Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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 
        • 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

Court papers received from Hillesden Securities/Black Horse


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4365 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

Hi All,

 

I have today received a County Court Claim from the County Court Bulk Centre for a loan that was taken out with Black Horse06/10/2008. I wish to defend this as while I have been making monthly token payments to Black Horse I have been getting bombarded with calls and letters from Hillesden Securities and their other company DLC. The calls have stopped following me sending them the harassment letter thankfully.

 

As I had received no notification from Black Horse regarding the assignment to Hillesden Securities/DLC, I requested that they send to me a copy of my CCA 13th June 2011 which they are yet to comply with.

 

The most recent threatening letter from Hillesden Securities/DLC prompted me to obtain copies of my credit file from Experian and Equifax, neither of them make reference to Hillesden Securities/DLC as a company that I should contact regarding the contained information. It would therefore appear to me that it is Black Horse who are still processing my information.

 

I know that there isn’t any PPI on this loan to enable me to counterclaim against, but I dispute their particulars of claim with regards to the assignment. I’d like to know if this is grounds for me to file a defence of their claim.

 

I have logged on to moneyclaim and acknowledged receipt.

 

Attached is a copy of the N1CPC Claim form

 

Any help or advice would be much appreciated.

 

Regards

 

MMM

Edited Hillesden Securities Claim Form.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're sure that you received no notice of assignment from either the old or new creditor then that can indeed be a valid defence. Perhaps have a look at section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

There are a few threads active at the moment where the validity of an assignment has been in issue (for example http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?333033-Dealing-with-a-Fast-Track-Application/page7), you may want to have a look at those to see what sort of points may arise in your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that information Asokn.

 

I have just checked all of the correspondence that I have received from Black Horse, there is no letter of Assignment, no Default Notice and no Termination of the account.

 

Does this all add weight to my defence?

 

Regards

 

MMM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it does. If the account has not been properly assigned and/or closed then the creditor cannot proceed.

 

However, is the claim form in the name of the original creditor? Be careful because if the creditor has just instructed a DCA there is no assignment of the debt, it remains in the creditor's name and they can then bring a claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claimant is Hillesden Securities Ltd, the original creditor is Black Horse.

 

It would therefore appear that they have just been instructed by Black Horse to commence proceedings, if this is the case what is the best way for me to tackle this?

 

Thanks for your input thus far Asokn.

 

Regards

 

MMM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as previously stated, a number of documents that I should have received are missing. Whilst this maybe the case I believe it's wrong to assume anything.

 

I will need some assistance from some of the Scholars on here to compile a defence.

 

Once again Asokn thanks for your input.

 

MMM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I think my post was unclear. When I say it must have been assigned I mean it must have been for the claim to be properly brought, i.e. you are right to question why you have not received a notice of assignment as this suggests the claim has not been properly brought.

 

I wasn't meaning to say that the debt must have been validly assigned but I appreciate that is how my post read, apologies for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...

Hillesden Securities Edited CPR31 Reply.pdfHi All

 

I have just received a reply to my CPR 31.14 request, it's only taken them nearly 2 months to reply.

 

Is it possible for someone to cast an eye over the attached documents and let me know your thoughts please? The debt sale agreement makes no mention of my name or original account number with Black Horse Limited, is that as it should be?

 

Thanks in advance

 

MMM

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...