Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver.  (Although earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.  I don't clearly understand it, but legal advice was something to do with the role the receiver has acting as an agent for the borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against the receiver ???).  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate app for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

Moorcroft chasing Lloyds loan now sold to 1st credit


intend
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1954 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

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Difficult to convince daughter just to ignore - she does not like like this uncertainty hanging over her. Whilst it might seem boring from the outside, their actions do cause real stress. So, while I would be in favour of BBs choice of (in)action, will send off a prove it letter and see what comes back.

 

Thanks for input, Intend

Link to post
Share on other sites

No your right, every one is different, I live on my own so I pretty much ignore most junk that comes through my door

as I have no-one else to worry about.

Start at the beginning like your doing, with the 'prove it' letter, but expect a lot of deforestation to land on the doormat.

  • Confused 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers BB - agree - tempted to change address so all mail comes to me rather than daughter - trying to shield her from this. Over last 3 yrs yours and the rests advice has been invaluable in getting their lives back on an even keel. We now control the situation not them

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

this post is just an update on the CC debt which is under control

 

- recap -

 

account was terminated by LTSB

- got a refund of all interest and fees charged after termination. this was about 2 yrs ago.

 

offered a full and final or £10 per month on over £2k. refused f+f so got a paying in book and have been paying in - never missed.

LTSB said would be reviewed after 1 year - they didn't.

 

as coming to end of paying in slips,

I have written to them with the following offer

- either a F+F offer of about 12% or £5 per month due to increase in priority bills over last 24 months.

plus either a new paying in book or SO form (aware DD a no-no).

 

Quite like popping into branch during my lunch hour and chatting to staff - more customers might protect a few jobs.

When in queue always get asked by member of staff, usually male and suited, if they can help by showing how to use one of the machines.

I always reply "yes you can help - why don't you go behind the counter and start serving customers?.

never had a good rely yet but amuses me and those around.

 

Also paying in this for son-in-law and always clearly sign with my own name and never picked up.

on one occasion was asked to speak to one of the managers in a private room

- went along for the fun and

 

after a short while asked him if he knew who i was.

when i pointed out that he should check the paying in slip he was very embarrassed. so much for DPA.

 

Back to serious stuff

- what would be situation should LTSB sell the debt as agreement terminated by them?

Would be inclined to offer them only £1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

rhino - it is not a question of a failed CCA request - LTSB terminated the agreement so no terms and conditions apply to the debt. As far as I am aware the debt is owed and so they have 3 options - accept the offer of installments, sell it or take to court.

 

happy with first two, court would be a problem for them as well and truly lifetime members of the working poor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if rhino posted on the wrong thread??

 

But in answer to your question intend, 'IF' LTSB do sell this on, then yes they will have broken the agreement you had with them, then putting you in more control and quite rightly dropping payments down to the legal minimum of one buck a month.

 

I might also be inclined to set up a SO if they fail to reply with a new paying in book, and drop it to whatever is manageable, if they then throw their rattles out the pram, then simply retort that they were told, they ignored, this is how it's going to be.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep sorry wrong thread.

 

I had a the same problem once where I didn't give them an option in accepting a token payment. I paid it, they didn't send it back thus it was accepted. This was done via a bank account payment so it couldn't be rejected.

 

Maybe I was lucky. I'm not sure where each party stands if you make a payment to them and they don't return the payment , because I'm sure it wouldn't look good in court if they returned what you'd paid.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where each party stands if you make a payment to them and they don't return the payment , because I'm sure it wouldn't look good in court if they returned what you'd paid.

 

That is a very valid point, and one I've not thought of! :thumb:

 

I'm currently paying two debts at the token payment of £1 a month, and they are both claiming that they won't accept

this without their precious I&E form....however, they've never returned a payment yet? Just farmed it out to the usual suspects..

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so far ltsb have not farmed it out - payments to them direct - waiting to see how they react - 3 slips left - one at £10 regardless, then whatever the response think it will be down to a fiver.

 

Rush of blood to head, must be as a result of my recent operation, but got my wife to pay this months 2 weeks early. No reply yet concerning my generous offer - pre-xmas sale of bad debts must have helped the balance sheet and their current assets not to mention the tax liability. And we own it!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

After careful consideration Llyods have rejected my f+f offer. But no mention of accepting reduced payments or sending new payingin book or SO mandate - still bloody useful - next payment not due til end April - looks like it is going down to a fiver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't take what you do not have! and they've probably rejected what you offered because it's their job to. They want more ... but reality says "That's your lot, take it or leave it!". I wouldn't take any notice of what they reject. Just give them what you can afford and tell them to take it or leave it.

 

Seriously even a judge can't make you give what you do not have because it physically isn't there!!!

 

And as for Moorcroft treat them with a much contempt as want. They have no legal right to demand ANYTHING off. it doesn't mattter if they say Our client this and out client that. YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY ( unless you decided to enter into one ). You contract is with the bank and they've terminated the contract then there isn't one to be held to

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for Moorcroft treat them with a much contempt as want. They have no legal right to demand ANYTHING off. it doesn't mattter if they say Our client this and out client that. ** YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT WITH A DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY** ( unless you decided to enter into one ). You contract is with the bank and they've terminated the contract then there isn't one to be held to

Wrong if a debt has been sold the rights of the account go with giving the debt purchaser/DCA the right to collect the deb as " the new beneficial owner". therefore you do have a contract.

 

 

The debt purchaser may assign the right to a debt collection agency to collect/manage the debt.

 

 

This more FOTL nonsense again and it has no merit.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then the original creditor can assign the collection and management of the debt to a DCA, your argument is flawed,

try it in court !!! You will be laughed at.

 

If not sold on the original creditor has every right to assign a DCA to collect/manage a delinquent account end of story!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

intend

as loyds have farmed it out for collection, is prob unlikely that they loyds will accept anything lower in settlement whilst it is with a dca without dca's say so, unless they take it back. plus, when out for collection, loyds seem to usually give their puppets a discount figure when instructing.

maybe likely to do the rounds, and then be up for sale unless loyds decide to take it on themselves thereafter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...