Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. 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 as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. 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 £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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

NCO Europe KEEP calling!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5557 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

"So you basiclly borrowed the money from the bank"

 

Really?

 

Its up to you to prove it

 

 

spent it and now you dont want to pay it back?

 

 

Not until you or the OC prove that you have any right to it back!

 

 

Until you can comply with a CCA74 s.77/78 request, you're simply begging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 482
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ahhh well done sir, hate to tell you this but your claim is a little drop in the sea to be honest, DCA's collect stupid amounts of money to make up for that, and break the rules all the time to be honest, but you won't close down DCA's, they are simply too big.Ask the boss of a certain DCA down Reigate way.

 

Well they may fool some people but as CAG grows stronger each day we are wiping the smile off their faces thats why you need to come on here and be abusive. You dont have the intelligence to properly argue your case. Enjoy your CRAP job while it lasts.

Edited by ODC
Spelling like a DCA muppet

Link to post
Share on other sites

#

So you basiclly borrowed the money from the bank,spent it and now you dont want to pay it back? So this is exactl why people like yourself, get phone calls and letters everyday - and it would lead to further action. Fair enough all we do is ring you every day, but by burying your head in sand wont resolve your issues :lol:

 

Of course you can ring as many times as you want, it dosent mean we have to answer you, you sad little TROLL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ring ring

 

Hello?

 

This is NCO- Barclays want their money back and all the interest

 

Do you have any proof that I agreed to pay it back?

 

Like what?

 

A signed agreement where I agreed to pay it back with interest, and at what rate.

 

 

Errrrrrrr, no, sorry. They dont have it anymore

 

"That was silly of them, byeeee!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

"So you basiclly borrowed the money from the bank"

 

Really?

 

Its up to you to prove it

 

 

spent it and now you dont want to pay it back?

 

 

Not until you or the OC prove that you have any right to it back!

 

 

Until you can comply with a CCA74 s.77/78 request, you're simply

 

 

begging.

 

 

 

Begging is the correct word, Most people who DCA's call are generally in arrears, and 80 percent of the time people are thankful for the reminder and pay up straight away, its supposed to be a service, then there's the people who have been made redundant, NCO staff's job then is to advise debters on what to do, e,g contact client, sort out insurance.

 

Then theres the people who are in debt and refuse to pay because they cant be bothered, NCO staff are supposed to just terminate the call, but of course see it as a great argument and relish the opportunity, thats were the DCA's go wrong.

 

In Paypals case the whole thing is apparently a c**k up, as paypal are stupid enough to send through contact details of people who dont owe money, but other clients, mostly credit card companies, dont send false information through, and most people are just in arrears on their accounts, or out of work, or cant afford repayments, thats when the client takes the debter to court.

 

You are in your right not to deal with DCA's especially that one based in India;), but the idea of them is supposed to make things easy, plus the client doesnt have the resources nor the time to collect money off people.

 

If you are in arrears and a DCA phones you up for the payment, and you have the funds, just pay it, makes things easy, if you dont want to deal with 3rd party companies, just deal through the client, but bear in mind that the DCA's can phone you as it states in your credit agreement until the debt is resolved.

 

And if you dont owe debt but are getting abused by the DCA's then this forum makes sense (although some cases are far stretched), and deal directly through the client to get it stopped.

 

And if you owe debt and have no excuse and dont deal with the DCA or the client then thats fair enough, but i couldnt be bothered being in that persons shoes:D

 

There have also been known cases when the DCA's will purchase the debt off the client, thats the only time when you will have to deal directly through the DCA, although it is rare, and again your credit agreement does state that the client has the right to do that.

Edited by mistery88
Link to post
Share on other sites

"but bear in mind that the DCA's can phone you as it states in your credit agreement until the debt is resolved."

 

 

Hey Churchill,

 

If they dont have a credit agreement, do they have any right to ring you at all, like consent as specified by the DPA?

 

 

Errrrrrrrrrrr, no.

 

 

 

 

This is the crux of it- most credit card agreements simply dont exist (lost) or dont comply with CCA74 anyway, as they are simply application forms missing all the bits to make them into agreements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they may fool some people but as CAG grows stronger each day we are wiping the smile off their faces thats why you need to come on here and be abusive. You dont have the intelligence to properly argue your case. Enjoy your CRAP job while it lasts.

 

As i have said ODC i dont work there anymore, and it wasn't a crap job anyway, was very good actually(i take it your a treasurer on 160k a year;))

 

Im not trying to be abusive, i was trying to discuss, but of course your labelled a troll straight away, im actually in the middle on this topic,

 

And please dont question my intelligence, it really is the most laughable insult you could give me:roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"but bear in mind that the DCA's can phone you as it states in your credit agreement until the debt is resolved."

 

 

Hey Churchill,

 

If they dont have a credit agreement, do they have any right to ring you at all, like consent as specified by the DPA?

 

 

Errrrrrrrrrrr, no.

 

 

 

 

This is the crux of it- most credit card agreements simply dont exist (lost) or dont comply with CCA74 anyway, as they are simply application forms missing all the bits to make them into agreements.

