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

NatWest OD facility letters


pj2017
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3427 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

what you could do also is a cca request? and see what they come back with. an o/d is running account credit. they'll prob claim exemption but could say well if claiming exemp where are the o/d facility letter and exemp letter to prove? also, there is the statement of account etc that s/b complied with re cca request even if exemption.

did you see the lending code/bcobs re 'dormant' accounts?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 246
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

the problem is i doubt very very much that they would take it to court. They are fully aware that they are on sticky ground as they have no documentation.

if you fail to maintain the facility they will with draw it , default you and then let the hounds loose on you until you give in and pay.

the fact they hold no documentation is of no concern to them.

As for them being reasonable, banks dont do reasonable ! they make money by stuffing you ! the thought of freezing interest is an absolute no no.

what the law says and what the bank believe are two different things. They are pretty sure you wont take them to court, as you say yourself " there is nothing to contest" , so what are you trying to acheive?

You are aware they hold no paperwork but will it change anything? i doubt it will .

Its either pay up or we will destroy your credit files and make your life hell, unless you have loads of cash and a good brief to take them to court and try your luck putting them to proof.

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is i doubt very very much that they would take it to court. They are fully aware that they are on sticky ground as they have no documentation.

if you fail to maintain the facility they will with draw it , default you and then let the hounds loose on you until you give in and pay.

the fact they hold no documentation is of no concern to them.

As for them being reasonable, banks dont do reasonable ! they make money by stuffing you ! the thought of freezing interest is an absolute no no.

what the law says and what the bank believe are two different things. They are pretty sure you wont take them to court, as you say yourself " there is nothing to contest" , so what are you trying to acheive?

You are aware they hold no paperwork but will it change anything? i doubt it will .

Its either pay up or we will destroy your credit files and make your life hell, unless you have loads of cash and a good brief to take them to court and try your luck putting them to proof.

 

Well, I read somewhere on CAG that you need to be careful assuming you can "put them to proof" in court, because the way the law works the person making statements in court is the one who has to prove them. If I sued NatWest, I am the one who would be put to strict proof - and I don't have account opening documentation either. So best to wait for them to sue me, and then, I will be careful not to make unsupportable statements in court, waiting for them to make claims over the nature of the contract between us (if any), giving me the opportunity to put them to strict proof. I can't make statements in court that I can't support - which is what suing them would require - but neither can they - which is why they may not go to court.

 

I own my house, albeit with a mortgage - one of the cheapest houses in the country - nothing grand - and I was in 6 months of arrears at one point - so credit file is already ruined and my credit rating is on the lowest level. So at this point in time, the credit file is my last concern. Mortgage is less than £60 a week - which I am managing at present despite the fact my work has gone down to about 1 day a week, and I go to the gym the other 4 days - so unless I get more clients cancelling I can stay where I am and won't need to be concerned about the credit file. The problem comes if I am once again unable to pay the mortgage, have to go on the JSA, go into arrears again, get repossessed, and then find that landlords won't rent to me on housing benefit due to my credit file. As long as I can pay my admittedly small mortgage, I can ignore the credit file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you dont make arrangements with credit management they will default you and then try to recover the outstanding debt via door knockers..

 

if you are not worried about the collecters on the phone etc harrasing you then let them knock, but you will receive a default and a lots of harrassment.

 

if they try and enforce the debt in court, stand your ground and then put them to proof and try your luck that way.

 

it appears that no direction looks pretty from this side, but plenty have done it before and come out the other side including me with trashed credit files, luckily mine have less than a year to run but still a pain in the ass none the less.

 

I would pay the mortgage and put it on the back burner and hope things get better work wise personally and let them sing for it

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if it's a choice between paying the mortgage and servicing an old debt - I'm afraid the choice is simple. I'll pay the mortgage and won't live on a park bench as a result.

 

Surely they must realise few people engage them in long series of letters on the legal obligation to be fair to customers unless they are really desperate for a bit of relaxation of the financial pressure on them. I don't do this for kicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One good thing from the SAR - I see they don't have my current mobile phone number. Which makes life easier.

 

In fact, I would never give any bank or similar company my mobile number! Mobiles are for friends and family only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mobiles are no problem there easy to block numbers on anyway..its landline thats a pain in the ass and the only way out of that is change the number, or answer phone machine ..

.

i have engaged them with 86 letters in total and still got no where, and i have no outstanding debt ..they are tosse**....executive complaints dept my ass !! its just another muppet saying you are wrong and we are right ...do something about it if you can...we dont really care.....

