

DCA / Goldfish & Egg / combined the 2 debts into one alleged sum of money.


toymaker1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4871 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

Allocation questionnaire

 

 

An allocation questionnaire is a form used in English legal practice. After a claim is made, if a defence is filed each party is required to complete and return an allocation questionnaire to the court so that the judge may properly allocate the claim to a track and give further directions towards a final hearing.

 

Would you be able to give me some advice regarding the following?

I am the defendent in a claim by a DCA which has purchased a debt from Egg and a debt from Goldfish, and has combined the 2 debts into one alleged sum of money.

Both of the debts were assigned/purchased whilst the debts were in dispute.

Therefore in my defence I have said that I consider Egg and Goldfish to be the Creditors, not the DCA which as started the claim.

At the allocation hearing, the judge spoke very briefly and fast, but the essence was that I should submit a new version of my defence which sets out all the facts in much more detail. She said just put it into separate paragraphs and make a statement of truth.

My problem is that I dont know exactly how to proceed from here - e.g. how do I submit my amended defence to the court, - to whom do I send it? do I have to do it on a specific form? It is very confusing, although I think the judge was trying to assist me. I cannot afford a lawyer.

grateful for any advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Would you be able to give me some advice regarding the following?

 

Hi,

 

Sorry, I'm not that clever, but I have moved your post and started a new thread, hopefully someone a lot more knowledgeable on this subject will help you.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you type up the Particulars of claim (POC) as stated on the claim form, this is what you will initially need to defend against

 

"The Claimant is the Assignee of a Debt(s)from

Goldfish Bank Ltd

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx,

Egg Banking Plc

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx,

Notice of Assignment having been given to the

Defendant in writing. Despite demand for

Payment, 24342.64 remains due. The

Claimant claims 24342.64 and interest under

s 69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs."

 

 

 

 

The purported "Credit Card reference" is a 7 digit number, which is not a credit card number.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Claimant is the Assignee of a Debt(s)from

Goldfish Bank Ltd

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx, Do you recognise this reference?

Egg Banking Plc

Credit Card reference xxxxxxx, Do You recognise this reference?

Notice of Assignment having been given to the

Defendant in writing. did you receive such an assignment?

Despite demand for Payment, 24342.64 remains due. Do you recognise this amount, does it appear to be correct?

The Claimant claims 24342.64 and interest under

s 69 County Courts Act 1984 and costs."

 

The purported "Credit Card reference" is a 7 digit number, which is not a credit card number.

 

Have you ever requested copies of the agreements for these "accounts"?

Have they sent you a breakdown of how the amount claimed has been arrived at?

 

You can use CPR31.14 to request copies of any documents referred to or mentioned in the POC

For those that aren't mentioned in the POC, you can use CPR 18 to request further information on them

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever requested copies of the agreements for these "accounts"?

Have they sent you a breakdown of how the amount claimed has been arrived at?

 

You can use CPR31.14 to request copies of any documents referred to or mentioned in the POC

For those that aren't mentioned in the POC, you can use CPR 18 to request further information on them

Long before the claim was started I requested copies of the agreements. The Egg one was in order, but the goldfish one did not comply with the regulatory requirements e.g. it was illegible, it was a copy of an application etc.

But I do not consider that is really the fundamental issue I will be relying on. That is to say, I dont think those issues will ensure I win the case.

My real defence revolves around 2 points, the £24000 claimed is a completely fictional debt created by the DCA. That is to say, they simply added together 2 completely separate, disputed debt amounts and said to the court that I owe them that amount.

From where I am coming, it just seems daft, completely illogical, and outside any legal provision for that to be the basis of their claim. Consider, for example, the matter of interest. each disputed and unrelated debt has an associated amount of interest, which will be unique to each particular contractual agreement, and the outcome of the dispute in each of the disputed agreements will determine how much interest is payable, by whom, and to which party in the two unrelated disputes. The point I am making is that in terms of arithmetic alone, it would be impossible to accurately calculate the alleged debt total. due, before one even brings the law - i.e CCA 1974- into it.

That's how it seems to me, as a layman.

