Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • this is what I have so far , please advise :     IN THE COUNTY COURT   Claim No.: XXXXXXXX   Between   Devere Parking Ltd   (Claimant)   - and -    Mr x    (Defendant)         1.      It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xyz 2.      It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner 3.      The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all 4.      I live at the block of flats where the PCN was issued. My parking permit which is issued to me by the managing agency is usually always displayed. On this one occasion I forgot to display the permit. The Claimant would be very familiar with my vehicle as it is parked in the same space at the flats every day where I live 5.      It is my right to park in the car park where the PCN was issued as I am a leasehold owner 6.      6.A CPR 31.14 Request was sent to the Claimant and their reply is included with this witness statement ref: xyz 7.      The claimant PCN was £108, but on their claim they have entered £116. This does not tally   I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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.   Defendant’s signature:   Date:        
    • Thank you Man in the middle. He is a friend's friend.  I met him through a friend.  He's not  on my insurance, but he drives a car, which I believe is his.    
    • Just got off the phone to the mediator again. She was very nice actually. But she is saying, the garage have said the only loss I've suffered is the 185. They disputed the poor installation.   I have the screws and the burnt gasket.   the judge will ask me to prove my loss of £480. As I have have had a new turbo fitted. I cannot get a statement from the independent garage to prove the poor fitting.   if they are liable for the consequences following from the poor fitting, will that entitle me to a full refund? Bearing in mind that I did have a turbo fitted.   or just the refund of 185    SHe has given me another 24 hours to mull it over.   although I think I will proceed considering you will support me.   I Did tell her I was happy to proceed and she did seem to be gently persuading me not to.
    • Okay so it carries on, Lloyds supplied what they said was the DSAR again missing many items, so this has now been reported to the ICO, who have a six month backlog. Lloyds then said we will not correspond any further you will have to take us to court. LBG know they are in breach of contract but hope we can not raise the £10k + upfront to pay for the N1 and solicitors. LBG solicitors Eversheds then replied to the below letter (names take out) saying they will discuss once I have solicitors write to them. The below shows the lies, breach of contract and fraud by LBG and it's senior team. Charlie Nunn will have his work cut out with this lot or is he the same?   Directors of Lloyds Banking Group CO Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP 115 Colmore Row Birmingham B3 3AL   10TH December 2020   This is an open letter   Dear All Parties   With reference to the letter dated 26th November 2020 received by e-mail from Eversheds Sutherland concerning mortgage account number xxxxxxxxxxxxx with Lloyds banking group (LBG). Although in letters dated 7th November 2020, 13th November 2020, Eversheds Sutherland clearly stated a full review of the banks records would be carried out before a full response can be sent it is very disturbing that the response dated 26 November 2020 does not contain 95% of items that LBG have records for.   For the purposes of background mortgage account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxx was taken out as a buy to let mortgage on property xxxxxxxxx, had a none agreed product change made to it in 2007 and also had an address change made to it by accident during a system migration. The latter creating a data breach with letters and statements relating to the said mortgage being sent to the buy to let property and being opened by tenants (this data breach was not reported to the ICO). The content of this letter will also show further unreported data breaches on third party credit card accounts that have not been reported. Issues with the mortgage account that were first discovered in November 2017, however the severity of the issues did not become apparent right away. With the letter also outlining Fraudulent activity along with the withholding of information carried out by LBG between 2017 and 2020.      For avoidance of doubt the following letter outlines that mortgage account number xxxxxxxxxx is voidable on the following grounds, Terms breached, mistakes made by party offering the contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent (omitting / falsifying facts or information). LBG have also acted fraudulently to cover up mistakes made, whilst also not disclosing / purposely withholding and altering information which should have been included in DSAR requests. The below examples also highlight offences by LBG under the fraud act 2006, Can we please remind you this is a criminal offence and that the company officers will be liable to be charged with the offence as well as the company.         