 

they are horrible people with no morals and i defy any one to tell me different....he who pays the piper calls the tune sadly and when some people have to kiss ass to keep a job they will..

 

keep complaining to the ico and commisioners and bang them in court when you are on a pretty surefire thing...thats my only advice, keep on arguing the point via email or letter and dont give up..its the only thing that gets to them as they have more work to do.

Edited by jamesbond

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

86 letters, and no outstanding debt! how come?

 

one option, is to request data controller/or complaints removes all tel numbers from their system records?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

86 letters in total, 26 since the debt was written off due to them breaking to many rules and not having any paperwork, and instructing three debt cololecting agents on me at once ..it was insane..

 

it was a 500 o/d which they spiralled to 1800 quid and then defaulted me.

 

i contested it from day one when it went 3 quid or something over the 500 limit, i brought it back into line and stopped using the account and complained.

 

they just ignored me and kept stacking compounded charges on...totally wrong on all counts.

 

i even asked them to refund the first three charges applied so i could resume using the account as normal as i was getting nowhere..

 

i got shafted and still am being and i am still complaining..they havent supplied my sar , 4 months now and despite promise after promise nothing.

 

this has been going on for 5 years and its a complete joke..they have no paperwork which they have admitted to at executive complaint level, but they insist they have the right to file the default despite how it was issued.

 

they broke 6 of the icos guidelines on defaulting, the response from them was these are guide lines not the law.

 

i can go on and on and will do as these are terrible people. They sent me 75 quid compo for one error where they laft the default unsatisfied for 5 years, and said it was atrivial matter... id spent more than 75 quid on recorded delivery letters!! lol

 

as for requesting removal of your telephone number , sounds good in practice, but every debt collector they referred on me had it, so not alot of use really.. they are animals..And this was during the charges period and the account was under complaint from me.

 

they believe they are outside the law and when the consumers do get on top of things and turn it around, they go bust...as we have seen.

 

we bail them out and they then start shafting us again, same people different department.

 

i just stand my ground and remember to not take it personal, otherwise they will grind you down, they havent won on this one yet ..

 

they do hang themselves if you keep on, they are abit stupid to be honest.

Edited by jamesbond

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

at least it has been written off! lucky to get that?

 

removal request of tel no's seems to have worked for me, no calls despite dca involvement.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

i take my hat off to you ford, well done...if it works keep telling people to do it as anything that slows them down is good.

 

It was written off as they had done everything they could possibly do to me to get payemt and got no where.

 

i played the game and answered the phone and generally gave them as much trouble as they gave me and i think a couple took it personally to be honest, hence the default. it took them 18 months to default me on a dormant account in question about charges.

 

i received the default notice and section notice after the defaults were applied but was unable to prove that, and the default dates were questionable , but they didnt uphold my complaints on that either.

 

maybe they like to hear from me i dont know, but i will keep corresponding causing them to make more boo boos...they investigate and dont uphold all my complaints but over the years they have upheld a few of them so when i do put them all together to the ombudsman it wont look very good on there part..save the best till last eh!!

 

when you say it has been written off, it came at a dear price, i would have much preferred them to refund the first charge as requested and carried on with banking there.

 

The default hasnt been a problem for me to be honest as i have a pretty good job working for myself and since that have got rid of all debt except my mortgage, so for me it worked out ok, its just that the principal of the whole thing is wrong in that we have people in place to protect us like the ico and fos against the financial gangsters out there , but i feel they are as tainted as the banks, plus they take that long to get to the bottom of anything and they are not impartial in my opinion, this also tends to put people off complaining and lets the banks get away with more.

 

If things had been different and i had needed a loan or a mortgage, then that may have hurt so i dont think any one gets off lightly when they default you, yo may win but pay the price.

 

its just about trying to stop them abusing us in general i suppose thats what keeps me nagging at them, its just very very wrong what they are allowed to do to peoples lives with that credit record.

Edited by jamesbond

"ALWAYS QUOTE ME AS BEING MISQUOTED" :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right, no doubt they would love to speak to me (no point as all would say say is 'in writing only', unless wanted them to make a misleading statement contrary to cputr and/or bcobs? but, no need as already have that :) ), but all they can do is send their template letters.

 

hat off to you for getting it written off! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

in post 117, I gave the bank's last reply to me. I have since received a statement of all transactions on the account since 2006.

 

However the bank's response indicated they have no overdraft facility letters or account opening agreements. And yet they ask me "to contact our Collections Team in order to agree the way forward".

