Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so.
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. 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. 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 24/12/2022. 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 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: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
    • Always send with proof of posting from your Post Office, so there is a trail. Conversations , are designed to intimidate into paying, Emails are designed as another way of bombarding. Only EVER communicate in writing, by post.  
  • 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

MIB-Close Credit Management now Bluestone Credit Management


dimmickc4
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4363 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 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I really really don't remember. I don't remember any long winded legal docs, I remember filling out a form where I gave details of the accident but that's it.

Does anyone know what the standard form the MIB would send out says? Would it give them full control?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would a form of assignment give them the power to chase me for the money? Why would they need to do it under the land act? Suelwy if I had it would just be a normal give us what you owe?

Sorry all very new to me so asking lots of silly questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jasper, I just found this on one of you old threads helping someone in a similar situation, would this help me?

"This is a subrogated claim meaning the claimant (MIB) has stepped into the shoes of the victim thus assuming the victims rights and remedies..

MIB cannot assume any right greater than or other than those afforded to the subrogator (nemo dat quod non habet).

The subrogator had the right to pursue for remedy with effect from 25th 04 2005, this is the right that was assigned to the MIB.

The MIB cannot extend the period of limitation by paying out themselves some time possibly years after the cause of action has accrued. MIB had no rights of their own in the matter, they were not involved in the accident, any payment they have made will have been subject to the victim assigning their rights of remedy across to the MIB and it is these rights the rights of the original victim which have been used to bring proceedings.

Sadly for MIB the victims rights expired six years after the incident and since the claim was issued after the expiry of the limitation period the claim is fairly and squarely statute barredlink3.gif."

 

If I did sign anything for the MIB would this still hep?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably isn't a subrogated claim as we know the MIB didn't step into the claimants shoes since they were defendant in a Court case raised by the claimant.

 

What we don't know are the terms of the consent order or whether the MIB entered into any agreement with yourself or the claimant outside the Court proceedings . The standard MIB form assigns the claimants rights to the MIB upon settlement of the claim, whether that would be applicable where a consent order exists is a matter for conjecture as this claim had obviously progressed past the stage where the claimant and mib come to an amicable agreement.

If there is a consent order then it must surely have been fully met at the time by the MIB ergo it is of little or no value today.

 

The central issue is upon what grounds the MIB seek to reclaim the monies paid out from yourself, there are a number of possible ways they could do this but each is open to attack by you.

 

Much hinges upon whether you entered into any agreement with the MIB and what the terms of any such agreement were. The fact that you were joint defendant in litigation and the other jd knew this and failed to make you aware of proceedings before unilaterally entering into a binding agreement with the claimant does not do the mib any favours at all here unless they were assigned your rights prior to the litigation.

 

Realistically all we can do is speculate until we have sight of the consent order and the assignment(s) if any.

 

What they can't do is seek to enforce the judgment by means of a charging order, WOE, AOE etc. because the harsh fact remains there is no judgment to be enforced.

 

So stay off the phone and sit back and try to ignore their childish and rude threats while you wait for that SAR to arrive.

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Im sure by law they are supposed to supply the information they have on you. I first received a letter of them in 2008 to the wrong address for a slight bump in 2002. It took them 6 years to attempt to contact me and still didnt get it right. Its been 10 years now, even more statute barred, which is what they already know that these dodgy claims of debt are. Let us know if you hear anything else. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently been contacted by this shower too. Can I guess that one of the first things they did when they got hold of you was to ask you to confirm your email address or home address before they could continue?

 

That was how the conversation started with me when they rang me, "for security reasons we have to confirm your address, could you give us the first line and post code" refusing to give this they got quite shirty saying they couldnt discuss anything with me in detail until I confirmed this (errrr, you rang me?!?). I told them to send all detail relating to any 'claim' in the post......surprise surpise it never arrived (did they ever have my address in the first place? I think not)

 

So another couple of weeks go by, another phone call, another request for address, another refusal!!

