Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: 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. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 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 21/12/2022. 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 Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. 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: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Is this against human rights????


Gemini115
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4577 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 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just to be clear - they are not denying the right to appeal. They are considering changing the law so that those who do appeal against a 'fit to work' decision are no longer entitled to any monetary support pending the outome of the appeal. Any other decision resultuing in the cessation of benefit does not provide monetary support; they are looking to bring ESA and IB in line with this. Still gone about it wrong though in typical government fashion.

 

Given the volume of sucessful appeals, I would suggest they consider looking at the assessment process before they should be thinking about removing the monetary support pending appeals. If they got the decisions correct in the first place, that would reduce the bill significantly as it costs a fair few bob to administer an appeal. The idiom 'sweep your own doorstep first' is the one which springs to mind here. They need to look at the cause before thinking of the solution.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When appealing a DLA decision you loose your payment until the appeal is heard, if you win, the payment is then backdated, the goverment are obviousley proposing to do the same with IB/ESA to discourage people from appealing, what a sham, I worry for people who have no other income and no choice but to have to appeal a wrong decision, suppose I will be classed as one of the lucky ones, my husband works in a very well paid job so I wont be without a roof over my head or food on the table, but there will be a lot of sick and disabled people who are. What a shower of ****e this goverment is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear - they are not denying the right to appeal.

 

Ah but imo they are, by denying any form of income to those who wish to challenge a ruling means unless they have any other form of support they they basically starve.

 

This is appalling news. With so many appeals being successful I knew they'd try some kind of dirty trick to try and put people off.

 

I loathe this government.

 

When are they intending bringing these new regulations in anyway? I think the sooner folks start emailing their MP's the better. It probably won't help, but I feel we have to try.

Edited by sadone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Things is nobody outright voted for this bunch AT ALL! Neither had a majority that was the point. We as a nation didn't vote for this kind of thing, nor did we ask for it. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

God I am so angry right about now. Somebody got to do something, surely or are we all so callous now that nobody cares unless it effect them directly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

DLA is withheld during appeal. My wife applied for DLA and was refused, we asked for a review it was still refused, we appealed and as wife couldn't attend appeal it kept getting held by the DWP in the end the tribunal sent round a Doctor and still the DWP objected, but the doctor agreed with my wifes form and they awarded her DLA. It took over 9 months and the money was backdated. Thing is though my wife had her pension and I had my IB and DLA and we also had pension credits, the DLA was extra.

 

If ESA is one's only income to refuse it while waiting is wrong as there is no other benefit they can claim. Thing is this is not new, then they are stopping peoples benefits all the time; if they deem someone is not looking hard enough for a job they'll stop your money for 3 months, if you have no dependents all you'll get is your housing paid for, nothing to pay any bill or buy food, or even to look for work. This could be "acceptable" as the person who has their benefits stopped is "work shy", and the government will be justifying this latest move as we all know every one on IB is also "work shy", as backed up by the press and all these people on IB running marathons, refereeing, and doing extreme sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we should try and fight this outrage. Imo this is a step too far. People will suffer even more financial hardship over this. I can't believe that nobody out there cares so little about a section of society.

 

And as for 'work shy', hell were are all these jobs that the ill are meant to be taking up, eh? Christ It's hard enough for healthy folk to get a job let alone a sick or disabled person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but imo they are, by denying any form of income to those who wish to challenge a ruling means unless they have any other form of support they they basically starve.

 

I don't understand your logic, Sadone. If it is implemented then those affected will starve either way - whether they appeal or not. It will only be an appeal which will carry a prospect of getting their entitlement (eventually) so quite how having no funds pending an appeal outcome would stop people from appealing, when they will still have no funds if they choose not to appeal, is unclear to me. Don't appeal, have no money. Or appeal and have a chance of later getting your money. No contest really.

 

I still disagree with it, and very strongly so.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've tried writing to my MP about all this but it did no good. He (a newly elected conservative in a former Labour seat, brought about by gerrymandering) failed to answer for many months and only did so when I accused the government of not caring. His answer was just to tow the party line; in that the changes where to "help" the sick and disabled back into work, and to "target" sickness benefits to those in most need. The fact that there are not enough jobs for the able-bodied let alone all the sick, and the fact that employers wouldn't risk employing people with many of the conditions for fear of being sued, etc. is ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erika As I understand it those who apply for ESA and get turned down won't be able to claim ESA at assessment rate whilst pending an appeal. Correct?

 

So they either have no money to live on whilst they await their tribunal date as they're too ill to work, or somehow manage to claim JSA which if they were well enough they'd done in the first place, and as some have pointed out in the comments on that link the government will leap onto as confirming they're not sick and will influence their appeal.

 

Take about catch 22.

 

This proposal is an utter disgrace and should be fought every step of the way. I don't know how these ministers manage to sleep at night, I really don't....

Edited by sadone
Link to post
Share on other sites

DLA is withheld during appeal. My wife applied for DLA and was refused, we asked for a review it was still refused, we appealed and as wife couldn't attend appeal it kept getting held by the DWP in the end the tribunal sent round a Doctor and still the DWP objected, but the doctor agreed with my wifes form and they awarded her DLA. It took over 9 months and the money was backdated. Thing is though my wife had her pension and I had my IB and DLA and we also had pension credits, the DLA was extra.

 

That's completely different. They decided that your wife wasn't entitled to DLA. Why would they pay a benefit based on care and /or mobility needs during an appeal, if she was refused?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its blackmail, which I thought was against the law.

 

What they are saying is "if you don't admit you're not sick by claiming JSA, we'll stop all your benefits and you'll starve". They'll probably change the rules on housing benefit so you can't claim that either. Work or die, unfortunately I fear some will end up dieing because they are forced to work!

 

Trouble is some have said they never voted for this kind of government, unfortunatly many did. Those who voted tory knew excatly what they were going to get, and those who voted LD should have known they'd chnge from being left of new labour to anything to get into govenemnt.

 

I nearly voted LD because I thought New labour had gone to far (to the right), but changed my mind. Unfortunatly more voted against this lot, but when given the chance to change the voting system, the majority went with the sytem that favour the lot that are pulling the strings of the liberal puppets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What they are saying is "if you don't admit you're not sick by claiming JSA, we'll stop all your benefits and you'll starve".

 

But you won't get JSA because you're too sick to work. Some people can't get ESA because they're "fit for work" and can't get JSA because they're unfit for work and can't follow the JSA agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you won't get JSA because you're too sick to work. Some people can't get ESA because they're "fit for work" and can't get JSA because they're unfit for work and can't follow the JSA agreement.

 

Exactly. I'm amazed some don't seem to get that. How any kind of government who proclaim they're doing it for the good of the country can then usher through something like this is anybody's guess. Take about evil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4577 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...