Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Bankfodder thank you for your interest and your comments.   There are issues with ground rents AND service charges. In my case, non residential, not eligeable for Tier 1 tribunal so there is no possibility of holding the leaseholder to account for unreasonable service charges because of the loophole below. Even if it is residential see Richard Barclay and others quoted in the article above. You win the case about unreasonable costs yet have to pay the leaseholders court fees for loosing their case! Criminal!!!   From the article I quoted above.  'The Times reported that last year leasehold owner Richard Barclay successfully recovered £1,200 of a £10,100 service charge from the management company in respect of his central London Flat. But the victory soon turned sour when Barclay was hit with a bill for £61,300 in legal fees by Quadrant Property Management who takes care of the building.   The loophole is contained in the majority of leases which typically allow freeholders to recoup their legal costs from leaseholders, even if the freeholder loses the case. There is no parallel right for leaseholders to claim costs back.    
    • The online retailer wants to buy the brands, not their shops, suggesting any deal would cost jobs. View the full article
    • I have gone through nearly the whole sar return, it is very large. I am confident to say there is no mention of a default notice within it. 
    • Change Zoom to Online as Zoom is only one platform, and they might use another, it has become the accepted terminology, but best not to refer to a specific platform.  Otherwise looks good The rteal devil of Simon's claim is that he is trying to imply a contract that depends on a Prohibition for Consideration, And its one sided as the person he is binding has no benefit from the contract, apart from paying £100 for the privilege of stopping however briefly.  a nanosecond, a minute 30 minutes kerching that'll be £100 or else.  Simon has also invoiced cars stopped at a Zebra crossing with people crossing at an airport.
    • When she rang BT did she just "mention" about cancelling her Bb contract or did she actually tell them to cancel it?   I've just renegotiated my Bb contract with BT (I know they're useless but I can't be bothered doing too much work to look at any other provider) and I've managed to save money plus they are meant to record 'phone calls and I know (because I spoke to several different call handlers over two weeks) thatthey take very accurate notes of their conversations with customers.   She needs to find out if she actually did cancel the contract.  (I'm sure others will suggest doing a SAR).   Also what sort of contract did she have with BT?  Presumably it included Bb, mobile phone and Sky?  If the contract had just renewed, BT should have emailed her confirming contract details including duration, how to cancel and cancelation fees.  They've just done this for me for the contract I renegotiated two days ago.   EDIT:  It's not clear, but are you saying she's been charged £800 cancelation for Bb or are you saying shae hasn't paid them £800 she owes on her phone?   She ought to be able to look at her BT account online to see what she owes and how her bills are made up.  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Court Papers From Bryan Carter


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3492 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I have received court papers within 48 hours of a DCA from Bryan Carter.

 

The DCA was for a recovery owed to Arrow Global which when questioned by phone on receipt of DCA to Bryan Carter the origin of the debt wasn't revealed.

 

The claimant on the form is Phoenix recoveries of Luxembourg.

 

The particulars of the claim are for price of goods sold and delivered between 19/02/2004 and 17/02/2009.

 

Where do I find out what the debt is for so that I can defend against it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like ebay linked

 

whats the story.?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not up to you to prove a debt exists,

that's a job for the claimant

- in this case his solicitors, our Bryan.

 

To defend the claim you acknowledge service of the papers and state you intend to defend the action.

 

Normally Bryan files his claims via Northampton but defending it will mean it is transferred to a county court local to you.

 

Its fair to say our Bryan doesn't like that much as he will have to pay someone to represent his firm at any hearing.

 

rarely gets to that though because simply defending it usually leads to a discontinuance.

 

Demanding the paperwork as per the normal court process usually leads to the same result.

 

You are always free to slap him with a claim for your costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to legal forum

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This should make them discontinue.

 

1)The defendant has no knowledge of entering into any form of purchase agreement with the claimant and is embarrassed by the lack of documentation supporting the claimants averrment that these goods were purchased by and delivered to the defendant. Having no knowledge of any sales/purchase agreement for the goods averred by the claimant under a statement of truth to have been supplied and delivered to the defendant the claimant is unable to either admit or deny anything which is not expressly denied within this defence.

2) The defendant denies ever purchasing goods from the claimant.

3) The defendant denies ever receiving goods from the claimant.

4) The defendant denies ever entering into a purchase, rental or lease agreement in any form with the claimant.

5) The defendant therefore puts the claimant to strict proof of the following:

(i) That the defendant purchased the goods from the claimant including:

(a) A description of the goods claimed to have been purchased.

(b) The cost(s) of the goods claimed to have been purchased

(ii) The date(s) of any such alleged purchases.

(iii) The delivery times of these alleged purchases.

(iv) The delivery addresses of these alleged purchases.

(v) Proof of any and all purchase/sales contracts agreed and executed between the defendant and the claimant.