So, the 2 chief points of my wife's defence are,

1. the DCA cannot just add together 2 unrelated and disputed debts allegedly owed to two unrelated creditors, which the DCA bought, and claim that my wife owes the DCA that amount of money.

2. The DCA should not have bought the debts whilst they were being disputed with the original creditor - that is a breach of OFT debt guidelines.

On those 2 chief grounds I have stated in our defence that the Claim is vexatious.

There are numerous secondary issues, e.g the interest has not been set out in the POC in the form required by CPR, the purported "credit card reference" is just a 7 figure number which is not recognisable as a credit card reference, but apears to be an internal corporate reference number known only to the DCA., there is no written agreement in existence upon which a claim for £24,000 could be based. etc etc.

 

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

Edited by toymaker1
tidying up
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from but this is less to do with what they have done and more to do with what they are claiming.

 

There have been cases where multiple accounts have been consolidated and brought before the courts and judgements have been given because the case wasn't defended correctly or the defendant was unprepared.

 

The initial defence is merely with regards to matters within the POC, hence the line of questioning.

 

You need to use the legal processes and relevant CPR against them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Long before the claim was started I requested copies of the agreements. The Egg one was in order, but the goldfish one did not comply with the regulatory requirements e.g. it was illegible, it was a copy of an application etc.

But I do not consider that is really the fundamental issue I will be relying on. That is to say, I dont think those issues will ensure I win the case.

My real defence revolves around 2 points, the £24000 claimed is a completely fictional debt created by the DCA. That is to say, they simply added together 2 completely separate, disputed debt amounts and said to the court that I owe them that amount.

From where I am coming, it just seems daft, completely illogical, and outside any legal provision for that to be the basis of their claim. Consider, for example, the matter of interest. each disputed and unrelated debt has an associated amount of interest, which will be unique to each particular contractual agreement, and the outcome of the dispute in each of the disputed agreements will determine how much interest is payable, by whom, and to which party in the two unrelated disputes. The point I am making is that in terms of arithmetic alone, it would be impossible to accurately calculate the alleged debt total. due, before one even brings the law - i.e CCA 1974- into it.

That's how it seems to me, as a layman.

So, the 2 chief points of my wife's defence are,

1. the DCA cannot just add together 2 unrelated and disputed debts allegedly owed to two unrelated creditors, which the DCA bought, and claim that my wife owes the DCA that amount of money.

2. The DCA should not have bought the debts whilst they were being disputed with the original creditor - that is a breach of OFT debt guidelines.

On those 2 chief grounds I have stated in our defence that the Claim is vexatious.

There are numerous secondary issues, e.g the interest has not been set out in the POC in the form required by CPR, the purported "credit card reference" is just a 7 figure number which is not recognisable as a credit card reference, but apears to be an internal corporate reference number known only to the DCA., there is no written agreement in existence upon which a claim for £24,000 could be based. etc etc.

 

Hope that makes some sort of sense.

 

To follow up my previous post,

I have stated in my (my wife's) defence that I do not consider the DCA is the creditor and that Goldfish and Egg are the creditors, and that if I owe any money it is to Egg and Goldfish, not the DCA, whose claim is therefore vexatious.

The judge at the allocation hearing asked both parties to provide a breakdown of the total amount.

I can do that easily, in that I obviously have a record of everthing, but I would think the DCA would start to look a bit daft when it comes out that the total amount consists of two completely unrelated, disputed debts. I dont know of a legal basis within the terms of CCA 1974 which would permit the two unrelated alleged debts to be simply combined into one amount., as I said in my previous post.

By the way, I am not sure of the formalities of providing a breakdown of the total amount. would I set it down on paper and include as a document to be included in the disclosures list which I send to the DCA by the due date?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Long before the claim was started I requested copies of the agreements. The Egg one was in order, but the goldfish one did not comply with the regulatory requirements e.g. it was illegible, it was a copy of an application etc.

 

If the Egg CC had PPI then it is likely that it will not be enforceable. If it does not have PPI then it is likely to be enforceable.

 

With the Goldfish CC, just because they have sent you something entitled Application does not mean that it isn't enforceable. If all of the schedule 6 prescribed terms and your signature are on it then it will be enforceable.

