Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • 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

CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4607 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

Apparently not. Breaching CPUTR seems to be an effective threat in itself and although I'll admit to not being overly bothered about what companies may or may not be thinking when presented with a request for clarification under CPUTR, I'm assuming that they don't want to run the risk of attracting an investigation by telling lies; whatever form that investigation may takes.

 

I have been referred to Carey, yes..... but once it's been pointed out that Carey was a Claimant and that I had no intention of bringing legal action myself, so what was their point....?.... it went very quiet.

 

:-)

 

 

Hi

Well you may well be right perhaps the creditors where scared off by possible sanctions under the regulation.

Problem is what sanction exactly are they afraid of? I ask this not provocatively but in an attempt to understand.

You say you have roof of the effectiveness of this, I have yet to see any, perhaps I have not looked in the right place.

Creditors have a habit of giving up on a request for a copy if they don’t have one anyway, can it be shown that using this adds any extra weight. Not suggesting it does any harm, but does it do any good.

We have had discussions before about the burden of proof issue in Carey, as you know I think you give that far too much weight also, perhaps that is a different subject.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 354
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Please start such a thread if you feel the need.... If you want to point out how ineffective the regs. are, then feel free to do that as well.... providing you also acknowledge the success that some people have experienced to date by quoting them.

 

No I am sure that everyone does not understand everything they do and sometimes you have to take a leap of faith, that is not the point.

What is being said here is that no one should question, or try to learn, that this is somehow a bad and counterproductive act.

This is nonsense

 

 

 

 

So far, so good.... although I am mindful that nothing in life is completely foolproof. I have issued a recent request to a particularly litigious company/individual and will let you know the outcome as soon as I have it.

 

 

:-)

 

Yes please let us know when some evidence is available

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Well you may well be right perhaps the creditors where scared off by possible sanctions under the regulation. It would seem so.

Problem is what sanction exactly are they afraid of? I ask this not provocatively but in an attempt to understand. You would need to plough through CPUTR to satisfy yourself re. that question.

You say you have roof of the effectiveness of this, I have yet to see any, perhaps I have not looked in the right place. The "proof" is in the responses received back, to date.

Creditors have a habit of giving up on a request for a copy if they don’t have one anyway, can it be shown that using this adds any extra weight. Not suggesting it does any harm, but does it do any good. Apparently so.

We have had discussions before about the burden of proof issue in Carey, as you know I think you give that far too much weight also, perhaps that is a different subject.

Peter

 

Perhaps you do but in all honesty, I don't really care.... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you do but in all honesty, I don't really care.... :-)

HI

Thing is i have read the regs and there doesnt seem to be any sanction available on an individual breach.

This is my problem, hate to agree with Mr Mould but i am affraid he had a point there. I think thieese regs could be of great use if a particular creditor was continually using a proceedure that was unfair and this could be proven.

 

Perhaps this is a factor in that they are aware that enough compaintsl may cause the OFT to act, maybee.

 

As for you proving your case through results i have yet to see evidence of this, i know from what you say that you do not care but perhaps you would humour me and point them out.

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

May I ask a question regarding these regs. Coud I ask a bank for confirmation on whether or not they hold documents relating to a bank account opened in the early 90's. I have asked them for docs in a sar and complained to the ICO for non compliance. They have told the ICO the docs are unavailable.

Daisy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

May I ask a question regarding these regs. Coud I ask a bank for confirmation on whether or not they hold documents relating to a bank account opened in the early 90's. I have asked them for docs in a sar and complained to the ICO for non compliance. They have told the ICO the docs are unavailable.

 

 

 

Hi

Yes I am sure you could ask.

However the sanction for not complying with the SAR is far greater than any you could threaten them with under these regulations. Did they say they did not possess the document in question.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

Thing is i have read the regs and there doesnt seem to be any sanction available on an individual breach.

This is my problem, hate to agree with Mr Mould but i am affraid he had a point there. I think thieese regs could be of great use if a particular creditor was continually using a proceedure that was unfair and this could be proven.

 

Perhaps this is a factor in that they are aware that enough compaintsl may cause the OFT to act, maybee.

 

As for you proving your case through results i have yet to see evidence of this, i know from what you say that you do not care but perhaps you would humour me and point them out.

 

Peter

 

The point you seem to be missing Peter, is that no-one has ever suggested that an individual brings action against a creditor/DCA under CPUTR.... not to my knowledge anyway. If you want to get the gist of how CPUTR has been used and what companies seem to be wary of putting into print when faced with a drect request, then you'll need to re-read the original thread.

