Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  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 wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. 3. 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. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are 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 its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
    • Gosh mate I've woke up this morning with half the worry I had last night when going to sleep!.  I can't believe how much this forum has helped me over the years and I don't  have the words to explain the gratitude I feel towards you guys -  Now that I've slept on it I feel ready to reject this company and my plan is to make them an offer to accept payments to date as full and final settlement - I will I think write them a letter once my review is completed or maybe just send it now whilst they are reviewing explaining my kids are unwell for which reason I'm struggling to survive and if I can politely request for them to accept payment to date as a full and final - I'll mention I don't have any cash or anyone to borrow from to offer a full or even part amount of the remaining balance of the iva and therfore am unable to make a offer of payment.   If they agree to at least even put my offer to the creditors then I feel it's better I hang in there and that way I won't have to deal with any possibilities of more defaults and ccjs    Right now the only adverse effects on my credit report are the iva that is now 3 years old and 2 Ccj one coming of this July and one thus October.    But I am worried new action will begin and new defaults and Ccj may start to appear because I've paying into an agreement im under the impression the 6 year rules starts again so yes I have lost of mixed feelings about this but I'm not going to lie you guys have put some life back into my breath this week as for the last 3 years I've felt caged like an animal and this morning I feel freer I can't explain how much but certainly my soul feel lighter today thanks to yin because I'm now viewing this review totally different to I do yesterday thanks to you guys 
    • Court name UNKNOWN Case number ********** Amount N/A Confirmed by Insolvency Service Date issued May 2021 Type Voluntary Arrangement Notes If you have questions about voluntary arrangements you should speak to the Insolvency Service.     I started this in 2021. So it's been about 3 years I've been paying. 
    • Thanks @lookinforinfo@Nicky Boyi sent across the agreement earlier in this thread. No mention of financial reward to the MA. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on the sly. As I said earlier, the owner of OPS is a convicted criminal, with a very shady reputation around these parts.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4803 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 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

yes i did ploddertom paid them 100 straight off when they came then installments totalling 430.00 they wanted too much money they wanted a ridiculous amount each month they totally ignored income/expenditure and my vunerable status then came with the van to speak to my Oh who also listed trying to get at him but i was told after they did this the vunerable status applies to the household and not just an individual who works there the liability is all paid off in my eyes just the fees outstanding of 110.+ 60 thats what im trying to establish whether the council have paid them off first and i still have liability left with the council they wouldnt tell me yesterday

Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to your question about the Waiting Fee, remind the Council that the Bailiff can only charge fees as in The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and specifically Schedule 5 Charges connected with distress, the current structure is in the link below - might be an idea to print and take a copy with you. In particular you will notice there is no reference to either a Waiting Fee or a Credit/Debit Card Transaction Fee.

 

http://www.herefordshire.gov.uk/docs/Enforcement_Agent_Charges.pdf

 

Also you should argue your point over the levy as to its validity as you believe the items therein contained do not meet the following conditions because of their low value:

Items which removed for sale must:

1 - Cover all Bailiff Fees

2 - Cover all removal and storage costs

3 - Cover all charges of the auction

4 - Cover all the Auctioneers costs

5 - Pay an amount to the debt owing

As your original LO was in excess of £1300 then the levy he took only had a nominal value - say £100 max - and you therefore beilieve the Bailiff only made a levy to gain a financial advantage for himself & his Company. As you are aggrieved by this levy you are intending to file a Regulation 46 Complaint at the local Magistrates Court and will name the Council as Defendant unless the levy and all associated fees - Walking Possession & Van Fee - are removed within the next 7 days.

 

If I remember rightly the link below might give an inkling of the Councils Code of Practice for their Bailiffs. Read & absorb.

 

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/download/3470/bailiff_code_of_practice

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the only means of getting the arrogant b off the doorstep one has to accept under protest + can nearly guarantee nothing was said at the time. 80p in this case is cheap there are instances of others being charged much more. Like everything with these parasites why give them a penny more than they may be due!

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Door step transaction, nothing said at the time...

 

You might have hit on something there.

 

Do you remember a brief fiasco where supermarkets had to 'discount' the card fee off your grocery total then add it back specifically as a card fee? (even though they didn't actually charge you for it)

 

It was / is a legal technicality relating to card fees and detailed breakdowns on invoices.

 

Since bailiffs rarely, if ever give proper receipts on the spot - there might an avenue to explore.

 

I'll get googling.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

update... just got back from the council to give my statement regarding said council employee and his work ethics.. and apparantly its a very serious matter and will be dealt with accordingly, then a helpful lady head of revenues came and sat with me and went through the account... the council have already paid the bailiff fees as i feared rossers invoiced them and council have paid.. However they want a comprimise and want me to pay half towards and they will swallow half of the costs, i basically said i will go away and have a think..

