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

Sainsbury loan/Arrow Global/Wescot/DrysdenFairfax


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4126 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

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Morning All

 

Update on the current situation. I have received nothing in relation to the CCA reminder letter sent on 24 Oct 2012 giving AG 21 days to reply or nothing (apart from the letter from AG on 12 Oct 2012). In respect of the complaint letter, would you send them a polite reminder at this point?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Afternoon all

 

A very strange letter came through the letter box today. On 3 Oct I sent AG (Arrow Global) a standard CCA request. I sent this recorded delivery and a confirmed signature. After not hearing anything from AG (CCA request) I sent the 21 day warning letter on 25 Oct by recorded delivery. Again the post office confirmed this had been signed for.

 

The letter I received back today (25 Oct) was from the post office saying no one at the address. To me, this is all rather confusing. My questions are: -

(1) How could the letter be sent back when I have proof of delivery?

(2) The letter of the 25 Oct was sent to the exactly same place as the original CCA request. Why then are the post office saying that there is no one at that address?

 

I have absolutely no idea how I should proceed now and any advice would be greatly received.

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi what address did you use, you may need to complain to Roayal Mail about this.

Is this letter defintely from RM.

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

Hi what address did you use, you may need to complain to Roayal Mail about this.

Is this letter defintely from RM.

 

Thanks Brigadier for your quick reply.

 

On looking at the details on the envelope it was not sent back by Royal Mail. The address I sent the letter to was

57-61 Mortimer Street

5th Floor

London

W1W 8HS

 

This is exactly the same address I sent the original CCA request on the 3 Oct 2012. Proof of delivery (like the letter sent on 25 Oct) was provided.

 

Very strange! Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just going to do some checking!

 

OK Arrow Global

UK Mailing address.

Belvedere

12 Booth Street

Manchester

M2 4AW

0800 1300169

e-mail [email protected]

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

Just going to do some checking!

 

OK Arrow Global

UK Mailing address.

Belvedere

12 Booth Street

Manchester

M2 4AW

0800 1300169

e-mail [email protected]

 

Should I therefore resend the whole CCA request again? Seems odd to do this as I replied to Bazooka, no problems with original request and postal order cheques.

 

What would you suggest I do next?

 

Again, thank you for all the help u are giving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok.

 

Thanks Brigadier

 

I have amended the 21 day letter orginally sent on 25 Oct to include today's address and the address given above (with a copy to DF). Before I send this by RD, is it worth sending a covering letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Good Morning All

 

Yesterday I received a very strange letter from AG Ltd in reference to the CCA request made.

 

'We thank you for your letter dated 16/11/2012 and acknowledge your request for documentation pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

We do not accept that we are the creditor as envisaged by the above statute. However, we are willing to assist in obtaining that which has been requested. We will now process your request for documentation from the creditor and will revert in due course.

 

We confirm that all collection activity will be suspended pending provision of the documents. We will continue to investigate your complaint as explained in our letter dated 12/10/2012.'

 

I find this letter completely bizarre as: -

 

(1) AG clearly purchased the debt from Sainsbury (letter of assignment and shows on my credit file they own the debt).

(2) From my understanding of the CCA 1974, AG are clearly the creditor.

(3) If AG are not the creditor, why bother chasing money from me?

 

Your opinions would be greatly appreciated and what actions I should take next.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

AG will have bought the debt and rights to collect on it but regarding the CCA that will still be in the

possession of the OC therefore they will forward the request on to the OC.

 

It's the same if you want to send a SAR for all the information regarding the account, the DCA will have

a small amount of data on you and will only relate to what has happened from when they took over but all

the relevant data such as statements and default notices are still retained by the OC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Std letter it depends on the terms of the assignment but AG are obliged to aquire the document from the OC.

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

Std letter it depends on the terms of the assignment but AG are obliged to aquire the document from the OC.

 

Thanks everyone.

 

So would you agree it is best to hold to to see what AG comes back with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Not paying a penny!!!

 

Dear Arrow Global as you have now confirmed that no regulated agreement for the alleged debt exists I consider the matter closed and no further correspondenc will be entered into.

 

Final Response

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

Not paying a penny!!!

 

Dear Arrow Global as you have now confirmed that no regulated agreement for the alleged debt exists I consider the matter closed and no further correspondenc will be entered into.

 

Final Response

 

Thanks Brigadier

 

Would I be quite in assuming nothing further has to be done (eg acknowledgement of letter or anything)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...