Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • 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: _____________________
  • 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

Hoist by his own Petard?


osdset
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4364 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

Phew. Thank goodness for that! "Worried veterans" will now be exempt from "humiliating retests" that could have seen them "stripped of vital cash"

Story http://diaryofabenefitscrounger.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/hoist-by-his-own-petard.html?spref=tw

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a matter for jokes in my opinion!!!!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Non of it is Brig tbf.

 

But until all parties with the same issues are treated the same expect some condescending views. Especially from those in the front line of changes now who are now looking at life going WTF!

 

What makes a nurse, social worker or somebody who did admin any different from a soldier with any sort of disability?

 

The answer is nothing! They have the same needs and desires! Is it then right to say one is better/more deserving than the other?

 

No it isn't and it not rite not by a long shot!

 

United we stand divided we fall : toppa :

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the issue here is whether one group is more or less deserving, it's about the fairness of the assessment process as embodied by the ATOS WCA, to differentiate between groups by saying that the assessment would be degrading for one group, and acceptable for another, is not itself acceptable.

 

Disability is impartial it cares not for race, religion, social class or standing, it's effects are as devastating and debilitating to the soldier, as they are to the road sweeper, to the sailor or the nurse, to the pilot or the mechanic. Don't let disability be belittled, despise those who would belittle it.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not like to see this go any further, it seems

that you have no regard for the sacrifices made by

service men and women often mere teenagers who

have suffered in the service of this country, they had

no thoughts about claiming benefit when they took

the Oath of Alliegence but put themselves in the Front

Line.

Young soldiers, salors and airmen go into battle for

less pay than a rookie cop on the beat and with far

less pension rights and a hell of lot more risk.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brig it's not about that tbf.

 

We should all be equal no matter what you've done. We all benefit society in some way no matter what you do!

 

We're fighting the same fight and instead of being defensive you need to step out of your corner and support all.

 

We are the lowest in society now so any improvement goes upwards!

 

Old it's not about specific access to one benefit.. It's the whole care picture!

 

AS is being highlighted now PIP + Mobility cars etc etc etc n etc.

 

We're fighting the whole disability measurement across all fronts!

 

Because the definition of disability has changed (plus those who decide it's impact) it's gone mad! I tell you mad!

 

Sorry about this I'm not your stalker just read a lot.

 

Nyst is now no longer treated with respect and reasonable adjustments made (which would/may/probably happened 2 years ago) on Work Fair because the definition of that has changed.

 

I myself am now gunning for a £150,000 a year assisted place because care in the community is over! I'm on suicide watch as the fact I have to find £40 out of my £71 ESA to house myself in the same flat I was in before the changes leaves me with £11 a week for feed myself! Even in London ESA+LHA+CT benefit comes to under £7,000 go figure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's about respect. It's about fairness. There are many other occupations where people put their lives at risk daily. (police, fire fighters, nurses, etc)

 

It shouldn't matter how you became disabled. The little girl who lost both legs as a toddler due to meningitis is as deserving of her benefits as the 19 year old who served in the army and is now disabled as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brigadier, if you'd be so kind, step down from your high horse. Nobody is disputing the dangers of the job nor the potential sacrifices made by people in the armed services. However, there has to be a level playing field where ALL disabled and seriously ill people are treated with the same level of humanity, care and dignity. Preferably a far higher level than we have now. And whilst you argue that the servicemen had no thoughts of benefits, well neither did any of us who ended up in our situation.

I totally agree with osdset, speedfreek and nystagmite on this one. Oh, did I forget to mention I'm a former member of the armed forces and proud of it? ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had armed forces personnel come home from war limbless and broken and been subject to the same testing as the rest of us, it would immediately have become obvious just how biased the testing is as they'd have routinely been declared to be 'fit to work'. It's to keep the general public from understanding the tests are crooked, that's why this exemption's been made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt this is being done for votes. It's being done because of the financial system we have. At its simplest, it demands that each year more interest is paid, this to financiers and bankers who don't exactly have to work for the money. As our governments meekly hand over more and more of the wealth of the country to them, there's less for the rest of us. The disabled are being picked on as we're seen as being unable to fight back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this idea is simply to appease the voters who believe everything they read in the daily mail and other tory papers...we are the undeserving, a drain on society, etc etc.....either this odious testing system is for all of us or none of us....there should be no difference how you became disabled...I proudly served in the forces when I was fit and well....am also wondering if all those with PTSD will not have to jump through the hoops the rest of us has to?...but I dont think this particular disability will be recognised even though there are probably more ex-serving personnel suffering from this than limbless personnel...I have already resigned myself to losing my DLA when the new system rolls out...and I thank previous govts for giving me the opportunity to remain mobile....I have in my more darker moments thought that direct action may be the only way to put our plight out there....maybe starving myself to death in front of olympic stadium during olympics might make a point...but my family assure me it wouldnt...so another idea bites the dust...whilst we are confined to fighting for ourselves with the new ESA and proposed DLA descriptors it becomes a daily struggle that leaves many of us exhausted and unable to do anything more than post on the forum our plight...hoping for help from others...I dont have the answers I which I did....we have become a nation where the pursuit of wealth is more important than the sick, ill and disabled...until the people of this country wake up and smell the coffee nothing we say or do is going to change

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well put

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just one more tactic in the government's "Divide and Rule" plan. Divide the disabled into smaller groups, thus taking away the impact that any lobbying by the now smaller disabled group might have had.