 

 

Very good point, but yes, it is easy to get hold of it, except for most clients:D

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not questioning your intelligence, its merely your understanding of the law which is in question.

 

We get lots of monkeys trolling here, it makes a pleasant change to talk to an organ grinder, if that is indeed what you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As i have said ODC i dont work there anymore, and it wasn't a crap job anyway, was very good actually(i take it your a treasurer on 160k a year;))

 

Im not trying to be abusive, i was trying to discuss, but of course your labelled a troll straight away, im actually in the middle on this topic,

 

And please dont question my intelligence, it really is the most laughable insult you could give me:roll:

 

Having read your educationally challenged earlier posts I really do not need to question your intelligence. You have proven it's as sound as your pathetic attempts at defending the behaviour of DCAs who have NO LEGAL POWERS whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you do know the difference, it follows that if you are aware that hassling without the consent of an individual, (consent expressed in a credit agreement) is less than legal and can be criminal.

 

An application form is an application form, no matter whether it says "This is a credit agreement under CCA74, sign only of you wish to bound by its terms"

 

It can say whatever you want to print on it, but if it aint got the 4 prescribed terms, its an application form.

 

Hassle me on the strength of that and I will cost you a lot of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not questioning your intelligence, its merely your understanding of the law which is in question.

 

We get lots of monkeys trolling here, it makes a pleasant change to talk to an organ grinder, if that is indeed what you are.

 

Well, im not here to **** people off, put it that way. i just have experience in a DCA, and yes it is interesting to hear a different point of view and the legal side of things in much more detail, DCA's could do a much better job, with a much more customer service style approach, but its not actually the DCA's who make up the rules, its the client who decides what is said on the phone, how it is said, and how to collect, but what can you expect from companies like Barclays and Paypal who's admin is as organised as a bull in a China shop:wink:

 

One thing i will say is that nobody deserves to be spoken to like crap on the phone, especially if you are not in debt, and that is were the whole situation is completely wrong, the only time you should be distressed, is when it gets to the point when you have been taken to court, or you have gone bankrupt, and in most cases thats something you definetly bring on yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite honestly, I dont think DCAs could operate within the law even if they tried.

 

"its the client who decides what is said on the phone, how it is said, and how to collect,"

 

Thats the Nuremburg defence- "I voss only obeying orders" -but doesnt abrogate your own personal duty to comply with the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Having read your educationally challenged earlier posts I really do not need to question your intelligence. You have proven it's as sound as your pathetic attempts at defending the behaviour of DCAs who have NO LEGAL POWERS whatsoever.

 

Educationally challenged?

 

Again, im laughing at you, especially as all you have done is,

 

Question my intelligence.

 

Abuse a job i once had.

 

And have nothing but a one sided argument instead of a discussion.

 

They are surely the signs of a TRUE TROLL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ODC- this person is so far up the food chain, they have shown that they have no real experience of whatwe know really goes with DCAs.

 

Note that this person has no answer to illegal harassment of people, where no CCA exists. Indeed they have admited what we all ways suspected- that most OCs dont have CCAs to provide to DCAs! This explains why no one evr gets one when asked!

 

And we've always given them credit for having a hidden agenda. Truth is- they really dont have them. the whole thing is a fraud and if everyone stood up and said:

 

"my debt? what debt? Prove that I have a debt"

 

they would be stuffed, along with the entire financial system.

 

Oh, hang on...:D

 

 

Well, not a fraud, but a confidence trick where everyone pretends that the Emporer is wearing the finest silks from Persia, until someone says, errrrrrrr, no, hes stark nekid.

Edited by freakyleaky
Language
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite honestly, I dont think DCAs could operate within the law even if they tried.

 

"its the client who decides what is said on the phone, how it is said, and how to collect,"

 

Thats the Nuremburg defence- "I voss only obeying orders" -but doesnt abrogate your own personal duty to comply with the law.

 

It is the Nuremburg defence, and i suppose you could ask, if it worked in WW2, could it still work now.

 

The difference being in WW2 if your General gave you an order and you considered it illegal therefore refusing an order, you would be shot, therefore being damned in both cases, for the DCA's that isn't the case:-)

I cant seem to remember Barclays shooting somebody at a DCA for not taking orders:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

'tis true, gassing Jews and the mentally handicapped was not illegal in Nazi Germany. Neither is genocide against Christians in southern Sudan today.

 

That didnt stop an arrest warrant against Sudan's president being issued by the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Anyone obeting his orders now faces charges eventually being brought against them- as has happend with Serbian war criminals etc.

 

Just because someone else (Barclays,Paypal) tells you to do something illegal and pays you for it, wouldnt provide you with a defence in court.

 

You would be tried for your own actions, probably along with the OC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Yorkshire Ripper claimed that God told him to do it.

 

Note that its Peter Sutcliffe doing time at Her Majestys Pleasure, not God.

 

Well yes, and thats Al Qaeda's excuse as well, although i would amagine it to be pretty hard to get God in jail;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5557 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...