 

basically she was telling me there are guidelines in place for levy/wpo 1st visit 2nd visit and removal, but nothing in place for bailiff waiting fees thats up to the bailiff companies discretion "apparantly" so my questions are ....

 

1. can i go and sit outside rossendales office and charge £60 waiting fee :-D

2.does half sound fair or shall i go the whole hog

3.where do i stand with rossendales now as they have been paid off? can i reclaim anything off them?

 

 

 

any help appreciated many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

basically she was telling me there are guidelines in place for levylink3.gif/wpo 1st visit 2nd visit and removal, but nothing in place for bailiff waiting fees thats up to the bailiff companies discretion "apparently" so my questions are ....

 

bailiffs can only charge fees set out in legislation there is noting in place for this because there is no such fee

bailiffs are governed by the distress for rent rules its actually very worrying that the council are allowing bailiffs to charge fees that are not set out in legislation and i personally would take this as far as the ombudsman if necessary

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2050/contents/made

Fees, Charges and Expenses

 

10. No person shall be entitled to charge, or recover from, a tenant any fees, charges or expenses for levying a distress, or for doing any act or thing in relation thereto, other than those authorised by the tables in Appendix 1 to these Rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i thought i was strange coz i sat there and said so basically your telling me other than the guidlelines they can charge whatever they want and she said yes lol, she even said your husband is not vunerable thats why they came... my answer what twice?? so i laid it down that the "household" is vunerable and she went aah yes thats where the confusion come from???? ah well anyway ive sent an email off to rossers entailing invalid levy etc etc because the bailiff only levied to seek financial gain for himself and company, given them 7 days to refund or threatened to file a regulation 46 complaint at local magistrate court... lets see where that gets me, on a misson now not going to stop untill i get full refund:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is an absolute disgrace what you have witnessed this morning. Rottendales having billed the Council is not your problem. They have overcharged you and the Council are ppearing to condone this. Simple way of getting it all back is to submitan N1 in the County Court nmaing both Rottendales & Council as Co-defendnts.

 

A Formal Complaint should be addressed to the CEO of the Council alleging their employees do not know what they are doing or saying and should be retrained in the laws surrounding the Administration & Enforcement of Council Tax.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Rossers are even prepared, and able, to rip the council off with illegal fees.

 

Sometimes i feel sorry for revenues dept. staff, being placed in a confrontational job with no appropriate training. I hope some of them turn round and sue the councils for stress, and of course being complicit in fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

hi all an update i complained to rossers and this is the response i recieved good reading in my opinion

 

YOUR COMPLAINT

Having read your complaint, i have highlighted the issues i believe you would like us to investigate..

 

1. You state the levy is invalid

2. You state the visit on the 12th february 2010 was a fee gaining exercise

2. You state a waiting fee cannot be charged.

4. You state the bailiff humiliated you in front of neighbours

5. You state the bailiff did not withdraw from the property even though the company was aware of a vunerable status within the household.

 

MY INVESTIGATION

 

I have reviewed our records and i have spoken to the bailiff in relation to the visit to your property on the 25th november 2010.

Please note that the levy was completed by a first call bailiff, as rossendales work on a two tier basis, the first call bailiff will NOT in practise make a thorough diligent search of the property, confining there enquiries to around the area the meeting took place. In this scenario the goods listed may well appear to be inadequate, however if installments are not maintained at an agreed level, the case is issued to an enforcement bailiff who would make a thorough diligent search, and able to list goods NOT previously listed by the first call bailiff.

 

Our records show on the 16th February 2010 we received a complaint from you concerning our bailiffs attendance on the 12th of febuary 2010. This matter was investigated and a response sent to you on the 1st march 2010 concluding rossendales had acted correctly. as advised in our response when we received your letter where you confirmed Mrs ****** was taking **** tablets we contacted our client *** mbc for there instructions on this matter. The council advised us as the account was in joint names we were to proceed.

 

In regard to the attendance fee and waiting fee incurres on your account, only one attendance fee is incurred on an account at the standard rate agreed by our clients, this was charged to your account 12th february 2010. Please notew when the bailiff subsequently attended on the 25th november 2011, as the bailiff was in attendance for over an hour, a waiting fee was incurred for the additional time in attendance.

 

I have spoken to the enforcement bailiff, who attended at your address on the 25th november 2010, unfortunately due to the time lapse she is unable to recall the details of her visit, the bailiff however stated if a third party was present she would ask to speak to you in private, if there is a situation where you were outside when she was speaking, she would speak at a level which would not be heard by neighbours.

 

As the bailiff is unable to recall the details of the visit, i have reviewed the attendance notes made by the bailiff at the time of her visit, in these notes it has stated you advised mrs **** was a vunerable person, the bailiff rang the office and was advised our client had recently advised us to continue with action on your account, the bailiff states she asked for proof of mrs **** vunerability which you were unable to provide.