 

As for providing you with proof of my own successes, they're in my signature.... and as we're not in court Peter, that's all the "proof" you'll get. If you choose not to believe that, then it's entirely your call. :-)

 

Hi

 

May I ask a question regarding these regs. Coud I ask a bank for confirmation on whether or not they hold documents relating to a bank account opened in the early 90's. I have asked them for docs in a sar and complained to the ICO for non compliance. They have told the ICO the docs are unavailable.

 

They would need to state why those docs. are/were unavailable to the ICO... but unless you could prove otherwise, I don't think CPUTR would be relevant here. My own use of CPUTR has been where a company has claimed to have docs. in their possession but failed to produce them on request, which is a different scenario.

Edited by PriorityOne
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Priorityone

 

Thank you for that, it answers my question. As far as I know the bank has not told the ICO why they could not provide the docs. At least the ICO have not told me if they have.

 

Thank you

Daisy

Link to post
Share on other sites

PD

 

I agree with you that there is no sanction for an individual breach, but what constitutes an indemic breach?

 

For example if both you and your partner each made a request to the same CC company regarding different accounts, and the reply to each of you was the same misleading (unfair) response, would that satisfy indemic breach within that company?

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Priorityone

 

Thank you for that, it answers my question. As far as I know the bank has not told the ICO why they could not provide the docs. At least the ICO have not told me if they have.

 

Thank you

 

The key would be it needs to be 'unfair' - so, it's not unfair to say the docs aren't available when they aren't, but it is unfair to say that they are available, but we're not giving them to you :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I understand now, I need them to admit they have them. Back to square one with this now then as the bank seem unwilling to admit to anything.

 

Thank you Car for explaining the difference.' it's very confusing.

Daisy

Link to post
Share on other sites

daisy

agree with P1. ie maybe n/a in your case at the moment. (if it's the same one?) :)

imo

Edited by Ford
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

daisy

as posted before, if you want to bring the matter to a head you could consider applying for a strike out. yes, the ct may then order them to comply with 31.14, failure of which would result in an auto strike out. there may not, of course, be the potential protection of CPR 38.7.

if they had something concrete to go on, surely they would've acted on it? it has been some time? it is stayed, so they would need to apply to lift the stay if they wanted to continue? which may result in a hearing in itself? what do you think?

imo

Edited by Ford
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter - to clarify some points for you.

 

The CPUTR 2008 is legislation for use by Trading Standards and the OFT to use against companies that mislead or treat consumers unfairly. One area (amongst many other things) they cover are debt collection practices. Therefore if a DCA misleads a consumer then they could be in breach of the CPUTR 2008.

 

The offences can occur individually - therefore it doesn't necessarily matter if breaches are endemic within a company. They can be prosecuted for doing it once.

 

From a practical point of view though the regulators don't have unlimited resources, therefore they will only act if:

 

a) there has been 1 single major breach of the CPUTR 2008

B) the company in question is doing lots of dodgy things which may be considered insignificant on their own but are having a largescale negeative ffect on consumers.

 

For the latter they would require complaint data from a large number of people.

 

As you have pointed out, if they mislead a consumer they may have commited an offence but the individual has no extra civil rights because of that breach. Someone has linked to a consultation where they are trying to bring in civil rights for consumers when they are mislead - simialr to the wording of the CPUTR but slightly more cut back.

 

Therefore when writing to a DCA a consumer shouldn;t make demands under the CPUTR 2008 but point out that the businesses activities may put them in breach of these regulations and therefore mean an offence has been comitted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ford

 

I will wait now and see what they do next. and will update on my own thread. Thanks again everyone.

 

Daisy

 

Getting back to practical/pragmatic issues.... Are they still chasing the debt - despite admitting they don't have the documents you requested?

 

If they are not actively still chasing you then I would just keep a low profile and await on SB kicking in - it's worked once for me.

 

If they do persist in chasing you then I would go down the "prove it" route - and if they seem likely to go to the wire then I would either call their bluff or negotiate a low F&F - both tactics have worked many times for me.

 

Good luck!

 

BD

 

PS - I am giving information on what I would do based on what has worked for me. This is not advice based on knowledge of applicable legislation as I do not care about that and have never understood its logic when I have tried to do so. I used to understand rocket science but that was based on logic - unlike our legal system!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Therefore when writing to a DCA a consumer shouldn;t make demands under the CPUTR 2008 but point out that the businesses activities may put them in breach of these regulations and therefore mean an offence has been comitted.

 

My own course of action in the midst of various threats has been to ask them to confirm or deny in writing that they actually hold certain docs.... and failure to do so while continuing to demand money with menaces would be added to existing complaints with regulatory bodies.

 

Fredrickson International are sailing very close to the wind with this at the moment; having made various attempts to skirt around the issue and continue pursuing regardless, although it normally takes them several weeks to work out what to try and come up with next. They are the 3rd DCA on this particular case.... CPUTR saw off the other two, including one firm of solicitors.

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...