Credit checks: As part of the many DSAR requests xxxxxxx has asked for the two credit checks 2005 for the original application and 2007 for the change of product and all information relating to the credit checks to be included in the DSARs. LBG have purposely withheld this information as it shows many mistakes made in the correspondence xxxxxxxx has had with LBG since November 2017. Firstly, LBG state in many letters, e-mails (example e-mail to xxxxxxxx from Ben Taylor dated 29 March 2018) and conversations shown below that they have never held any other address than xxxxxxxxx for xxxxxx and xxxxxxxx however xxxxxxxx has never lived at xxxxxxxxx with the original mortgage agreement also listing xxxxxxxxx as living at a different address. Ben Taylor also quoted in an e-mail dated 4 April 2018 that xxxxxx was the associated address for xxxxxxxx. This means that either the credit check was incorrectly carried out and incomplete or LBG have made mistakes and acted fraudulently in stating no other address has ever been held. Due to the above mortgage account number xxxxxxxxxx is voidable on the following grounds, mistakes made by party offering the contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent (omitting / falsifying facts or information)   For the 2007 credit check carried out on xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxx, as stated by a number of LBG representatives, it is now apparent no credit check was carried out, 10th April 2018 Wendy Zeal wrote to xxxxxxxx in this letter Wendy quotes “Under our product transfer process in 2007 it was not a requirement for you to sign any documents in relation to the product transfer. Neither was it a requirement of the Bank to carry out a credit search on either of you” this means the many quotes stating credit checks had been carried one of which was by Wendy Zeal are fraud by false representation and was carried out with dishonest intent to cause a loss to xxxxxxxx.  Can we please remind you this is a criminal offence and that the company officers will be liable to be charged with the offence as well as the company.     None agreed product change: In 2007 the product was changed from 4.79% to a fixed two-year rate @ 6.23% plus a £699 fee, this was a mistake made by LBG who then continuously acted fraudulently to cover up this mistake.   The next section is made up of quotes taken from telephone calls between ******* and representatives of LBG and highlights many examples of mistakes made by party offering the contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent (omitting / falsifying facts or information).   23 March 2018 LBG Sean Beveridge from executive complaints. In this call Sean Beveridge told xxxxxx when talking about the 13 November 2017 calls “not all calls are recorded, also no supporting notes are on the file to confirm the calls took place”. This quote by Sean to xxxxxxx is an attempt to withhold information by saying it doesn’t exist, once LBG realised the consequence of the content of these calls. In the Novermber 2017 calls ****** was told the address had change due to a system migration issue. The next two statements show LBG had been aware of the calls as Wendy Zeal references the calls prior to Sean saying they do not exist. Case reference xxxxxxxx from the 19tt March 2018 when Wendy Zeal states that xxxxxxx address change was only first ever noted on 13 November 2017. Wendy Zeal also put this quote in writing as part of a response letter dated 23rd March 2018. This is evidence of LBG acting fraudulent. As this is fraud it voids the contract on mortgage account number *********   4 April 2018 LBG call handler James during this call James makes the following statement to ****** when asked about how ******** address had changed during a system migration “I mean there has been no system changes so actually I think they was talking about you rebranding of your account from G&G to Lloyds” further on in the conversation James comments “on the balance probably it has been likely that a similar mistake has been made here” when asked if a member of staff may of made a mistake when adding the product change. Again this shows from the outset that LBG had a doubt about the truth of the charge. James then went on to say when asked about the mistake of changing the product “No we contacted you to tell you about your previous” this was an attempt to cover up the mistakes. However, this does show mistakes made by party offering the contract and voids the contract on mortgage account number 50000081506785.    To show misrepresentation by James above we will now quote a conversation from LBG call handler Luke INUM 610142078499453 during this call Luke spoke to a second advisor who said to Luke “Okay let me just check, if it’s 2007 I don’t think I will be able to see it in my system because my system is actually for 2013 and up” this statement shows there had been a system change and shows the statement from James 4 April to be a mistake made by the party offering the contract.   In the notes James added to the system on the 5th April 2018 James quotes “I have told him we would write out with copies of the notes from the telephone call in 2007.” This is an attempt to falsify information and voids the contract on mortgage account number *********.     6th April 2018 LBG call handler Elizabeth told ******* when ******** explained no change of product had been made or requested “So what we’ve enclosed is a copy of the conversation of your mortgage in which you chose a product that had the associated fee with it, so we sent that evidence out to you in the post so you should be getting it”, Elizabeth also went on to say that she didn’t know what address the evidence had been sent to “I can’t see that information because the colleague printed off the application it’s self and sent that out to you”. This evidence was never received nor was any application form that we completed ever received, these items have also been requested as DSAR requests but never received. The only conclusion we can now come to is that the items do not exist. meaning Elizabeth made mistakes, misrepresented LBG and acted Fraudulently and falsifying facts and information and voids the contract on mortgage account number *************.     