 

My real defence revolves around 2 points, the £24000 claimed is a completely fictional debt created by the DCA. That is to say, they simply added together 2 completely separate, disputed debt amounts and said to the court that I owe them that amount.

They are allowed to do this.

 

 

From where I am coming, it just seems daft, completely illogical, and outside any legal provision for that to be the basis of their claim. Consider, for example, the matter of interest. each disputed and unrelated debt has an associated amount of interest, which will be unique to each particular contractual agreement, and the outcome of the dispute in each of the disputed agreements will determine how much interest is payable, by whom, and to which party in the two unrelated disputes.
Why do you say that the agreements are disputed - do you dispute signing the agreements or what.

 

 

The point I am making is that in terms of arithmetic alone, it would be impossible to accurately calculate the alleged debt total. due, before one even brings the law - i.e CCA 1974- into it.

That's how it seems to me, as a layman.

Why do you say that - each of the original creditors would have applied interest at the appropriate rates until they sold the debts to the DCA. Depending on the terms and conditions, interest may then also have been added on afterwards and you will, of course, be able to challenge the DCA to prove the accuracy of any amounts that it is claiming.

 

However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them claiming both debts from you.

 

 

So, the 2 chief points of my wife's defence are,

1. the DCA cannot just add together 2 unrelated and disputed debts allegedly owed to two unrelated creditors, which the DCA bought, and claim that my wife owes the DCA that amount of money.

Yes they can. However, you are at liberty to ask them to prove the accuracy of their figures.

 

2. The DCA should not have bought the debts whilst they were being disputed with the original creditor - that is a breach of OFT debt guidelines.

I still don't get what your dispute is with the original creditors - do you deny ever signing an agreement or is it something else that you are disputing. And, by the way, you are wrong about it being a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The nearest that exists to what you seem to be saying is 2.8 (k), however this just deals with debt collection activity, it mentions nothing about selling an account.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company selling a debt to another company regardless of the state of the account. And there is nothing wrong with a company buying multiple debts of one person and then pursuing them for all of those debts at the same time.

 

On those 2 chief grounds I have stated in our defence that the Claim is vexatious.
If that is your defence then I would suggest that you are going to have a very difficult time in court.

 

I would suggest that your best defence would be that you have not received notice of assignment of the debts and that you dispute the amounts claimed.

 

Have a read of this post for some idea of how to word a defence:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283833-help-please-capquest-!&p=3215183&viewfull=1#post3215183

 

I would suggest that your main three lines of defence should be:-

 

1 - no notice of assignment

2 - default charges are an unlawful penalty

3 - dispute being sent default and terminataion notices

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Egg CC had PPI then it is likely that it will not be enforceable. If it does not have PPI then it is likely to be enforceable.

 

With the Goldfish CC, just because they have sent you something entitled Application does not mean that it isn't enforceable. If all of the schedule 6 prescribed terms and your signature are on it then it will be enforceable.

 

They are allowed to do this.

 

 

Why do you say that the agreements are disputed - do you dispute signing the agreements or what.

 

 

Why do you say that - each of the original creditors would have applied interest at the appropriate rates until they sold the debts to the DCA. Depending on the terms and conditions, interest may then also have been added on afterwards and you will, of course, be able to challenge the DCA to prove the accuracy of any amounts that it is claiming.

 

However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them claiming both debts from you.

 

 

Yes they can. However, you are at liberty to ask them to prove the accuracy of their figures.

 

I still don't get what your dispute is with the original creditors - do you deny ever signing an agreement or is it something else that you are disputing. And, by the way, you are wrong about it being a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The nearest that exists to what you seem to be saying is 2.8 (k), however this just deals with debt collection activity, it mentions nothing about selling an account.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company selling a debt to another company regardless of the state of the account. And there is nothing wrong with a company buying multiple debts of one person and then pursuing them for all of those debts at the same time.

 

If that is your defence then I would suggest that you are going to have a very difficult time in court.

 

I would suggest that your best defence would be that you have not received notice of assignment of the debts and that you dispute the amounts claimed.

 

Have a read of this post for some idea of how to word a defence:-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283833-help-please-capquest-!&p=3215183&viewfull=1#post3215183

 

I would suggest that your main three lines of defence should be:-

 

1 - no notice of assignment

2 - default charges are an unlawful penalty

3 - dispute being sent default and terminataion notices

 

Thanks for your response.