 

Having looked up BlueStone on the internet the number they called me off is very similar.....but not exact. They rang off 0114 231 7505......BlueStones actual numer of the "paybluestone" website is 0114 231 7540. Not sure I believe either of them as BlueStones actual numer on their official website (not Paybluestone site) is an 0845 number

 

Do I believe that 0114 231 7505 is actually Bluestone? Or do I believe this is someone i've never heard of that has managed to get hold of a small amount of infomation about me (my phone number) and then try and use that to scare me into paying a claim I know nothing about.

 

Either way i'm letting the Police Fraud lot find out!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Dear Bazooka, Jasper, Brigadier,

 

It's been nearly a year since I last posted here. Thought I would update you. After waiting several weeks from a reply from the MIB I received an email apologising for their delay and promising me that they would look into the issues and contact me within a week. That week turned into 2 months! I then received another email from a different person stating that it was a courtesy email, my file was on hold with the DCA and they were waiting for papers from the solicitors that handled the case. They asked if I wanted to submit my version of events (not likely) that I could. It was a relief to get some recite for a while and I waited patiently, hoping to get the famous 'Wotsy' email...

Instead almost a year since the very first notification from MIB & CCM, they decide to churn out the same original letter - this time from a different DCA. Any advice on how to approach this?

 

Any feedback appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear new DCA.

 

12 months ago I challenged my liability for any amount claimed by the MIB directly with the MIB. Despite a lengthy wait I have yet to receive anything of substance from the MIB or any third party purporting to represent the MIB in respect of proving this alleged debt.

I feel a lapse of twelve months is sufficient to be considered "reasonable" and therefore must assume in the lack of any evidence to the contrary that as I originally and always maintained, no such debt lawfully exists.

I therefore consider this matter to be closed and I suggest you refer this "account" back to the originator.

I refer you to the OFT guidelines on debt collection particularly referencing the section on disputed debts.

Any further demands for money from yourselves will likely constitute a reportable breach of these guidelines and further may constitute an act of harassment.

 

xx

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also still not heard anything, its been almost 6 months now, I have sold the house they were threatening to take off me (with no profit :-( !) so now even if they do come after me there is nothing I have to give them!

 

I expect to recieve a call or a redirected letter in 6 months time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow 31 minutes that was pretty quick, hope they choked when they read you've sold your house.

 

Must be soul destroying for them coming on here, haven't they anything more productive to do like supplying proper paperwork and complying with the law? LOL

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

fantastic, best of luck down under mate!!!

 

(ps just before you leave I would write to them letting them know your house is sold and you're emigrating, if they really are monitoring they might serve county court papers on you at your old address and gain a default judgment without your knowledge otherwise).

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can they do that when it seems it should be SB'd? Seems it should go to court the judge sees that and dissmiss it.

 

Still I shall send them an email and letter before I go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can they do that when it seems it should be SB'd? Seems it should go to court the judge sees that and dismiss it.

 

 

If only.....

 

An undefended claim = default judgment, there is no hearing in the absence of a defence, it is assumed that the claimant is entitled to whatever it is they're claiming full stop.

:|

As of 03/03/12 please do not under any circumstances wait for my further input or guidance on any current thread or defence of a court claim I might have been involved in on or through Cag.

Jasper1965

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear new DCA.

 

12 months ago I challenged my liability for any amount claimed by the MIB directly with the MIB. Despite a lengthy wait I have yet to receive anything of substance from the MIB or any third party purporting to represent the MIB in respect of proving this alleged debt.

I feel a lapse of twelve months is sufficient to be considered "reasonable" and therefore must assume in the lack of any evidence to the contrary that as I originally and always maintained, no such debt lawfully exists.

I therefore consider this matter to be closed and I suggest you refer this "account" back to the originator.

I refer you to the OFT guidelines on debt collection particularly referencing the section on disputed debts.

Any further demands for money from yourselves will likely constitute a reportable breach of these guidelines and further may constitute an act of harassment.

 

xx

 

Thanks Jasper! This looks great and straight to the point.

My point of concern is that through prior experience of sending SB letters to the DCA (formally CCM) they don't reply; they tend to ignore and continue to send threatening letters. It was only when I sent the SB letter to MIB's feedback email, as advised by earlier posts, that they put things on hold with the DCA. Since I have a clear email from a person at MIB that states that will be looking into it and will let me know how and why case was settled, should I not also send MIB the above letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...