6 April 2018 LBG call handler AJ, first it is noted that the time of the calls according to the transcripts is incorrect to the time the calls took place. This is shown in the call that took place according to the transcript @ 12.52pm and lasted 3m 4s however during this call the time of 3.26pm is discussed as a promised call back by 3pm hadn’t taken place. During call 609190145394775 AJ clearly states to ******* in answering to ****** question “Have I signed to the charge” AJ “Yes, there was actually a declaration, because we will not be proceeding with a change of the product, ****** if there is no signature from both account holders. There was a declaration that you have signed that you will be changing the product. Now, the £699 conversion fee is a non-refundable product fee to the mortgage.” This statement from AJ is classed as Fraud by false representation Section 2 Fraud act 2006 and therefore voids the contract on mortgage account number ******** . Later on during this call ****** asked AJ “But how did you credit check?” this question was in relation to how the change of product was credit checked in 2007 AJ responded “Okay, there are ways to credit check” “if you are living in a different address, you and ****** has been living, or was living in a different address, but there are ways to credit checks, ******* After another minute in the conversation AJ then stated “We will not be charging a product without any of your, any of your authorisations both ******* and ******* in it.” When ****** quoted to AJ the following “I haven’t signed anything that’s what I’m telling you.” AJ responded Evidences can be produced, evidences can be produced ******, we have all the evidences, all the documents that you have signed.” The above quote was not made by mistake but made by Fraud by false representation The following quotes where all made by AJ during the said call and are all Fraud by false representation Section 2 Fraud act 2006 ·         “We can go ahead and send in all the declaration that you have signed that you have agreed to it *******, there is no problem with that.” ·         “We can produce the evidence *******” ·         “We cannot Guarantee that we are going to revert this, Okay, because all the documentation is here ********. ·         “Right, there is no fraud if you have signed to it *******, Okay.”   The next passage is in an exchange later on in the conversation ******* “How can you produce something that wasn’t signed for? Do you fraudulently produce it?” AJ “********, we have your signatures on the declaration, you have agreed to change the product.” ******** 2 You don’t. That’s what I am saying, you don’t because we haven’t signed anything.” AJ “That’s what I am saying as well that we have your signature that you have agreed to it.” ******* “I am telling you I have not received anything to agree to it so how could I have signed something?” AJ “So we admit that we have sent it to the wrong address Okay, but these charges.” ******** “Okay if you have sent it to the wrong address, can you listen” AJ “will be mentioned to you as soon as you have agreed to it Okay” ******** “I haven’t agreed to anything” AJ “Okay, if you have not agreed to it then we will just produce the documents that you have signed There is no problem with it” ******** “Documents that, that’s what I am trying to tell you, documents that I have not signed” AJ “That you have signed and we can produce, ********. ******** “Documents that I have not signed because I never ever received anything about it. I didn’t know anything about it until I phoned up last night for my redemption figure” AJ “I understand that the confirmation letter was sent out to you, to an incorrect address but the declaration has definitely been received with you signatures.” This exchange highlights three items from section two of the Fraud act 2006 as follows; made a false representation dishonestly knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading As this is fraud it voids the contract on mortgage account number *********.     6 April 2018 LBG call handler Rommel (AJ’s manager) Rommel called  ***** during the conversation Rommel quoted to ***** “When it comes to getting a new rate there should obviously be a confirmation from the bank, from the customer side there should be some signage” Rommel then goes on to quote “the document or the signatory must have been archived” then Rommel makes the statement “We can say yes it was sent out to a different or wrong address” This conversation with Rommel again highlights mistakes made by LBG with mortgage account number ******** voiding the contract.   6 April 2018 LBG call handler Myfe during a call ******* had with Myfe, Myfe put ***** on hold and had a conversation with a manager called Laura during this call Laura said to Myfe “I mean the customer is welcome to speak to me and erm, I can explain that we have received documents from him and it is open” This is another fraudulent statement made by LBG and is classed as Fraud by false representation Section 2 Fraud act 2006 and therefore voids the contract on mortgage account number ********.   