There is a lot to consider in your reply. I will give the points you raised some thought and get back to you.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you are wrong about it being a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The nearest that exists to what you seem to be saying is 2.8 (k), however this just deals with debt collection activity, it mentions nothing about selling an account.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company selling a debt to another company regardless of the state of the account.

 

On 23rd November 2010 OFT stated that chasing debtors without proper investigation of the issues constitutes a breach of the OFT's guidance on debt collection.

Are you saying that this clarification of OFT debt guidance would have no effect in my case.?

- My case being that the Claimant DCA continued to chase me without proper investigation of the issues which arose in the dispute between myself and the original creditor.

It cannot be the case that those issues can be left uninvestigated just because the creditor sold the disputed debt to the Claimant.

If that was the case, that would provide a magic escape route for every creditor who has a dispute originated by a debtor. - he could offload every disputed agreement just by selling it to a DCA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are wrong about it being a breach of the OFT Debt Collection Guidance. The nearest that exists to what you seem to be saying is 2.8 (k), however this just deals with debt collection activity, it mentions nothing about selling an account.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company selling a debt to another company regardless of the state of the account.

 

Surely, if a creditor sells a disputed debt to a DCA, that can be considered to be "not ceasing collection activity", because the sole reason the DCA would buy the debt would be to obtain the alleged outstanding debt from the debtor. - That is surely debt collection activity. And the original creditor and the DCA would both be implicated in continuing to carry out debt collection activity, thereby breaching the OFT debt guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 23rd November 2010 OFT stated that chasing debtors without proper investigation of the issues constitutes a breach of the OFT's guidance on debt collection.

Are you saying that this clarification of OFT debt guidance would have no effect in my case.?

- My case being that the Claimant DCA continued to chase me without proper investigation of the issues which arose in the dispute between myself and the original creditor.

It cannot be the case that those issues can be left uninvestigated just because the creditor sold the disputed debt to the Claimant.

If that was the case, that would provide a magic escape route for every creditor who has a dispute originated by a debtor. - he could offload every disputed agreement just by selling it to a DCA. That's exactly what it does in most cases, they simply wash their hands of an errant debtor, write off the amount for tax, make a small return by selling on the account for coppers and then move on

 

 

The OFT guidelines are not binding, they are "only" Guidelines and compliance is not mandatory and neither does their non compliance carry any penalties in law. it may affect their licence application but when it comes to the big companies, it never seems to have any adverse effect.

 

However, when building a defence against a claim, demonstrating a total disregard for the OFT guidelines by a creditor or Debt Collector/buyer can demonstrate the manner in which a company carries out their business and can sway a judge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely, if a creditor sells a disputed debt to a DCA, that can be considered to be "not ceasing collection activity", because the sole reason the DCA would buy the debt would be to obtain the alleged outstanding debt from the debtor. - That is surely debt collection activity. And the original creditor and the DCA would both be implicated in continuing to carry out debt collection activity, thereby breaching the OFT debt guidelines.

 

If the Original Creditor "sells" a debt - any involvement with the debt or the creditor ceases as far as they are concerned and most of the financial institutes do this to distance themselves from the nastier side of the collection business, they are concerned with their reputation much more than a (relatively) small amount.

 

They cannot be held liable for the actions of a DCA or Debt buyer when the debt has been "sold". although there is a limited argument about selling on a debt whilst there is a dispute. they normally just deny the existence of a dispute and then it's your word against theirs.

 

Whilst you have a semi-valid point about the collection process not being ceased, the law see's it differently and as stated earlier they are "only" Guidelines.

 

There have been a lot (far too many) of cases where a judge has simply said, you borrowed it, now pay it back - judgement for the claimant.

 

You could argue yourself black and white, but they will still be taking you to court and if you do not defend correctly, you will still end up with a judgement against you. Nickleas post should be considered a little further.

 

The defence starts with the POC, the CPRs are there to govern the whole county court process, you need to see the documents they are relying on, Disclosure will enable you to start to build a defence

 

Below are two stickied links which cover the first steps in defending yourself

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?108467-Basic-Introduction-to-Consumer-Credit-litigation

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT guidelines are not binding, they are "only" Guidelines and compliance is not mandatory and neither does their non compliance carry any penalties in law.

