Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Okay, perfect. they did say BS is invoked as soon as i fill in their application form, ill get a pin. i had to press them more on this as they didnt want to discuss BS much. so i should fill in the form and get the pin, then i can initiate BS. What will follow and what should i do after? Thanks again for all the help and patience.
    • Good evening, so not a good weekend reviewing paperwork -- I have lost some proofs of postage.. also, although not provided at CCA, they have now supplied a DN in their WS, please see scan of claimants WS (without statements) Document with tick boxes as signatures doesn't look like an agreement and is split across pages. Documents have been stapled and copied multiple times looking at the top left of them. Aside from that, having read other threads, I suspect they have everything? appreciate your input please Sorry for heavy redactions, I noticed the paperwork was see-through LinkHalifaxCC1.compressed.pdf
    • Received a final demand today Final demand.pdf
    • Here is my final draft: I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.   1.        The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date.   2.        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 wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants 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.   3.        The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’.  The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents.   4.        Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018.   5.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020.   6.        Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicotors is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’   7.        I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’.   8.        The claimant relies upon and exhibits a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement.   It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HH Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’.   The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause.   9.        Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not try to mislead the court.   10.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are 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 its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024
    • Only trying to help.  Ain't being nasty.  Some
  • 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

old Egg loan ScotCall/Arrow Global/Westcot - Now Claimform***Claim Discontinued***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1783 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

Back from Court. Did not go quite how I thought it would:

 

Judge breezed past the point on why the stay should be lifted and said she could see no reason why it shouldn't be, despite the previous judge's statements. She then jumped straight into the main reasons of my defence, namely the unsigned agreement and the lack of a default notice.

 

The 'tickbox' agreement - the claimant brought up Bassano vs Toft 2014 EWHC327 which found that an electronic signature was sufficient proof of the agreement by the signee. The judge agreed with him that this was sufficient despite the points I reiterated.

 

The default notice: The claimant maintained that as the original agreement ran it's course, a default notice was not required. At first it seemed as if the judge was going to agree, but I cited section 87 of the CCA and she sat reading for quite a while. She said as the last £1 payment was made in 2009, clearly there had to be a breach of the agreement, which then falls under sec 87, but also under sec 86 the debtor was obligated to issue the defendant with a notice of arrears and the sums involved. Neither were provided by Egg to the claimant which means that 86d could be in affect.

 

So I have just over 2 weeks to pull together a particularised defence on this basis and why the loan is unenforceable and said it had to be quite detailed. She requested that if either of us could find any other case authorities that would be helpful as she noted that it does appear that there are noticeable gaps in the claimant's paperwork and would like to see if this has been raised previously. Once submitted, the claimant would have the chance to respond before it being fast tracked to trial, with costs reserved. The last thing the judge said was that given the costs, she strongly advised me to get legal advice on this matter.

 

So it was a bit of a rollercoaster hour in which at times I felt slightly out of my depth. But interested in any thoughts on where this currently is and if there are indeed any other case authorities specifically on the sec 86/87. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have breezed back at her and stated forget lifting the stay...this application is also requesting Summary Judgment which the claimant has failed to state on what basis this application relies on.....as picked up by the previous District Judge xxxxxxx ?

 

Anyhow I suppose we can only assume their application is denied as the claim is progressing now.

 

" She said as the last £1 payment was made in 2009, clearly there had to be a breach of the agreement, which then falls under sec 87, but also under sec 86 the debtor ...the creditor....was obligated to issue the defendant with a notice of arrears and the sums involved. Neither were provided by Egg to the claimant which means that 86d could be in affect."

 

" So I have just over 2 weeks to pull together a particularised defence on this basis and why the loan is unenforceable and said it had to be quite detailed."

 

So the onus is on you with a detailed defence and not the claimant to detail why their claim is enforceable ?

 

 

Section 86b CCA1974 is quite clear not sure why she requires case authorities which are irrelevant at County Court level ?

 

 

 

 

Well done on holding your corner though.

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Section 86b applies to this claimant not just Egg...