6 April 2018 LBG call hander Velder call INUM 608617030411230 During this call with ****** Velder removed her headset and spoke to a colleague in the background during this conversation the colleague makes the statement “to Velder “He would have signed something” This again shows mistakes made by LBG.   6th April 2018 LBG call handler Angelito Dodoy Jr. stated to ******* and has also added to the notes on file “I have apologised for this mater but told him that the charge is valid and we can produce the documents for him but will need to be posted” This is another fraudulent statement made by LBG and is classed as Fraud by false representation Section 2 Fraud act 2006 and therefore voids the contract on mortgage account number **********     LBG call handler Amine INUM 608618030684268 during this call with ******* Amine talks to a second advisor about when a call back was meant to be made to ****** at 3pm “this note was left at ten past 3 and it’s from erm I think that might be AJ in offshore” this demonstrates notes left on accounts do not correspond with what has happened, and confirms mistakes made by the party offering the contract.     Missing / withheld / altered items from DSAR requests   21 March 2018 LBG call handler Wendy Zeal from executive complaints, although this call should have been included in a number of DSAR requests, the first request for this call was made on 23 March 2018 to LBG it has still not been received in this call Wendy hung up on ****** and also stated the calls from 13 Nov 2017 did not exist.   23 March 2018 e-mail from Sean Beveridge to Ben Taylor in this e-mail Sean states ****** has made DSAR request for calls and quotes “I have agreed that this does seem to be key, but also that our systems and notes hold no indication to what he suggests”. Ben Taylor also wrote to ******* via e-mail at 16.40 on the 23 March 2018 and quoted in the e-mail “Unfortunately we have not yet been successful and there are no notes on our systems to verify this call was received. This quote is a mistake and an attempt to withhold information voiding mortgage account number 50000081506785. On the same day Wendy Zeal wrote a letter to ****** and quoted “it wasn’t until 13 November that ****** correspondence address was noted as 27 Regents Way. If as Sean said and Ben e-mailed the call didn’t take place how can Wendy quote an action from the 13 November 2017 call? This again is confirmation of mistakes made, misrepresenting LBG and acting Fraudulently by falsifying facts and information. 13 October 2020 Suzanne Riggs confirmed LBG Technical Services confirmed a number of calls had been adapted before being sent as part of DSAR requests to ********* 20 January 2020 a FOI and DSAR request was made via e-mail for information on how many people have been impacted by system migration issues within LBG over the last 10 years. LBG have never responded to the requests although the requests have been chased.   6th April 2018 Angelelito Godoy jr called ***** however this call is missing from all DSAR requests as LBG are withholding the information from the call.   In the letter dated 10 April 2018 Wendy Zeal says “I have reviewed the calls between 5 – 7 April and it is clear you wanted an immediate refund of the product fee. During the course of the conversations with us we clearly let you know this would only be reviewed as part of your complaint about the product transfer which you dispute you requested. My response now fully answers the complaint” This quote is clearly an attempt to withhold information     9th April 2018 12.41 a DSAR request was made for LBG to supply transcripts of all calls between*****and LBG between 5 – 7 April 2018 when this DSAR was completed and Ben Taylor confirmed on the 16 August 2018 that calls had been sent, however LBG purposely withheld the calls between AJ and ****** from the 6 April within this DSAR and therefore voids the contract on mortgage account number 50000081506785.   8 October 2018 ***** made a further DSAR to Ben Taylor for the calls between 5-7 April 2018 via email by Taylor replied to Mr Boult on the 17 October 2018 and quoted “I can confirm the calls you have requested have been located and sent to you via recorded delivery.” As disk addressed to Thomas *****t was received by ****** on the 18 October the disk did not contain the calls from AJ on the 6 April as LBG had purposely withheld the information and not fulfilled the DSAR request.   A further DSAR request was made on the 18th October 2018 for transcripts of all calls between 5-7 April 2018. ***** received the transcripts on the 21 November 2018. Again a number of calls from the 6th April had been purposely withheld by LBG, with it being clear these calls did take place as the received transcripts had references to the calls.   22 November 2018 12.58 ****** made a further DSAR request “Please find attached the information request for all calls from 2 April – 7 April 2018. If transcripts of all calls are not received this time it will not look very good in court when the phone records are produced.”     Notes on LBG files 21 June 2018 added by Harvinder Garcha. “At final response stage we upheld the complaint and gave the customers the benefit of the doubt in relation to the issue of the correspondence address” This shows LBG had made mistakes meaning mortgage account number 50000081506785 is voidable.   Notes on LBG files 28 Sept 2018 Ian Write added notes to say he had spoken to Toby from FOS and had told Toby “that he had review UFSS and having reviewed there were no notes or calls between 2009 and 2018. This was an attempt to hide information from FOS   17 October 2018 after it had been proven the 13 November 2017 calls existed LBG then sent the calls out on disk address to Thomas,  Ben Whitehouse also added a note on file this day saying “customer is still waiting on the signed paperwork of the mortgage account” This shows LBG had made mistakes meaning mortgage account number 50000081506785 is voidable.   