Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

N1 Claim Form received for old Welcome Finance debt


Fars
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4386 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

Ah also the CPR 31.14 states:

 

"I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim."

 

Which isn't true at the present time, do I need to remove or amend this or leave it as is?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok will head to the library tomorrow to get these printed and sent.

 

Couple of quick questions. The CPR 31.14 mentions covering their [solicitors] costs for the information request, do I need to stick a postal order in the same as with the Section 77 request? No

 

And secondly does the Section 77 go off to the Solicitors the same as the CPR 31.14?

Yes

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

Ah also the CPR 31.14 states:

 

"I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim."

 

Which isn't true at the present time, do I need to remove or amend this or leave it as is?

 

Change - Its my intention to contest all of your claim on my completion of Acknowledgement.

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

Thanks as always for your quick replies Andy, I believe that is the CPR 31.14 ready to go tomorrow.

 

With the Section 77 going to the solicitors do I put the "Account/Reference Number" as my Claim No. or is there another reference number relating to the welcome loan I should be digging out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No mention of claim numbers or litigation just your account number. I assume this is going to IND so you need to head your request " I do not acknowledge any debt with your Company " until they prove otherwise.

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

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

In posted reply #27 above I was asking if the Section 77 went to the Solicitors (Hegarty) or IND and you replied yes to Solicitors, so was unsure what to use as the reference.

 

Yes

 

 

Adjustments made to the Section 77.

 

Sorry for being so needy with the questions. With luck it will all pay off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Fars considering this is IND send both to their Sols sorry oops

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 Andy, understood.

 

Been reading the threads havinastella posted regarding IND, even to my limited understanding they seem like a bunch of cowboys.

 

With the Section 77 going to the sols do I still include "I do not acknowledge any debt with your company"? and do I revert to the Claim No?

 

Sorry for all the babysitting questions, this seems to be more confusing than necessary with never really knowing who I am dealing with :(

Edited by Fars
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats the problem you face when these guys issue a claim no need for the " I do not ack " if going to the Sols. Dont refer to the claim its a legal request.

 

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

Section 77/78 requests are to be sent to the creditor and not to the solicitor. Solicitors are NOT creditors under s 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if representing a client:

 

“creditor ” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

Link to post
Share on other sites

*

Section 77/78 requests are to be sent to the creditor and not to the solicitor. Solicitors are NOT creditors under s 189 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if representing a client:

 

“creditor ” means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;

 

* Providing the Claimant is not IND or it will be ignored as have all the other 30 IND cases working on.Litigation has commenced Fars so its the duty of the acting Sol to pass it on and be aware of the request

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

It is at the discretion of the solicitor to pass it on. Note the word discretion. The solicitor is not duty bound to track whether it gets a reply as it was sent to the wrong place. If a defence was made about this non-compliance, it can be shown that it was sent to the wrong place thus there is more wiggle room for the claimant.

 

You cannot circumvent the law just because the claimant is allegedly going to ignore the request and has allegedly done so in the previous 30 cases. That is not a tactic. It is better to send it to the claimant because there is no denying that they did not receive it, especially with registered delivery/special delivery. That is where the s 77 and s 78 requests are supposed to be sent.

 

By sending it to the solicitor, there is no time limit as they are not the claimants so there is no breach even if they did not comply. Please re-address the logic as it does not stand legally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Fars Change it back to IND there was reasoning as to my logic but hmmh is technically correct and I understand his reasoning.

 

Thank you hmmh

 

Regards

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Well sadly I've heard nothing back from IND or their pretend legal representation. Nothing back at all re: the Section 77 or 31.14.

 

Could use some advice on what to do now please?

 

Regards,

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Thanks for that Andy, was an interesting read. I can only hope for a similar result :)

 

I could do with a little help filling out my defence on MCOL, any advice on how to proceed please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Defences are unique and not templated and should be based on your own personal pleadings subject to your dispute.Dont worry that's it not legalised wording, just state why you don't agree with the claim.

 

Regards

 

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

Ok sounds good.

 

I'm presuming that having sent off a section 77 and 31.14 and having heard nothing for 2 weeks that I'm going with an embarrassed defence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No such thing as an embarrassed defence its either an holding defence or a fully particularised defence.

 

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

Thanks Andy,

 

Am still feeling a little lost though.

 

In my particular case where I've sent off the cpr 31.14 and section 77 and having no response what kind of defence do I use?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest a short holding defence in the absence of anything being disclosed.You must realise though that that is not a reason to defend a claim.You either owe the money or not or the matter is subject to a dispute.Any holding defence must be updated later to a fully particularised defence and this will have a bearing on any costs awarded.

 

Regards

 

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

andyorch, may I suggest that you purchase the White Book off ebay and look up the section on "Holding Defences" and why they are a non-starter. It is under CPR r. 15.5.

 

I would copy the paragraph here however that would have copyright implications. To summarise:

 

Defendant cannot get more time by filing a holding defence.

Holding defence does not comply with CPR r. 16.

Such a defence is liable for a strike out application under CPR r. 3.4.

 

A defence based on what is currently known is the best way forward, not a holding defence, even if that is scant.

 

A line about not being able to enforce due to breach of s 77 is a start. Was a default notice received to the best of your memory? Did you sign an agreement to the best of your recollection?

 

A defence is not solely based on what you get from the claimants but is also reliant on your own experience and the paper work you have in your possession.

 

I will step out of this thread now as I only wanted to intervene on a matter of importance before it becomes mainstream.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you both for your input. With a holding defence based on requested information not received, if the claimant isn't going to provide any paperwork then how does it ever proceed?

 

Sadly I am still feeling unsure how I should proceed. The advice I was given earlier in this thread was to send off the information requests and then base my actions on the outcome. The outcome is now here, no information received.

 

I believe they've made the claim against me without the required paperwork, credit agreement etc. The debt dates back to 2005, i've never been notified of the debt being sold from welcome to ind.

 

I was sent a letter on the 24/04/2012 which arrived on 26/04/2012 titled last letter before legal proceedings, which I assume is the default notice, strangely it says I defaulted on the loan on 02/12/11, no idea what that date relates to.

 

They issued the claim on 14/05/2012 which is 18 days after the last letter, no idea if that has any baring on this.

 

The really frustrating thing for me is I've been eligible for a debt relief order for 6 years, but never had the money or ability to go through with it, i'm still eligible now but sadly CCJ's can't be included I think.

 

I could really use some concrete direction on what to do next, how to proceed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...