Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bit unfair to come back here the day it's due to be filed.... Looks like london1971 one?  I'm not sure if they did Inc point 5, let @AndyOrch confirm it should be there before filing please A day late won't hurt Dx
    • Last month was confirmed to be the hottest-ever May on record, in terms of global average temperatures, completing an entire calendar year of month-by-month records.  The average temperature last month was 1.52C above the pre-industrial average, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service, known as C3S. The average global temperature for the 12-month period to the end of May was 1.63C (2.9F) above the pre-industrial average
    • This time you do need to reply to them with a snotty letter to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did try court. We will help this evening.  
    • Hi, I just wanted to update the post and ask some further advice  I sent the CCA and CPR request on the 14th May, to date I have had no reply to the CCA but I received a load of paperwork from the CPR request a few days ago. I need to file the defence today and from the information I have read the following seems to be what is required.  I would be grateful if some one could confirm suitability. Many thanks   Claim The claim is for the sum of £255.69 due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a PayPal account with an account reference of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)  The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 15-09-21, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £0.00. The Claimant claims the sum of £255.69   Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had financial dealings with PayPal  in the past but cannot recollect the account number referred to by the Claimant. 2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor the Claimant refers to within its particulars of claim.  3. Paragraph 3 is noted. On the 17/5/2024 I requested information related to this claim by way of a Section 77 request, which was received and signed for by the claimant on 20/5/2024. As of today, the Claimant has failed to respond to this request, and therefore remains in default of the section 77 request and therefore unable to enforce any alleged agreement until its compliance. 4. Therefore it is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and: (b) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice Pursuant to s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 5. Paypal (Europe) S.A.R.L is out of the juristriction of English Courts. 6. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.
    • Thanks @dx100ukI followed the advice given on here... then it went very quiet!  The company was creditfix I think then transferred to Knightsbridge (or the other way around) The scammer independent advisor was Roger Wallis-having checked his LinkedIn profile just this morning, it does look like he's still scamming vulnerable people... I know I was stupid for taking his advice, but i do wonder how many others he has done this to over a longer period of time (it came as a  massive shock to him when our IVA suddenly failed). Lowell have our current address (and phone numbers if the rejected calls over the past couple of days is anything to go by!) No point trying the SB because of the correspondence in 2019? Thanks
  • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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

ULTRA SHORT APPLICATION CERTIFICATE.

 

 

 

 

 

this is a consumer credit agreement.

 

Could this be the clanger?.

 

 

NO THIS IS ULTRA !!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/125619-cap-1-valid-agreement.html?highlight=ULTRA+SHORT

 

 

img002.jpg

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi FC

 

wow thats twice the size of mine........:)

 

and its got the creditors name and a sig (squigle).......why thats almost massive :) very nearly enforceable...if it had all the prescribed terms on it and a load of other stuff :D

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even thats huge........:)

 

I'm not being sizeist here (if thats a word)..but I'm proud that Ive got a small one....(if you know what I mean)

 

I'm quite happy in ALL other departments thank you :)

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, its not the size, its knowing what to do with it that counts...:D

 

There speaks a man (or woman) that obviously knows what they are talking about......:)

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am delighted to say that I haven't got one at all:eek:.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there is something fawlty in the logic of charging 20%:D

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

 

The allocation notice will give 7 days for the order to be queried, but there will have to be a formal application notice submitted with the reasons why.

 

Wasn't there an AQ submitted with a Draft Order for Directions, that agreed to allocation to the small claims track?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hang on a mo........£52k ??? I thought the limit for CCA was £25k

 

WHAT sort of charges have been put on this ???

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

 

 

Where is this happening? (which court?)

 

Surely this should be small claims track cause it's under £1k

But maybe it's because the costs by the lenders are likely to be hefty and over small claims ceilings?

 

Would be interesting to see the actual claim and the lenders defence reasoning for this claim - there must be something that can be done about this surely.

 

I am watching time and time again these companies usimg "costs" as their axe to grind claimants down - it's high time some of these Judges saw through the tactics of these lenders and began dealing with their antics - seems the cases get passed over because people don't want to make decisions about these ruthless lenders?

 

Maybe I been in CAG too long and just cynical about what goes on with these lenders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

AQ's were entered saying small claims track - they put an application saying they wanted it transferred to multi.

 

The hearing was heard and the Judge agreed. He has "stayed" the claim for 56 days so my friend can decide.

 

The balance of 52k is the total balance since it opened. I think the current outstanding is only 9k - but he is only claiming £980!!