On the 08 November 2018 ***** made a DSAR’s request via e-mail the request read “Please supply a list of all products that have been held by myself stating the start and end dates along with the registered address and change of address with dates for the life time of the product.” This DSAR request was never completed by LBG. LBG have withheld this information purposely as it shows LBG did have ****** and ******* correct address of *******.    Credit card issues ******* This is a breach of the data protection act 1998 concerning receiving credit card statements on numerous occasions over a 5 year period for a third party and also none compliance of a SAR request.      We first of all received credit card chasing letters for a ****** relating to none payment of a Halifax credit card at our home address ****** back in 2014, we called the bank and where told just to return saying not know at this address, we did this for about 5 months but nothing happened although we had called many times and returned all letters. Eventually we raised a formal complaint the bank apologised and we stopped receiving the letters.   After this we thought nothing of it until 2018 when we started to receive credit card statements for ******. We called the bank and wrote many letters / e-mails by now I knew all of ******* credit card history and that ******** again hadn’t paid his card which worried us as it could black list our address. We questioned the bank as to why we had received the statements to which we had a reply that this was due to a migration of systems. and then at a later date Lloyds banking group decided due to implications with another case that they hadn’t said this and that the reason we had received the statements was due to a block on the card had been accidently removed. This of course is not the truth as if a block was simply on the card how did ****** receive new credit cards. We knew this as the statements showed that ******** between 2014 and 2018 had received new credit cards.   A DSAR request was made in November 2018 to receive transcripts of the calls concerning the credit cards and that we had been told it was due to system migration and although proof the calls had been made no transcripts have been received although on the 14 November 2018 Marin Beckwith did acknowledge calls had been made.   LBG did not report this data breach to the ICO.     Further mistakes with mortgage account number ********* The customer created date on the mortgage system is 01/01/1957 as listed in the documentation as part of DSAR’s made. In 1957 nor ****** or ******* had been born thus being a mistake made by the party offering the contract. 27 March 2018 Ben Taylor e-mailed ****** and stated “I have tried to call you today on the number you provided ********** but this has come back as an incorrect number. This is a mistake made as LBG have spoken to ******* on this number many times and included it in DSAR documentation, this is still ********* telephone number.     Conflicts of interest   A number of requests have been made to LBG for the conflicts of interest policy including DSAR requests however this policy has never been provided and it does appear LBG do carry out many conflicts as listed below   March 2018 a complaint was made about the rudeness and attitude of Wendy Zeal, to the directors and senior managers in LBG, this complaint was given to Wendy Zeal to reply to. This is a conflict of interest.    In October 2020 an official complaint was made to LBG about Sarah Harrowsmith, this complaint was given to Sarah Harrowsmith to respond to       Not all items on file have been discussed above, with all issues between March – November 2020 also left out at the moment however there is relevant evidence which outlines that mortgage account number ********is voidable on the following grounds, Terms breached, mistakes made by party offering the contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent (omitting / falsifying facts or information). LBG have also acted fraudulently to cover up mistakes made, whilst also not disclosing / purposely withholding and altering information which should have been included in DSAR requests. The above examples also highlight offences by LBG under the fraud act 2006, Can we please remind you this is a criminal offence and that the company officers will be liable to be charged with the offence as well as the company. We would also like to remind LBG that they will be liable for all legal costs ******* and ********* occur moving forward.    
    • Thought I'd give this a bit of a bump, car cash point now refusing to reply to emails, complaints or return calls. Also refusing to supply me with a copy of the default notice, the sar and refusing to acknowledge the fact that they are duty bound to place an account on hold for 30 days when I am in discussion with a debt help organisation.    Bit the bullet and rang chartsbridge. They've placed the account on hold whilst I speak with the debt advisor etc...bur here is where it gets interesting...    They contacted ccp who were quick enough to reply to them, despite ignoring me completely. Ccp stated to them that they weren't willing to negotiate a settlement as the account had been in default since last February... The default notice wasn't issued until late August!!!    Chartsbridge now refusing to answer requests for details of the default notice they were supplied with.... Something stinks!! 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Brothers HSBC/DG Stayed cLaim - credit Card - no Enforceable paperwork provided


