Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "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. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
  • 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

Help! Husband's 18year old mortgage debt landed on our doorstep today. I'm terrified.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4045 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 822
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That proves that Halifax own it,

just send the letter to SS recorded delivery.

 

What proves that Halifax still own the debt. ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, here is the letter...just the one to be sent to Shoosmiths 1st class recorded first thing tomorrow.......

 

 

In response to your letter of the 16th September with regards to the above account.

 

The documentary evidence you have provided of alleged payments merely comprises a list of abbreviations and supposed receipts. Their source is in no way explained and there is no evidence that any of these payments were made by me. I require proof from whom these payments came, in what form they were made and in the case of cheque or card transactions full details of the account/s they allegedly came from. I would also ask that you provide me with the addresses connected with these occasions and any covering letters.

The copy of the extremely brief letter you allege I sent in 2004, bears no signature, despite the spacing to indicate otherwise, and could indeed have been drafted by anyone at any time.

In final response to your allegations it is obvious that, even if these correspondences and payments had been from my hand, the most recent is over 7 years old and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, of which the Halifax is a member, states that mortgage debts should not be pursued after six years and as this is the case I shall not be making any payment or offer of payment now or in the future.

I now consider your pursuit of this matter to be harassment. Under the circumstances set out above I suggest you should return this matter to your client.

I await your confirmation that you will not pursue this matter any further.

 

 

Yours Faithfully

 

 

i think i like that ending. you are now harassing me. refer back to your client!

short, sweet and very black and white!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think that will do nicely. As there is doubt whether Halifax are still involved with collecting the debt, I would not bother with them at this stage.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if the Halifax, which by the way i believe are now owned by Lloyds and part owned by us, own the debt....

Why are they chasing a 7 year from last communication old debt, which is clearly against the CML guidelines???

 

(oooh, listen to me, like i know what i'm talking about??!!hahahahhha)

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if the Halifax, which by the way i believe are now owned by Lloyds and part owned by us, own the debt....

Why are they chasing a 7 year from last communication old debt, which is clearly against the CML guidelines???

 

(oooh, listen to me, like i know what i'm talking about??!!hahahahhha)

 

This is partly why I raised the question about ownership of the debt. You have never mentioned that SS have been back to the Halifax and the Halifax have provided a letter of instruction to SS, as to how they pursue this. They just refer to ...their clients..... from which you would presume it was the Halifax. Surely if the Halifax were involved, the position would be more definate. Halifax know the CML rules about not pursuing debts after 6 years, but a debt collection agency might not or are not bothered, as the CML rules don't apply to them.

 

You could add a sentence to the letter. If your clients are the Halifax, if they still wish to pursue this, will you please provide the name and address of the person dealing with this, so that I can take up a formal complaint, with referral to the FOS if necessary.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

so they are being deliberately ambiguous. My OH has not received any Notice of Assignment though.

 

UB, how would i phrase and where would i put that sentence in the letter please, my brains getting sore from all this thinking..

i have posted an avatar of how all this is making me feel, do you like it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are being deliberately misleading in their letters, I think SS would be in trouble with the SRA.

 

I would add it as the last sentence.

 

Dear Madam

 

Your Ref:

 

In response to your letter of the 16th September with regards to the above account.

 

The documentary evidence you have provided of alleged payments merely comprises a list of abbreviations and supposed receipts. Their source is in no way explained and there is no evidence that any of these payments were made by me. I require proof from whom these payments came, in what form they were made and in the case of cheque or card transactions full details of the account/s they allegedly came from. I would also ask that you provide me with the addresses connected with these occasions and any covering letters.

 

The copy of the extremely brief letter you allege I sent in 2004, bears no signaturelink3.gif, despite the spacing to indicate otherwise, and could indeed have been drafted by anyone at any time.

 

In final response to your allegations it is obvious that, even if these correspondences and payments had been from my hand, the most recent is over 7 years old and the Council of Mortgage Lenders, of which the Halifaxlink3.gif is a member, states that mortgage debts should not be pursued after six years and as this is the case I shall not be making any payment or offer of payment now or in the future.

I now consider your pursuit of this matter to be harassment and will not hesitate in making a complaint with Trading Standards, the SRA and the OFT. ( I am sending a copy of this letter to the Halifax to make them aware of my position and that that they are infringing the CML code of conduct. ) (delete this, if you are not sending to the Halifax)

 

I await your confirmation that you will not pursue this matter any further.

 

However, if your clients are the Halifax, if they still wish to pursue this, will you please provide the name and address of the person dealing with this, so that I can take up a formal complaint, with referral to the foslink3.gif if necessary.

Yours Faithfully

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

mmmn, seems a bit clunky?

 

something about if your clients are... doesn't sound right? professional?

 

what about..... However, if your client, the Halifax, still wishes to pursue this, will you please provide their contacts name and address , so that I can take up a formal complaint, with referral to the fos if necessary.

 

how does that sound????

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for saying, "If your clients are the Halifax", is that I have a feeling that they might not be. If SS were representing Halifax, why is this not made explicity clear ? From what you have said the letters SS are issuing appear deliberately vague. Also some of the transactions would appear to indicate that Halifax had sold the debt. Why would Halifax buy the debt back, if they had sold it ?

 

I would therefore include Halifax in the last sentence, as SS inferred this is the case. So add the sentence you suggest...... However, if your client, the Halifax, still wishes to pursue this, will you please provide their contacts name and address , so that I can take up a formal complaint, with referral to the fos if necessary.

 

I think if you just said client, they might just write back, saying that their client intends to pursue this further, as they believe that neither the CML code of conduct or the limitation act are relevant to the debt. If you said Halifax, if this is a wrong assumption, as solicitors they have a duty in my opinion to correct this. I doubt the SRA would be happy if the correspondence from SS was not clear.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you my dear UB, that will be it... letter is printed and will be posted , first class recorded, tomorrow!:-D

 

acually what about just saying, if the Halifax...dropping the your client bit???

 

no, you're right UB, leave it at...if your client, the Halifax, still wish to pursue this...

 

thank you so much!

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you my dear UB, that will be it... letter is printed and will be posted , first class recorded, tomorrow!:-D

 

acually what about just saying, if the Halifax...dropping the your client bit???

 

no, you're right UB, leave it at...if your client, the Halifax, still wish to pursue this...

 

thank you so much!

 

No, you believe that SS have led you to believe that their client is the Halifax. You need to state this, so that they have a chance to correct you, if this is not the case.

 

Stop overthinking this, as that would be dangerous (brain ache !!) and get the letter sent off.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...