Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • 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. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • 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.
  • 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

PCN appeal rejected, NTO arrived


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4354 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

Quick background to the incident, my street has a 1 hour stay and no return within 2 hours restriction in effect from 0800-1800 mon-sat. I park my car in one of the bays overnight if there are no spaces elsewhere and at 0830-0900 I move the car forward by ~50 yards when people head off to work, in an area with no restrictions. My neighbour is usually home from work at 1200 and I leave at 1230, so what usually happens is that I will reverse back into the restricted bay at ~1200 until I leave at 1230 so my neighbour can park in the non-restricted area. I realise this sounds complicated but it is the unfortunate arrangement we have to make when we have so many restricted parking zones around us. Anyway, this is usually done about 3 times a week for the past 18 months without issue. In February I got a PCN on my windscreen at 1201 (roughly 1 minute after re-entering the bay!) saying I parked for longer than permitted. I contacted the council who then supplied the CEO's notes which noted my vehicle in the bay at 0822 and then again at 1201, and as valve positions were in the same region concluded I had contravened the restriction. I was in the bay at the two times indicated but I had been outside the bay between 0845 and 1155-1200, 3 hours 10 mins, complying with the no return within 2 hours. As I only rolled my vehicle forward and back the valve positions are highly likely to be in the same position so I am unsure whether my argument has much weight. I've now received the NTO, do I simply repeat the story I gave in the PCN appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can expect (though it's not guaranteed) that the council will have photos of the car - the wheels at least - as it was at 08.22. Your best bet is to request copies of these along with all the other photos. If you can identify an obvious difference (eg in one, the wheel is on the white line, in the other it is not) then definitely fight on, and you should win.

 

As you now have an NTO it's worth fighting it anyway. If you can get the photos (ask for them by phone, not in writing, as that can cause ridiculous complications!) see if you can spot a tell-tale change, and let us know/see them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can expect (though it's not guaranteed) that the council will have photos of the car - the wheels at least - as it was at 08.22. Your best bet is to request copies of these along with all the other photos. If you can identify an obvious difference (eg in one, the wheel is on the white line, in the other it is not) then definitely fight on, and you should win.

 

As you now have an NTO it's worth fighting it anyway. If you can get the photos (ask for them by phone, not in writing, as that can cause ridiculous complications!) see if you can spot a tell-tale change, and let us know/see them.

 

I don't know how I can do this as they have only provided me photos of 1201, the time the PCN was issued, so I have nothing to compare them to for 0822.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just phone them on Monday and ask them to email all the photos to you, especially the ones at 08.22. There shouldn't be a problem.

 

If they refuse, or say they don't have any, then don't worry - that will count in your favour as they are demonstrating that they don't have much evidence to refuse your appeal. But chances are, they will just send them to you - then you can prove your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

They replied saying my appeal was rejected, it seems my "query" was interpreted as an appeal and they do not have photos of 0822. I now have to fill in the adjudicator’s form, should I still contest it on the grounds I do not think a contravention occurred?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely why I said to phone them. See post two, above, paragraph 2!

 

You can either phone them now, explain what happened and ask them to have a look while you are on the phone - or you will have to go to adjudication. If you application is clear and to the point, and the photos exist and support you, then they might back out - but be prepared for a possible hearing in due course.

 

Meantime - Get copies of the photos and check them out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, they confirm that they do not have photos of the first sighting, just when they created the ticket. I'll just fill in the form with what I posted initially.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You only said that you didn't have them - not that the council doesn't have them either. If you are sure of that, then that is a dead end, but still should go in your favour - they are lacking evidence.

 

All you can do is go for it. Like you say, your first post explains all. I would also add on the bit about requesting photos, it being treated as an appeal, and the fact that you have been told they don't exist. It all adds up to the council being a bit disorganised, and will make them look decidedly shakey if they are insisting they are correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Round my way they do. The reason? Because of disputes like this. It protects the council from bogus claims that the car had moved. (Not saying this one is bogus of course, but some are.)

 

I grasp the reason just not the practicalities of taking hundreds of photos and then trying to find the relevant ones for each PCN. Photos are usually assigned to a PCN automatically due to the time stamp I cannot imagine someone sitting looking through photos for each code 30 issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got the NTO. Ok so, I have been past the bus lane the other day and noticed that the signage is still not at the correct angle towards the carriageway, as previously posted. I believe this further demonstrates the Merton Council attitude to failure to provide correct signage and as they were previously notified of such (and we are not talking a couple of degrees here) then they are acting with malice aforethought in trapping motorists unfairly etc..

 

What is the best way to proceed. Remember the circumstances, Signage poor, road dimensions very incorrect, taper wrong, arrows wrong, also passenger took unwell and was about to throw up. I felt it was safest to be near the carriageway edge to be able to stop and not provide a traffic obstruction. He is a trainee Paramedic. He is also prepared to attest a letter to that effect.

 

So I believe no offence was committed and that there were also significant mitigating circumstances for being in an active bus lane, even though I was not clear on the hours of operation.

 

Any cases I can cite??

 

Please advise.

 

As ever, very grateful for the constructive input and excellent guidance.

 

Doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, NTO in front of me at the time or writing. Now I know that this may be petty, in fact really petty, but I remember reading about incorrect wording etc... Taking it to the extreme one line states "If you are making representations under ground 3 or 4 above you must supply the name and address of the person/company the vehicle was sold to or putchased from (if that information is in your possession)."

 

Read carefully: What I have noticed is that they have failed to pay attention to the structure of their notice, again poor due diligence. Note "under ground 3 or 4" and it is not GROUNDS (pleural) and further "sold to or putchased from" note the PUTCHASED and not puRchased. They clearly have no idea of how to pay attention to the structure of their documentation. Again - I feel that they are sloppy in lots of areas.

 

As I say, it might be petty but an incorrectly worded notice is invalid - hmmmm not sure but the expert opinion in case there are known cases on this aspect.

 

Cheers everyone.

 

Doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi G&M. You are indeed absolutely correct. I am sorry for this post as it is definitely on the wrong thread. I am going to C&P it over to my own thread. Thing is - I can't understand how that happened. Must be the jet lag and the long hours.

 

Sorry to all.

 

Doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent off my appeal to the adjudicator but have received notice from the council that my charge has jumped to £75! Is this not meant to be frozen during the appeals process?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sent off my appeal to the adjudicator but have received notice from the council that my charge has jumped to £75! Is this not meant to be frozen during the appeals process?

 

It remains the same until you get a charge certificate, so yes it should remain frozen untill the appeals process has ended, do not however confuse that with the discount for early payment which obviously is for early payment and is not frozen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...