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2877 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

This is an unusual situation ....

 

Two years ago HSBC took my brother to court for a credit card. At the time, we had a family problem and the bank's solicitors (DG) agreed to hold the claim for 3 months. However, he still had to submit a defence which I helped draft, asking for a copy of the agreement and default notice referred to in the POC and how the amount claimed is arrived at.

 

The bank did not respond to the defence. Previously they had said there was no agreement (well before the court claim) when default charges were disputed.

 

Now they have come back with a response to the defence, some 20 months later and apparently the claim was stayed for 3 months.

 

DG say they cannot locate an agreement (same as before then) and no copy of the default notice because it was system produced at the time of default. They also say the default charges are fair as per OFT report of 2006 and the test case of 2009 (which was about personal current accounts so what are they on about). They've sent a 'credit card request form' with the customer's name and address. The rest of it is not filled in. And some terms and conditions from 2002.

 

They've offered to reduce the claim by a few hundred and say settlement can be agreed by a Tomlin order.

 

I've to find out from the court what is happening with the claim. Should they not have struck it out many months ago?

 

It now seems an abuse of process. The claimant cannot produce the documents they relied on in their POC and have come back 20 months later.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tifo,

 

Have you any info to suggest DG Sol'rs have applied to the court for the case to now continue.

 

Given the time the claim was left, they would probably need to apply to the court seeking permission to continue the claim now.

 

It sounds like they're lacking the key documents required to prove their claim, so they're making an informal approach to you in the hope you'll agree to a Tomlin Order rather than go to court.

 

Firstly, I'd contact the court to ask if anything has happened in the case since 2011 or thereabouts.

 

If the answer is no, I would definitely not agree to anything proposed by the Sol'rs.

 

Let them take it back to court and, if or when they do, deal with the matter as necessary.

 

:wink:

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 OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've heard nothing from the court or DG in 23 months (March 2011) since they said they'll hold action for 3 months. I submitted an embarrassed defence stating they have not provided any evidence and have no prospect of succeeding.

 

Letter's come at the weekend so I'll find out from the court. Wouldn't they simply lift the stay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If DG Sol'rs apply for the stay to be lifted, that could be the time to apply yourself (N244) for the claim to be struck out on the basis of the missing key documents and the time elapsed since the Sol'rs last made any move on the case.

 

Hopefully, others will make their views known.