 

The same is happening with pensioners receiving different rates of pension and different tax thresholds.

 

The child benefit anomaly is another ruse by the government.

 

All designed to Divide and Rule by breaking protest groups down to smaller and less effective groups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These principles are now in the Armed Forces Act 2011. In certain limited circumstances, special treatment will be given to members of the Armed Forces ‘whose lives are irreparably altered by Service.’.

as previously posted PTSD which should be treated as a disability...but you can bet it wont....except 'in certain limited circumstances' this govt attitude...if you cant see it..it aint a problem......plus all the claims for this disability can then be discounted....this is nothing more than the usual propoganda message from this divisive govt

Link to post
Share on other sites

More to the point, how can the government suggest a doctor and specialist on the one hand be trusted to decide whether an individual from the armed forces is too sick to work but the same doctor and specialist can't make that decision about someone in civvy street? How can doctors' and specialists' decisions only be accurate about enlisted personnel and not civilians? Either they can decide it or they can't. Cameron makes a complete fool of himself - again - in trying to have it both ways. No wonder they keep calling this government an omnishambles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also wondering if this is going to be the case for ex-serving personnel from other conflicts...or is it only going to apply to iraq and afghanistan....he could be opening a can or worms...as the claims flood in for allowances..remember everyone next time your atos appt comes up....'Im ex forces m8'..every time this cameron opens his mouth utter rubbish utters forth....(excuse poor english but it rhymed nicely)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not like to see this go any further, it seems

that you have no regard for the sacrifices made by

service men and women often mere teenagers who

have suffered in the service of this country, they had

no thoughts about claiming benefit when they took

the Oath of Alliegence but put themselves in the Front

Line.

Young soldiers, salors and airmen go into battle for

less pay than a rookie cop on the beat and with far

less pension rights and a hell of lot more risk.

 

I think you have misunderstood what we saying.

 

its not that we saying they dont deserve help, but rather everyone should be getting the same treatment.

 

eg. when I was working full time at 18 years of age I had no thoughts in my mind of claiming benefits either, I didnt even know what incapacity benefit was. Stuff happens in life thats unexpected and life itself is a lottery.

 

Clearly to me the reason this excemption was made is to win votes, political. Newspapers like the sun love the army, because the wealthy also love the army because the army does the dirty work on foreign policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have misunderstood what we saying.

 

its not that we saying they dont deserve help, but rather everyone should be getting the same treatment.

 

eg. when I was working full time at 18 years of age I had no thoughts in my mind of claiming benefits either, I didnt even know what incapacity benefit was. Stuff happens in life thats unexpected and life itself is a lottery.

 

Clearly to me the reason this excemption was made is to win votes, political. Newspapers like the sun love the army, because the wealthy also love the army because the army does the dirty work on foreign policy.

 

It sounds to me that you don't like the armed forces and so you would like them to suffer under the pretext of 'fairness'.

 

It does matter what people have done. Do you think, do you really think, that, for example, someone who becomes disabled because he falls down some stairs while drunk deserves the exact same treatment as soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country? Don't you have any regard at all for the sacrifices those in the armed forces make?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me that you don't like the armed forces and so you would like them to suffer under the pretext of 'fairness'.

 

It does matter what people have done. Do you think, do you really think, that, for example, someone who becomes disabled because he falls down some stairs while drunk deserves the exact same treatment as soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country? Don't you have any regard at all for the sacrifices those in the armed forces make?

 

I think that is an unfair unsumption.

 

I have the up most respect for soldiers who fight for their country and agree they should be treated fairly, however you can not class a man falling down a stairs drunk and a soldier. It dosnt matter how you became disabled the fact is you are. Every one with a disability should be treated fairly no matter what walks of life they come from or how they became disabled. No one asks for their disability, I know I didnt ask for mine.

 

However it could be argued that a soldier knew that this could be the out come for working in the armed forces. If that is the case then there should be a special pension for all those who have been made disabled, thats if there already isnt, I dont know that. In any case the armed forces should look after those who have suffered.

 

But then it could be argued that when you get in a car there is a possibility you could have an accident.

 

There are many arguments to this. Every one should be treated equally but as individually as required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

 

It sounds to me that you don't like the armed forces and so you would like them to suffer under the pretext of 'fairness'.

 

It does matter what people have done. Do you think, do you really think, that, for example, someone who becomes disabled because he falls down some stairs while drunk deserves the exact same treatment as soldiers who put their lives on the line for their country? Don't you have any regard at all for the sacrifices those in the armed forces make?

 

I was born with brain cysts. This has caused me to develop other disabilities, including seizures; which at the age of 11, left me with a head injury. Why should the solider with similar injuries to mine be treated more favourably? I didn't ask to have any of my disabilities. The soldiers know the risks.

 

It doesn't matter what people have done. And where do you draw the line?

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4364 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...