 

6) Prima facie the claimant knows or ought to know that there is no contract nor was there ever a contract between the defendant and the claimant for the supply of goods as pleaded, therefore the claimants claim is speculative and furthermore amounts to an absolute abuse of the process. Accordingly the defendant avers the claim ought to be struck out as an abuse as the claimant holds no cause of action and therefore the claimants conduct is unreasonable in bringing a claim without foundation.

7)The defendant seeks the claimants claim to be dismissed with an order as to costs thrown away in favour of the defendant.

8)The defendant avers the claimants claim to be speculative at best and expects the claimant to discontinue the claim upon receipt of acknowledgment that the claim has been defended and that therefore a default judgment will not be awarded. In this event the defendant requests that a costs order be made in favour of the defendant without further application if the claimant fails by the point of discontinuance (if any) to satisfy the Court that this claim as pleaded has any lawful merit.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for your posts and I appreciate all the information given but I think I will pay them, NOT!!!!

I have acknowledged service on Monday 23/5 with intention to defend and sent Carter a CPR 31 the same day. Should I wait now for a reply from Carter to enter the defence or just enter now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would enter the defence asap. It defeats the fraudulent POC's and affords you the protection of CPR 38.7 which should prevent you being chased for this alleged debt in court again. carter will have two choices once the defence is filed: proceed on a deceptive claim which is 100% unprovable or discontinue and leave themselves liable to your costs, lose/lose for Carter once a defence is filed.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done now I guess you just sit back and wait for them to discontinue.

 

If they do discontinue then CPR38.7 kicks in now you've filed the defence and you should be looking to enter a wasted costs claim against them for your research and preparation time and expenditure incurred in preparing the defence.

 

If they don't discontinue then they have an even bigger problem IMO. those POC's are fraudulent and could be portarayed as a blatant attempt to disenfranchise the defendant of their statutory rights under the CCA1974 which would have been available to you if they had entered the claim in an honest manner more representative of the true facts.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well I am surprised that so soon after my last posting that I have update on the claim. I have received today a letter from Bryan Carter dated the 1st June that the claim has been discontinued. Thanks everybody for advice and events have happened as scripted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

make SURE the court are aware, he can still be sneaky that way....

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations, that was quick wasn't it under a week from defence to discontinuaton almost makes you think that they're just looking to make a profit speculating on undefended claims.

 

you may be entitled to costs and we even went so far as to predict what might happen in sec 8 of your defence so it might be worthwhile contacting the court to see whether an order for costs might be made. As an LIp 30 hours researching the law and a completely unfounded claim from a company you've never dealt with or heard of before @ the going rate (£9.25 I think) plus further time for typing up the defence, plus postage costs etc might make these shysters think a little harder before trying it on with the next vexatious claim.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites
" make SURE the court are aware, he can still be sneaky that way...." dx100uk

 

How do I make Sure as nothing showing at MCOL so far.

 

you should get official confirmation just now. but in the meantime, could give the court a quick call to confirm. well done btw :)

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No track had been assigned, so the case was trackless. Costs are therefore claimable, IMO.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

well folks ready for this.....

 

Brian Carter took me to court over a debt. brian carter discontinued to me by letter. this is the fun part.i telephoned the court last monday. Brian carter HASNT discontinued to the court. sold the debt to another company call RED Castles recovery. their cliant is now phoenix recoveries. and sent me a letter which i recieved today stating that they want the money in full if payment is not made in 7 days legal action will be taken against me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It was excellent advice to 'phone the court to check, they're well known for pretending to discontinue.

2) When we've all finished ROFL'ing and LOL'ing at BC's crass ineptitude I'm sure you will get the help you need to put these fools to bed once and for all.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites
well folks ready for this.....

 

Brian Carter took me to court over a debt. brian carter discontinued to me by letter. this is the fun part.i telephoned the court last monday. Brian carter HASNT discontinued to the court. sold the debt to another company call RED Castles recovery. their cliant is now phoenix recoveries. and sent me a letter which i recieved today stating that they want the money in full if payment is not made in 7 days legal action will be taken against me.

 

 

bc are snakes, and they know it!

was it assigned properly?

so, the claim is still 'live' at mcol?

maybe the 'new' owners were not aware that it is currently subject to a court claim?

if they want to try and continue with the current claim, they would need to apply to be substituted as the 'new' claimant. and, the courts permission would be required. see civil procedure rules part 19 and practice direction 19a.

imo

Edited by Ford
typo

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

good call dx.......!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter received from Resolution Legal services stated that they are acting on behalf of Pheonix Recoveries (uk) Limited S.A.R.L the named claimant on the County Court papers through their agent Red Castle Recoveries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as above, they would have to have applied to be substituted? maybe give the court a quick call to see if that is the case?

was it assigned properly?

imo

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...