 

:wink:

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 OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've never been informed by the court or DG that the case was stayed. I assumed they hadn't replied to our defence so the court might have struck their case out. At the time until about the end of August 2011 we were very busy in an ongoing case (which was the reason for the 3 month relief from any action by DG).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you should start by checking the current status of the claim with the court, IMHO.

 

:wink:

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 OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
If DG Sol'rs apply for the stay to be lifted, that could be the time to apply yourself (N244) for the claim to be struck out on the basis of the missing key documents[9:18:08 AM] Mark Dingman: العرب لا تلعب لعبة الركبي.

 

Hopefully, others will make their views known.

 

:wink:

 

I have a case with DG which was stayed at Northampton for 27 months after I filed my defense (the claimant failed to action its claim after I filed my defense).

 

You state that a possible grounds for a dismisal / strike out is the length of time since the solicitors actions the case. Are you certain that this is reasonable grounds? Can you provide a precedent (I've searched high and low on the web)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a case with DG which was stayed at Northampton for 27 months after I filed my defense (the claimant failed to action its claim after I filed my defense).

 

My situation is similar. They don't have the agreement and confirmed this before their claim so they shouldn't have issued in any case by stating they had an agreement. That's a false statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

False Statement - DJs response well they made a mistake, never mind./ That is what I got, and I have a CCJ for HSBC card which after the case HSBC stated in SAR (late arrived) no agreement found, D.J. informed that FOS involved and that HSBC state no agreement found, yet she (DJ ) followed the CCJ and refused my set aside. HSBC now ask if I want to increase payment or offer a full and final, ignored them, a case soon will be rescheduled on this issue when I am ready.

Edited by Andyorch
Inappropriate language removed.
:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Nomorecrooks

 

I've moved your thread to the Legal Issues forum where I hope you'll get further input.

 

In my comments in post #4 above, I was suggesting that a Stayed case only remains Stayed until the claimant decides to progress it. However, if they have left it with no action, the Defendant can decide to be more pro-active and ask that the claim be struck out or dismissed.

 

It seems unfair that a case can remain dormant and then be revived, on a whim. This is covered by the CPR.

 

:-)

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 OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Nomorecrooks

 

I've moved your thread to the Legal Issues forum where I hope you'll get further input.

 

In my comments in post #4 above, I was suggesting that a Stayed case only remains Stayed until the claimant decides to progress it. However, if they have left it with no action, the Defendant can decide to be more pro-active and ask that the claim be struck out or dismissed.

 

It seems unfair that a case can remain dormant and then be revived, on a whim. This is covered by the CPR.

 

:-)

 

@Slick132: I agree with you entirely; the Claimant leaves the claim for 27 months then revives it over Christmas. Meanwhile I need to put my documents back together.

 

I had my first hearing on the case last week; the judge ordered the Claimant to supply various documents I had requested (but not received) under a SAR. I asked the judge about the 27 month stay: I said that I had been prejudiced since it required my rebuilding my case etc, the judge wasn't having it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

It seems unfair that a case can remain dormant and then be revived, on a whim. This is covered by the CPR.

 

Which CPR?

 

I've spoken with DG and they say the case is stayed until they decide to re-open it.

 

They still have no signed agreement and that the blank form with name and address and T's and C's from 2002 is an agreement as per Casey. I can't see any text linking the two together. One is from 2012/2013 and the other from 2002. I asked for all T's and C's including varied ones and they said it's unreasonable because of the time it may take.

 

They say one way costs can be claimed under contract law, i.e. they will get costs but we can't, even if under £5,000.

 

They also said the test case of 2009 on personal current accounts applies and their charges are fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tifo,

 

CPR covers all issues relating to claims, before and during the actual court process.

 

Specifically, CPR3.4 refers to an Application to Strike Out a claim - http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03

 

I see no point in you talking to DG at all. They're not there to help you in any way. In fact, they'll do all they can to unnerve you and you certainly shouldn't rely on their opinion or advice.

 

Did you check with the court about the status of the claim, to see if there have been any recent moves.

 

:-)

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 OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spoken with DG and they say the case is stayed until they decide to re-open it.

