Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are 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 its truth.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
    • oh no just logged in and it says a judgment was issued literally 2 hours ago! see attached Screenshot 2024-04-29 214754.pdf
  • 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

LLoyds Bank/Moorcroft/Midascreditservices - help needed


renifos
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3993 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,

My son has an old debt with LLoyds due to going into unauthorised overdraft.

 

He is not working and not claiming benefits, we support him.

 

I have sent all sort of letter and statement of earnings in the past, also have asked them to take the charges away.

 

The original overdraft amount was £280 all the rest are charges.

 

They have at last frozen the account at £429.36 and he is getting letters from Moorcroft.

 

Now he also has received a litigation warning letter from Midas.

 

I would like to make an offer for a lump sum of £300 to get rid of this at last.

 

Do I send this letter to Lloyds, BXT 1LT as I had correspondence from them before?

 

Any idea if they would accept this?

 

Am I doing the right thing?

 

Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would send a letter to lloyds marking it formal complaint

 

i done so and had a refund of around a grand and a cheque for £60 i complained more than once and yes another £60 cheque

 

saying that i was paying every month and interest they applied was more than i was paying

 

they may do a reduced settlement figure but they may sell the discount on to another bottom feeder

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

well ignore the fleecing dca's thats for sure

 

F&F to lloyds but demand they remove all negative data from his cra file and mark it satsified

 

partial is NO GOOD.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent a letter of complaint to LLoyds in April.

 

They replied that they cannot remove fees and so on and would not refund anything but closed account and passed it on to Moorcroft.

 

They said I could contact ombudsman within 6 months.

 

The letter I am planning to send is the offer without prejudice from debtline.

 

It really grieves me having to pay them charges.

 

I did complain that the debt nearly doubled as the original amount was only about £280 for a direct debit payment they made which sent him into unauthorised overdraft.

 

Should I just offer that to Lloyds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

dont read this question wrong..

 

bu

 

why are you looking to pay this off?

 

they'll go nowhere near a court which is why they have sold? it on

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for trying to pay it of was the recent threatening letter from Midascreditservice (stating that they are part of Moorcroft) giving a Litigation Warning if we don't contact Moorcroft by 13/6/12. Basically to get rid of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aha

 

no dca has ANY legal powers to do ANYTHING to him.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for trying to pay it of was the recent threatening letter from Midascreditservice (stating that they are part of Moorcroft) giving a Litigation Warning if we don't contact Moorcroft by 13/6/12. Basically to get rid of them.

 

what they mean is we are begging you to contact us and pay us some money before we give up and pass it on to another bottom feeder

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes!

 

unless he needs his cedit file clean IF it shows at all?

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

My son is still getting chased by Lloyds for £429 and they now passed the debt on to CSL.

 

I have offered to pay £300 in full and final settlement and they said they would take £329.

 

Now CSL have contacted me saying that the offer is on for 7 days.

 

I asked them if this will clear his credit file and they said they would put 'settled part payment, satisfied'!

 

I have asked them to confirm this in writing first before I would pay them as they wanted me to pay over the phone by debit card.

 

Does this mean his credit file will be clean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no waste of money!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS is as good as a CCJ on a CRA file.

 

also means the rest can be gotten at a latter dates.

 

anyhow

WHY are you even contemplating paying these fleecers

 

I thought this was resolved long ago...

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My reason and the latest news, dx:

 

I have just complained by letter to Lloyds ( on behalf of my son) again as I am getting constant harassment calls on my home phone

(and my son gets them on his mobile) from Westcott and also letters from CSl.

 

This was after requesting to be contacted by mail only.

 

Lloyds replied and have paid my son a cheque for £50 for the distress and inconvenience!

 

Quote: "We would accept £322 towards the balance.

 

If this payment was made we would accept this as partial settlement and your credit file would be updated to show this.

 

The account would then be recalled and you would not be pursued further for this."

 

I am not sure if this is good or bad?

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope getting fleeced

PS is as bad as a CCJ.

 

waste of money.

 

did you get his cra file?

 

have you All the statements..

 

the fees are UNLAWFUL penalties.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...