In my case, neither the original creditor nor the DCA who bought the debt investigated the issues in dispute, thereby - in my opinion- breaching the OFT debt collection Code. As you point out, the code is only guidance and not legally binding, nevertheless the OFT expects DCA's and creditors to fully comply with the code, therefore, I believe that a court would take that into account, and such conduct is likely to constitute an unfair relationship within the meaning of S140 of CCA 1974.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my case, neither the original creditor nor the DCA who bought the debt investigated the issues in dispute, thereby - in my opinion- breaching the OFT debt collection Code. As you point out, the code is only guidance and not legally binding, nevertheless the OFT expects DCA's and creditors to fully comply with the code, therefore, I believe that a court would take that into account, and such conduct is likely to constitute an unfair relationship within the meaning of S140 of CCA 1974.

 

The essence of the points made in my previous post is that I believe that it would never be considered, in court or out of court, that a creditor has acted fairly and reasonably,within the meaning of S140 of CCA140, if that creditor has dealt with a debtor in a manner which breaches the OFT debt collection guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I

 

 

 

 

I still don't get what your dispute is with the original creditors - do you deny ever signing an agreement or is it something else that you are disputing.

 

The dispute with Egg arises because Egg terminated my Egg credit card agreement when it was not in default , merely by telling me that they were terminating my credit card agreement.

My understanding of that is that Egg terminated my egg credit card agreement outside the provisions of CCA 1974.

When I asked Egg to indicate to me the relevant section of CCA 1974 which provided Egg with legal authority to terminate my Egg agreement, Egg never provided an answer. - they just sold the debt.

I consider that Egg has not acted fairly and reasonably within the meaning of S140 of CCA 1974.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without seeming overly glib or dismissive of your arguments, if this is the crux of your defence, then I wish you good luck with it.

 

My opinion, such as it's worth, is that you are pi$$ing in the wind by arguing that "they should have done this, or that they should have done that"

 

I do however wonder why you ask questions on a forum and then argue with those who would offer you advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without seeming overly glib or dismissive of your arguments, if this is the crux of your defence, then I wish you good luck with it.

 

My opinion, such as it's worth, is that you are pi$$ing in the wind by arguing that "they should have done this, or that they should have done that"

 

I do however wonder why you ask questions on a forum and then argue with those who would offer you advice.

 

I take your point. But are you saying that it is legally permissible for a credit card provider to terminate a credit card agreement in breach of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and in breach of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983?

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh boy, toymaker1 you areally are stuffed - like the proverbial turkey - if this is your defence. Sorry, I had to get a Christmas reference in here somewhere given the date.

 

But seriously, is that your only dispute with them.

 

As spamheed says, and he is far more blunt than I am, you don't have much of a chance.

 

Exactly where in the CCA do you think that it prohibits a creditor from terminating a credit account in non-default circumstances. You have to remember that, in this country, you can basically do what you like unless it is prohibited.

 

If the contract prohibited the creditor from terminating the agreement at anytime it wanted to or the CCA prohibited the creditor from terminating the agreement then, yes, they would not be able to terminate the agreement.

 

However, nowhere in the CCA or in the terms of the contract does it say that the credit may not terminate the agreement at any time, regardless of whether the account is in default or not. All the CCA does say is about what steps the creditor must go through in both default and non-defualt cases in order to terminate the agreement.

 

Basically, if this is your only defence then you really are stuffed.

 

Sorry, I don't mean to come across as being harsh but I would suggest that it is better to hear this now than when you get into court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly where in the CCA do you think that it prohibits a creditor from terminating a credit account in non-default circumstances.

 

In S87.

There is a widespread belief that because S87 refers to termination "by reason of any breach by the debtor of a regulated agreement", that implies that in situations where the debtor has not breached the agreement, the creditor can simply terminate by giving written notice, because the Act says nothing to the contrary.

However, I would refer you to the Explanatory Notes to the Consumer Credit Act issued by the Government in 2006.