 

Is that what they actually said? If so, that’s rubbish, and therefore is a deliberate attempt to mislead you.

 

This is simply not the true situation. Reopening the case is not their sole prerogative – the progression of the case from a position of ‘stayed’ can also be influenced by you, as you have the option to apply for a strike out.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Is that what they actually said? If so, that’s rubbish, and therefore is a deliberate attempt to mislead you.

 

Yes, this is what they said. We declined their offer of a Tomlin order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DG have written to say the account has been terminated previously but will be terminated again on dd/mm/2013 and the full balance will then become due.

 

Haven't they already terminated, taken to court, unable to supply an agreement, put the claim on stay for 2 years?

 

What does the new notice mean for the ongoing (stayed) court claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we see exactly what they have sent please?

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we see exactly what they have sent please?

 

I'll scan it ............

 

The agreement was terminated some years ago, they issued a claim in court, could not provide an agreement and default notice, stayed the claim for 2 years, wanted a Tomlin order signed for a settlement and now .....

 

They say:

 

Credit Card Agreement dated on, or around, dd/mm/2002.

 

We remain of the view that the above mentioned agreement has already been validly terminated ...............

 

However, we hereby provide you with a further notice served without prejudice to any previous notice, whereby the agreement will be terminated on dd/mm/2013 ..............

 

Upon termination we require immediate repayment of the full outstanding balance under this agreement.

 

How can they terminate again and again ask for full repayment when they have already taken the matter to court?

 

What if we refuse to pay upon the second termination? They obviously can't issue a court claim again for the same agreement against an ongoing court claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WITHOUT PREJUDICE there is the the wording !!!! click on the wording above - they are trying it on stating you cannot produce letter in court!

 

others will comment also

 

The letter is not headed without prejudice in relation to court action .... only that the termination is without prejudice to the previous notice (and termination).

 

I'll contact them and ask if it's without prejudice in relation to court action or open correspondence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can they do the above though? (terminate again and ask for balance).

 

If not paid, what can they do? They can't take it to court unless the first claim is withdrawn, in which case they can't issue a second claim on the same matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tifo,

 

I would not bother to seek any confirmation from them about this.

 

It'll make it look like you're bothered or concerned, which you should NOT be.

 

Wait and see what ACTION they take, rather than threats of it. Then deal with it as necessary.

 

:-)

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 OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can they do the above though? (terminate again and ask for balance).

 

If not paid, what can they do? They can't take it to court unless the first claim is withdrawn, in which case they can't issue a second claim on the same matter.

 

As I think we’ve mentioned previously, their only option is to withdraw and reissue a compliant DN. They cannot switch horses mid-stream.

 

Can we see the new DN they have proffered?

 

I would suggest they are deliberately trying to bamboozle you as an LiP with legalese bullsh*t. Which is against the SRA code of conduct, as DG well knows, and is against the OFT’s debt collection guidelines.

 

Moreover, marking a letter or notice WP when it is already part of the case is futile. WP MUST be part of a genuine attempt to SETTLE a claim – not an attempt to bully and coerce you into doing something which may be the wrong thing to do.

 

You should complain to the court, the OFT and the SRA about this.

 

But the we know DG play dirty, so let’s be careful.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and as you know, they have already tried to mislead you regarding the stay.

“The industry is rotten to the core, whether it is in-house recovery and collection, or where agents are used, or where the debt has been sold.” Andrew Mackinley MP, House of Commons, 22 April 2009

 

If a Cagger helps you, click their star. Better still, make a donation however small, so that CAG can continue to help others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we see the new DN they have proffered?

 

I would suggest they are deliberately trying to bamboozle you as an LiP with legalese bullsh*t. Which is against the SRA code of conduct, as DG well knows, and is against the OFT’s debt collection guidelines.

 

There is no new DN. Just the letter from which I quoted earlier.

 

They can try and bamboozle me, at the moment I'm not taking it to a solicitors firm but there's no problem if I need to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to Brothers HSBC/DG Stayed cLaim - credit Card - no Enforceable paperwork provided
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...