 

Contacting the bank to arrange payment seems to be the final paragraph in every letter from them. But why would I do so when they have not demonstrated they have a legal contract with me? I asked them for account opening agreemtns, terms and conditions, O/D letters - and made it clear I was seeking to establish if I had ever agreed to the terms by which they are now conducting the account. As I don't recall ever agreeing to certain key conditions, including everlasting interest on a built up debt on an account that can't be closed down - I'm not sure they can take this supposed debt to court.

 

What do people think about my replying and saying "I am still waiting for you to show me where I agreed to the terms and conditions including several unfair ones by which you are managing the account now. As far as I can see, if you have no account opening agreement or overdraft facility letters, no contract exists, and I owe you nothing. If you disagree, prove it in court!"

 

Or is there another way I should word that? I want to know what documents, if any, they would rely on if put to strict proof in court, and they have consistently refused to clarify that point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

difficult one challenging them to take it to court. depends on your circumstances, what you've got to lose, etc. your call. before they would take it to court, it would need to go through their collections etc. if don't want to do a cca request (in which they'll come back officially saying are exempt), could preempt and just write asking, since they have said there are no o/d letters etc, for their proof that they have complied with the oft determination re o/d's? if they respond could then know what their stance would likely to be? just a thought :) (nb in court J would determine things on balance re any evidence before it)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

(nb in court J would determine things on balance re any evidence before it)

 

Well, I am not expert in the law - and civil courts are "balance of probabilities", but it is possible at various points in a court process to put the other side to strict proof. Now when this is possible is the problem for a layman to understand. Eg - if they sue me, and I am defending, and I say there was no contract - the judge would probably allow them to put me to strict proof, and as I have no proof, I couldn't prove it if I had to. Maybe it is when the judge feels that the point being argued is beyond the likely balance of probabilities that he will ask for strict proof? However, if as you say, I cannot prove it one way and they cannot prove it the other, the judge would decide on the balance of probabilities in that case. I will think of an alternative wording to my next communication with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they take you to court, they would have the initial burden of proof.

 

So am I right in thinking that if I asked them in court to prove it - and they coudln't, but I couldn't come up with account opening details either - the judge steps in and says "on the balacne of probabilites, you have to pay up, case closed"

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they take you to court, it would be for them to prove on balance their case ie compliance with the oft determination re o/d's (presuming that would be your defence).

when, if, they discharge their burden then for def burden re any rebuttal etc. J then decides on balance re whats before it.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

trying to think of an eg for you:

they take you to court, you defend putting them to proof re oft determination etc, they say standard practice re exemption and to have sent xyz in satisfaction of determination but can't actually show that any letters were sent (as in robcags case for eg, but that was re summary judgment application), you say no such letters received. J then decides on balance re what's before it what would've probably happened. could go either way, but prob with the creditor. (being cynical :) ) ie would prob depend on J on the day unfortunately.

if for eg, cred produces a log showing certain required letters produced and therefore sent and you say didn't receive any letters. balance would prob then be with the creditor for sure. and, conversely, that could be an argument for a def ie where are the logs showing letters out?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

trying to think of an eg for you:

they take you to court, you defend putting them to proof re oft determination etc, they say standard practice re exemption and to have sent xyz in satisfaction of determination but can't actually show that any letters were sent (as in robcags case for eg, but that was re summary judgment application), you say no such letters received. J then decides on balance re what would've probably happened. could go either way, but prob with the creditor. (being cynical :) ) ie would prob depend on J on the day unfortunately.

if for eg, cred produces a log showing certain required letters produced and therefore sent and you say didn't receive any letters. balance would prob then be with the creditor for sure. and, conversely, that could be an argument for a def ie where are the logs showing letters out?

 

Yes, but surely the text of the letters sent out is more important. They have stated they don't have that. If they say "we sent you a letter in 1990 and our system shows we sent the letter although we don't know what the letter said" - what is the judge meant to make of that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

see the first para of my post there. creds don't keep actual copies of template letters etc sent.

if logs show a letter etc sent, there would be a letter reference (re the type of letter sent) and/or an actual description of it on the log.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

did you get a copy communications/timeline log to the relevant date? if so, and doesn't show anything, then could use that.

here is robcags thread for reference. as said, it seems that he may have been 'lucky' re the J lottery on this at the time, and it has since dca resurfaced. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241052-Irwin-Mitchell-NastyWest-overdraft-claim-***-Won-With-Costs***

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...