Paragraph 36 of the 2006 Explanatory explains that section 87 of the Act requires a creditor to give the debtor a default notice in the prescribed form if he wishes to terminate the agreement.

Notice that it omits the phrase in the Act "by reason of any breach by the debtor of a regulated agreement."

The Government apparently considered that S87 seemed to require an explanation because it is open to misunderstanding.

I agree with them.

There can now be no misunderstanding of S87.

i.e. if a creditor wishes to terminate a credit card agreement he must give the debtor a default notice.

 

That is without even taking S140 of CCA into account (fairness).

To give an example, suppose a creditor had a credit limit of £20,000, and his current debt owed was 10,000, which he paid by direct debit each month and never defaulted.

The creditor writes to him giving 14 days notice of termination.

The creditor is left owing £10,000, and has been deprived of the possibility of what he believed to be a further £10,000 available credit.

I consider that could be put to a judge as being an unfair within the meaning of S140.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take your point. But are you saying that it is legally permissible for a credit card provider to terminate a credit card agreement in breach of the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and in breach of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983?

 

You need to make them prove that they had a right to do what they have done, from there you will be able to see if you have a defence or not.

 

I would suggest in the first instance utilising CPR31.14 for the documents mentioned in the POC and CPR18 for those which are not

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to make them prove that they had a right to do what they have done, from there you will be able to see if you have a defence or not.

 

I would suggest in the first instance utilising CPR31.14 for the documents mentioned in the POC and CPR18 for those which are not

 

Thanks for that useful information.

I will certainly follow that up. Do I have to apply for a court order to obtain CPR18 info? I notice it say that "the court" may order a party etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that useful information.

I will certainly follow that up. Do I have to apply for a court order to obtain CPR18 info? I notice it say that "the court" may order a party etc.

 

No you do not need to involve the court with regard to CPR 31.14 or CPR 18 at this stage these are just letters you would send to the claimant or their representatives in order to get them to disclose the information you require to build your defence. There are template letters, but they really aren't one size fits all, I would generally use them only as a guide and heavily edit them to your own words and to fit your own circumstances.

 

The following thread provides an excellent guide of the court process, it is quite lengthy but with good reason, I would suggest you have a look at it, just to gain an insight into the process and what you need to do.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

 

In the following thread there is a discussion on the difference between CPR31.14 and CPR18 and provides explanations on both, as well as links to the relevant statute(s)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?184213

 

Ask any questions on any thread you feel is appropriate.

 

Please be patient as a lot of the regulars will be unavailable due to the current festivities, you should have a look at as many of the threads as you can and you will quickly see that there are a huge number of people in exactly the same boat as yourself and also that the Debt Collectors appear to sail through the rules and regulations with apparent impunity, These people are not stupid and when it comes to the court room they have shown that they are not above bending the facts to influence a judge.

 

You really need to do your homework and gain a clear understanding of how your defence is to be/has been constructed.

Edited by spamheed
Link to post
Share on other sites

No you do not need to involve the court with regard to CPR 31.14 or CPR 18 at this stage these are just letters you would send to the claimant or their representatives in order to get them to disclose the information you require to build your defence. There are template letters, but they really aren't one size fits all, I would generally use them only as a guide and heavily edit them to your own words and to fit your own circumstances.

 

The following thread provides an excellent guide of the court process, it is quite lengthy but with good reason, I would suggest you have a look at it, just to gain an insight into the process and what you need to do.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

 

In the following thread there is a discussion on the difference between CPR31.14 and CPR18 and provides explanations on both, as well as links to the relevant statute(s)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?184213

 

Ask any questions on any thread you feel is appropriate.

 

Please be patient as a lot of the regulars will be unavailable due to the current festivities, you should have a look at as many of the threads as you can and you will quickly see that there are a huge number of people in exactly the same boat as yourself and also that the Debt Collectors appear to sail through the rules and regulations with apparent impunity, These people are not stupid and when it comes to the court room they have shown that they are not above bending the facts to influence a judge.

 

You really need to do your homework and gain a clear understanding of how your defence is to be/has been constructed.

Thanks spamheed.

Lots of useful stuff there that should keep me busy for a few days. (weeks?)

I haved been downloading CPR's and am slowly making sense of them.

 

All the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...