Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. 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. 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 24/12/2022. 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 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: _____________________
  • 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

Quick Quid Sold Gothia **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4771 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all, Just received a email from qq about how they sold the loan i owe to Gothia after no payment was made after a Default Notice was sent. Well i never received a defaulft notice to my knowledge as i thought i was getting nearer to a 3 month repayment plan. What are Gothia like to deal with????

 

Any help would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gothia are okay, but you MJUST remember with this type of loan you CANNOT use the default notice and termination notice route - these loans are not covered by the same rules due to the onerous nature of the interest rates and default fees.

 

Get Gothia to drop any default fees added and work in the basis of the loan amount borrowed plus one months interest fee.

 

You are dealing with a very grey area of the law here and as said previously you CANNOT go down the same route as a credit card or bank charge route takes you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly payday loans come outside the regulated agreement rules, Quick Quid in particular is operated via Cashnetusa and are therefore 'not applicable to an American based company' (MBNA tactics.....). Some agreements are regulated but the majority are better dealt with by using the unfair terms and conditions.

 

These companies think nothing of 'raiding' somebody's bank account at will should you not pay up... and continue to do so beyond reason. We have cases here of £150 loans being turned into £1200. I have successfully challenged several companies now on behalf of Caggers and don't even go down the default route - I think this is now a red herring and a 'red flag' to some judges since the Rankine debacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how this has become the prevailing opinion. All QQ credit agreements state:

 

 

FIXED-SUM LOAN AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974

 

1. PARTIES TO AGREEMENT

 

CashEuroNet UK, LLC

A company incorporated in Delaware in the United States of America

Communications House

26 York Street

London, W1U 6PZ

 

They are bound by the CCA, the OFT, Trading Standards, all regulations governed by English Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst they state that they do not recognise it.... it is just there as 'dressing' as are all their other terms and conditions. I've been dealing with the payday loans on this site for some time now and they operate the same way as a mobile phone contract.

 

If you look at the number of successes I have had with the 'statement defence' you will see that they have no room to use their terms and conditions other than as penalties, and that their pocs often are fatally flawed and that alone is enough for a short defence to kill the claim.

 

Read the Tower Capital threads to see how flawed their POCs are.

 

I am not going to argue the point with you on the forum. We are entitled to our opinions and experience and in this case it is experience which has been winning these cases... experience learnt from other failed cases where they start with the default notice issues. The POCs are often vague and misleading and quote the wrong amount, wrong interest rate and wrong names..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which exactly is what the defences I have had considerable success with have done, we have started with the POCs (which have always been very bald and flawed) and had companies run away, be asked to redraft POCs (when they have discontinued the claim) and cave in during mediation, not wanting to discuss the interest rate issue with a judge - do not forget with this type of loan the interest rate alone is enough to hang the company in a courtroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure. I suspect part of the problem is jurisdiction with payday loan cases; it's simply a new form of loan sharking dressed up in websites and flashy adverts. We never hear of the cases where these companies win in court. We won't hear of the ones where they have lost either because I believe that they simply do not exist.

 

If anyone can point me to a case where they have won in court I'd like to see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I helped won a case for one of the CAGGERS in court, but the site is forbidden to give the details, desipte the fact that the other side mentioned he was using the internet to AVOID paying, we used the thread as evidence to the contrary, look up Skyblue2007 and you will see the details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do heartily agree that it is loansharking dressed up to look 'legal'. If you google you will see a lot of these companies are based offshore, do not have physical offices (most use registered offices in London to hide their real whereabouts) and when you start searching Companies House the whole story becomes even more muddied.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I helped won a case for one of the CAGGERS in court, but the site is forbidden to give the details, desipte the fact that the other side mentioned he was using the internet to AVOID paying, we used the thread as evidence to the contrary, look up Skyblue2007 and you will see the details.

 

Why is the site forbidden to document the case?

 

I'll have a look at the thread, thanks.

 

I do heartily agree that it is loansharking dressed up to look 'legal'. If you google you will see a lot of these companies are based offshore, do not have physical offices (most use registered offices in London to hide their real whereabouts) and when you start searching Companies House the whole story becomes even more muddied.....

 

Absolutely. I suspect that jurisdiction with these companies is going to become more relevant.

 

I've been approached by a client with an APR quoted at 165,040.2% for a payday loan. I couldn't quite catch my breath.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...