 

The bank argued that as he is basically going to benefit and effectively obtain 9k it should be head in multi so that the court can consider the whole circumstances and rule accordingly.

 

The thing with multi is it's proof beyond reasonable doubt isnt it? The only reason theyve asked for this is to scare my friend - the fact is they dont even have an agreement and have admitted this in writing!!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

AQ's were entered saying small claims track - they put an application saying they wanted it transferred to multi.

 

The hearing was heard and the Judge agreed. He has "stayed" the claim for 56 days so my friend can decide.

 

The balance of 52k is the total balance since it opened. I think the current outstanding is only 9k - but he is only claiming £980!!

 

The bank argued that as he is basically going to benefit and effectively obtain 9k it should be head in multi so that the court can consider the whole circumstances and rule accordingly.

 

The thing with multi is it's proof beyond reasonable doubt isnt it? The only reason theyve asked for this is to scare my friend - the fact is they dont even have an agreement and have admitted this in writing!!!

 

Did your friend attend the application hearing and argue against multi- allocation?

 

Regardless of the claim amount, the court can allocate to any track and (even if it's in small claim) can award any amount in Judgment despite what the claim is for - the Judge must agree with the Bank that the whole agreement needs to be considered, so what is it that he is claiming for? Sounds to me like the creditor is going to try to counterclaim for the balance of the agreement, so continuing would be ill-advised, unless the claim is sound and watertight, IMHO. If they have admitted there's no agreement, they are bound by this by s.172 CCA 1974, however.

 

All Civil cases have an evidential burden of on the balance of probabilites - only Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, as there's a risk of imprisonment.

 

I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, but I do think this is best off in it's own thread, un1, as it needs some specific advice as to how to move it on - doing this here isn't going to work as it will get lost.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to their website, its something to do with upper case letters being used where lower case is necessary!

 

Eh?

 

 

The reasoning goes something like this:

 

The banks are corporations and work under commercial law. Human beings cannot work under commercial law so, in theory the bank cannot contract with us. Therefore after you have signed the agreement the bank opens up another account in your name BUT in CAPS. This account is opened up as a coporate account (or a trust). wHEN YOU SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT U WERE SIGNING AS A SURETY FOR THAT ACCOUNT (IN cAPS). tHE BANKs CALL IT A TRANASACTION ACCOUNT. (sorry bout caps) So, when the statements come for payment, your name is in capital letters, which is not you as a human being, it is your 'trust' account. So, effectivley you don't owe them the money as,this then is misrepresentation under contract law. ( Now don't shoot me I'm only the messenger) there is another company doing this on my thread EDIT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below are details of the company they use as their regisrered address. ( Assuming it is not them, although I think it is)

 

Accounting Reference Date: 31/07

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/07/2006 (DORMANT)

Next Accounts Due: 31/05/2008

Last Return Made Up To: 18/07/2007

Next Return Due: 15/08/2008

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasoning goes something like this:

 

The banks are corporations and work under commercial law. Human beings cannot work under commercial law so, in theory the bank cannot contract with us. Therefore after you have signed the agreement the bank opens up another account in your name BUT in CAPS. This account is opened up as a coporate account (or a trust). wHEN YOU SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT U WERE SIGNING AS A SURETY FOR THAT ACCOUNT (IN cAPS). tHE BANKs CALL IT A TRANASACTION ACCOUNT. (sorry bout caps) So, when the statements come for payment, your name is in capital letters, which is not you as a human being, it is your 'trust' account. So, effectivley you don't owe them the money as,this then is misrepresentation under contract law.

 

Where has this come from and do you have more info on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this is what I have found out.

After you have signed the credit agreement, you get a copy. After you have left, the bank stamps the back of this and writes:

Pay £xxx to the order of ( the bank). This is sent to the BofE and held on deposit against the account in CAPS. This changes the credit agreement into a promissory note which can then be treated as cash by the bank.

This makes the agreement unenforceable because they have changed a financial instrument into another one for the sole purpose of benefitting the bank. I understand that this is also fraud.

As the bank then treats this as cash, if you borrowed £5K, the bank use this promissory note as cash and so, using fractional reserve banking, they can then multiply this £5K and 'lend' out £45K to others. ( of course they don't actually lend the money, it's just book keeping entries) So the bank has lent you NOTHING, but demands you repay the capital they never lent you PLUS interest.

As far as I amn aware, the bakn /CC company cannot prove they actually lent you MONEY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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...