 

(2)The creditor or owner—

 

(a)shall, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are satisfied, give the debtor or hirer a notice under this section; and

 

(b)after the giving of that notice, shall give him further notices under this section at intervals of not more than six months.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did attempt that point about the previous District Judge but I fumbled it a bit.

 

Yes, the onus is on me to provide a detailed defence of why I feel the claim is unenforceable by 4th Feb, then the claimant can respond to it. Interesting on the irrelevancy of case authorities - not sure why - she asked for that when the claimant seemed a bit stumped on how to reply to the arrears point, saying she was concerned at the gaps in the paperwork. Wow that's pretty clear on 86b.

 

Do you think there's anything further worth adding about enforceability of the tickbox agreement, or is that now moot and just fully focus it on default notice/lack of arrears notification?

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it also worthy to point out that had it not been for all the wrangling and funny business by the claimant, Claim Issued 23rd April 2014, which halted the SB clock , that this debt would now be well statute barred?

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

I did attempt that point about the previous District Judge but I fumbled it a bit.

 

Yes, the onus is on me to provide a detailed defence of why I feel the claim is unenforceable by 4th Feb, then the claimant can respond to it. Interesting on the irrelevancy of case authorities - not sure why - she asked for that when the claimant seemed a bit stumped on how to reply to the arrears point, saying she was concerned at the gaps in the paperwork. Wow that's pretty clear on 86b.

 

Do you think there's anything further worth adding about enforceability of the tickbox agreement, or is that now moot and just fully focus it on default notice/lack of arrears notification?

 

Well she stated a defence particulrasied as to why the agreement is unenforceable...so you will have to cover that again and also bring the points she raised.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi - I'm working to finish my first draft of my defence today. Trying to get my head around 86/87 so apologies if I've missed something obvious here. The claimant made the point in their WS and in Court that a default notice is not applicable:

 

"The duration of the loan was a maximum of 84 months from 6 December 2006. This would have meant that the agreement was due to end on or around 6 December 2013. Therefore, there was no actual requirement to terminate the agreement or to demand earlier payment of any sum. If the notice is not valid the limit of the claimant's claim can only be the value of the loan payments and interest due up to the date of the court hearing - Woodchester v Swain 1999 which in this case is the full sum due"

 

I'm trying to tally that with Sec87 -

Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement

(a)to terminate the agreement, or

(b)to demand earlier payment of any sum, or

©to recover possession of any goods or land, or

(d)to treat any right conferred on the debtor or hirer by the agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or

(e)to enforce any security.

 

So they're saying there's no breach as this situation isn't covered in a) or b). Is non payment of debt/instalments covered in any of the other 3 categories?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you point me to the post which contains their first statement?

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 94 containing their original WS from last year. Point 18. This is almost verbatim what they said in Court

 

Post 148 contains their latest WS (Point 3)

"This would have meant that the agreement was due to end on or around December 2013. Therefore there was no actual requirement to either a) terminate the agreement b) demand earlier payment from any sum. The money was due in any event under the agreement and there was in fact no actual requirement to serve a default notice on you. We therefore do not consider that the absence of a default notice has any impact on our client's claim"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will run through this with you tomorrow

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

" The default notice: The claimant maintained that as the original agreement ran it's course, a default notice was not required. At first it seemed as if the judge was going to agree, but I cited section 87 of the CCA and she sat reading for quite a while. She said as the last £1 payment was made in 2009, clearly there had to be a breach of the agreement, which then falls under sec 87, but also under sec 86 the creditor was obligated to issue the defendant with a notice of arrears and the sums involved. Neither were provided by Egg to the claimant which means that 86d could be in affect. "

 

The above to focus on the Judges view.

 

The claimant clearly states in its statement at point 8 that a default notice was issued due to a breach of the agreement and subsequently terminated the agreement as at 18th March 2008....and furthermore you made 2 payments of £1 3rd and 8th of Nov/Dec.