 

MY FINDINGS

After reviewing your account, i note the levy is valid and the fees on your account have been legally incurred and stand

The bailiffs notes at the time of the visit refers to mrs **** stating she was vunerable, however the notes provided also refer to mr ****being present at the time of the visit.

Your accoount has at this time been passed to **** mbc to allow to pay them directly.

 

I can confirm this complaint has been recorded at stage 1 of the rossendales complaint proceedure, if you are unsatisfied with the way your complaint has been handled you may take your complaint to stage 2 of rossensales complaint proceedure, which will be addressed by a team leader or manager, please provide written response specifying your areas of concern in order a full review can be conducted.

 

your sincerley

******

complaints officer

rossendales ltd

 

 

loads wrong with has made me chuckle a little, please let me know your thoughts

Link to post
Share on other sites

:shock::wink::???::madgrin:

 

Sorry I thought you had posted the opening of a new story by Enid Blyton. Are these people that thick to believe this is actually how this is done.I imagine that because of all the cock ups that Rottendales make they have employed mainly "1st Call Bailiffs" and in actual fact must only have 1 "enforcement Bailiff" withing the whole Company. Training Procedures are obviously conducted by the induction class at Rottendales Nursery School but they have invested in the new turbo charged abacus which which is presently under investigation for advising 2 + 2 = 5 or any other number but 4.

 

Frankly what they have written in unbelievable and is so full of holes & inaccuracies that an Eddie Stobart truck could be driven through it.

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My 12 year old grandaughter could write a better essay than this feeble attempt by Rottendales, while my 6 year old grandson can spin a yarn that has at least a small enough element of truth to keep you guessing.

 

"Oh what a tangled web is weaved when spun on threads to deceive"

Edited by wonkeydonkey
Link to post
Share on other sites

PT you had me roling l on the floor laughing haha did you note the typist wasnt that great either (was typed word for word by me) on one part they put 25th nov 2011, i didnt invite the bailiff to stop for over an hour in fact she wasnt here 30 mins because she was stopping me from picking my kids up from school (which i now understand as another bailiff ploy) pity the last "2nd tier enforcement agents" memory is that poor whens shes adding ficticious fees on to her account, i have of course asked for this to be esculated to level 2 complaints proceedure where im sure Lynda la plant will be drafting her novel up pretty soon lol.

 

WD i no my 6 yr old is good at telling stories and white lies too but normally when i tell him il be contacting chief inspector dufus i get the truth out lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

i could be wrong but i dint think you could add more items to an already established levy?? someone correct me if i am wrong... iok so this raises another query they have just admitted first call bailiff generally doesnt do a mine sweep of the house and everything is done in the one room where discussions are being taken place so they more or less have stated he didnt clap his eyes on anything and i could have listed a whole load of tosh that i dont actually own

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT you had me roling l on the floor laughing haha did you note the typist wasnt that great either (was typed word for word by me) on one part they put 25th nov 2011, i didnt invite the bailiff to stop for over an hour in fact she wasnt here 30 mins because she was stopping me from picking my kids up from school (which i now understand as another bailiff ploy) pity the last "2nd tier enforcement agents" memory is that poor whens shes adding ficticious fees on to her account, i have of course asked for this to be esculated to level 2 complaints proceedure where im sure Lynda la plant will be drafting her novel up pretty soon lol.

 

WD i no my 6 yr old is good at telling stories and white lies too but normally when i tell him il be contacting chief inspector dufus i get the truth out lol

Wouldn't you think that as Rottendales know that ultimately their "chief inspector dufus" is likely to be at best a magistrate and possibly a County Court Judge they would take the lead from a 6 year old and tell the truth??

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK now down to the serious stuff.

 

I appreciate you may well have answered most of this previously but I just want to get an accurate picture.

 

1 - do you still owe the Council? If so how much? If the answer is £0 have the Council confirmed the LO is discharged.

2 - do you still owe Bailiff Fees? If so how much? If the answer is yes do you have to pay through the Council or direct to Bailiff?

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PD as it stood 2 weeks ago i owd £567.00 i paid off £400 then and there as i said i wouldnt pay rossers fees because i am querying them and i wanted the liabilty cleared,... whilst i was paying i had an unfortunate dealing with a council worker who said some not so nice things i made a complaint about him and i got to have a meeting with top dog of council where i gave a statement in this meeting because of the seriousness of my complaint they tried to come to a comprimise they offered to pay off £100 off the £167 remaining. so as of last week i have a ct liabilty/demand thingy saying i owe £67

 

if your still following lol the council had already paid rossers there fees and i have to pay the council so all that is remaining sof ar is £67.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...