 

At point 16/17 /18...this is were the twaddle starts.... the claimant states again that a default notice was served...the agreement commenced 6th Dec 2006 with 84 payments and that no default notice was necessary as the agreement had run full term. (last payment due 6th Dec 2013).They terminated the agreement as of March 2008 so the agreement had not run full term..... and as they concur a default notice was therefore issued....which they cant disclose...nor can they disclose Notices of Sums in Arrears sec 86d...which must be provided annually as per CCA1974.

 

So they contradict ...which is were the judge has picked up on.

 

Therefore section 87(1) sections 88 and section 86d come into play.

 

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've put together my first draft. I couldn't find much similar text from previous posts on the forum so I've winged it a bit but tried to keep a story flow to it - Background - Default Notice - Arrears - Time Period - Summary.

I also couldn't find any argument to counter the Bassano v Toft tickbox point given that the loan was signed in 2006, so I've left that off.

Thanks again for the DN clarification, Andy - it was incredibly illuminating.

WS2 Draft.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 6 requires attention..they didn't state there wasn't a breach..in fact they stated further that payments of £1 was made on x and y.

 

At point 16/17 /18...this is were the twaddle starts.... the claimant states again that a default notice was served...the agreement commenced 6th Dec 2006 with 84 payments and that no default notice was necessary as the agreement had run full term. (last payment due 6th Dec 2013).They terminated the agreement as of March 2008 so the agreement had not run full term..... and as they concur a default notice was therefore issued....which they cant disclose...nor can they disclose Notices of Sums in Arrears sec 86d...which must be provided annually as per CCA1974.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost certain they were arguing in Court that there wasn't a breach, but it's not in either of their WSs.

 

I've merged points 6 and 7 to take account of this. I've also put the Notice of Arrears in points 7 - 9 and tried to cover all the specifics the judge raised.

WS Draft 2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats why its irrelevant...verbatim in court is not evidence.....only what they state and rely upon in their statements.

 

Your point 4.....

 

“If the notice is not valid, the limit of the Claimant’s claim can only be the value of the loan payments and interest

due up to the date of the Court Hearing”

 

Where are you getting this from ?

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...well your response to that I have posted twice.....which should be inserted into your point 4.

 

The claimant states again that a default notice was served...the agreement commenced 6th Dec 2006 with 84 payments and that no default notice was necessary as the agreement had run full term. (last payment due 6th Dec 2013).They terminated the agreement as of March 2008 so the agreement had not run full term..... and as they concur a default notice was therefore issued....which they cant disclose...nor can they disclose Notices of Sums in Arrears sec 86d...which must be provided annually as per CCA1974.

 

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you refer to the T&Cs of the actual agreement and in the event of a breach...it should clarify what the creditor would do in that instance...fixed credits agreements are different to rolling credit...and default procedures can vary...in some instances the full amount becomes repayable on demand.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks - I've removed what was in 4 and 5 and inserted your paragraph.

 

This is a Fixed Term Credit Agreement, as stated in the WS. The only thing I can find on a breach in the T&Cs is a list of charges in the event of breaking the term of the agreement to cover costs and this:

3.1 We may refuse to make the loan available or if you have already received the loan demand repaymeny of the ful amount you owe us if *you fail to pay on its due date any amount payable to us under this agreement or *you fail to comply with any of the other terms

3.2 "Before demanding early repayment under clause 3.1 we will send you a Default Notice under the CCA"

 

Do I need to lay out the process of the Notice of Sums in Arrears as in Pts 7-9 or is it too much detail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No the judge is fully aware of how a Notice of sums in arrears applies...or should be...she did raise it.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few tweaks in red

 

 

5. The claimant states in both its statements that a default notice was served...the agreement commenced 6th Dec 2006 with 84 payments and that no default notice was necessary as the agreement had run full term. (last payment due 6th Dec 2013).They terminated the agreement as of March 2008 therefore the agreement had not run full term..... and as they concur a default notice was therefore issued....which they cant disclose...nor can they disclose Notices of Sums in Arrears sec 86d CCA1974...which must be provided annually....which they confirmed at the last hearing.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic 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...