Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraphs 1 is noted and accepted that the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with  Vanquis.I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied. The claimant pleads that the defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue. Given that the claimant has failed to comply with my CPR 31.14 request and failed to evidence such fact and would not be in a position as Assignee of debt to know the details of any alleged breach. The defendant has never received a Default Notice from the original creditor. As the claimants plead in their particulars precise knowledge of the default, they are put to strict proof to evidence such fact.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   5. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • I will get my son to upload the video when he gets in. No down hill slope just a small  gradient and from the turning he came out of its maybe 15 shops until the traffic lights. Maybe it didn't get faster but he feels like it did (not clear on the video)  I'm picking him up from work tonight I'll pay attention to the gradient when I go back.   He'd only changed up to 2nd so he wasn't driving fast    Upside he knows now to always be prepared for ice  
    • Not sure why you keep changing your point 1 back to .....   1. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   1. Paragraphs 1 is noted and accepted that the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with  Vanquis.I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   We you the court the claimant already knows ......The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. its on the claim form.   Keep it as post #59 add post #66 renumber job done.
    • Hi all   Update, so they still have not provided any statements/documents etc regarding the account (I have the original SAR though) and since the beginning of October I have received a letter stating that they believe the debit is not SB because a payment of £340 was made April/May 2014 (this is credit and refund mentioned earlier in the thread). They have so far not received the statements etc from the bank but will forward them on due course, but if I should contact them to arrange a payment plan.   I have since had a offer of a 50% settlement and then last week a 75% settlement. My view is that they are just hoping I will bite and pay them something but that is not going to happen, I have not communicated to them since that single telephone conversation back in July.   The one thing I have noticed when I use Check My File is that the account status was changed November 7th to Query at Equifax, even though the default expired on November 4th so it should have disappeared by now. The original Satans Bank default was removed on time, but the Cabot account reference is still there albeit not negatively impacting my score it just has a status of 'Q' against November and the balance showing. There is no history showing before November it almost looks like a new account was setup with a Query status against it.   Does anybody have any idea of what is going on here? The cynical side of my is thinking they are forcing me to get in touch with them in writing about the account before their incorrectly perceived April/May SB date passes. I know Equifax does take longer for updates compared to the others agencies and in a few weeks it may be gone.   I'm just wondering what peoples views are, personally my credit score is almost in the excellent bracket and I'm not planning to get any credit soon so it makes no difference to me for now.
  • Our picks

IS IT ME?

Repossession questioned by deeds not being signed

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2110 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 again a nun ported case, the chamber sates it was asked by the 'appellant to send this out????

I know of no appellant asking for this to be done and as it is trying to stop the cases going though why would the appellant send it out??? Some thing is going on here me thinks

 

OH no it's only me???? Lol

 

Ummm IS IT ME who is this Applicant ?

 

pj


e-petition is live please sign it.. unlawful repossessions..!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/56915

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter from the chamber says - " I have been asked to send you the enclosed copy decision of HH Judge Blunsdon dated 20th March 2013. This has been sent to us by the Applicant in another case similar to your case..."

 

Has anyone else had this case through? Joseph Henry Fergus (by LPA Receivers P Jardine and GC Davis) and Calvin Matthews and Persons Unknown. - Lambeth County Court..

 

Is there any way this case can be posted if I get it scanned in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is -

1. who is the Applicant who asked this to be sent?

2. Why would an Applicant send a case through that still harps on about section 2 LPMPA 89?

3. Why are the Property Chamber doing the dirty work of the lenders?

 

I think I need to make a call to the Chamber tomorrow. All very confusing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The letter from the chamber says - " I have been asked to send you the enclosed copy decision of HH Judge Blunsdon dated 20th March 2013. This has been sent to us by the Applicant in another case similar to your case..."

 

Has anyone else had this case through? Joseph Henry Fergus (by LPA Receivers P Jardine and GC Davis) and Calvin Matthews and Persons Unknown. - Lambeth County Court..

 

Is there any way this case can be posted if I get it scanned in?

 

Has anyone remembered to PM Sequenci?

 

He was going to see if he/she could get a link to the case to help out.... that would save a lot of time?

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think so

 

Oh well... hopefully Sequenci will remember and get back to us on this......

 

I can imagine we need to look at it pretty swiftly.....

 

The clock is ticking.....

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will have a hunt once I've finished my working day. I *might* be able to find it :)

 

Sequenci.........any joy???

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the chamber are allowing you to see what the lenders would rely on so you can see how you can fight it.

 

Surely it's good that you know what you're up against and enable you to prepare to fight it.

 

If you scan it you should be able to post it up.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sequenci was going to post it up if he could find it as I can't find on the inter web lol

 

If it is a case sent to the Chamber by the Applicant.....then it is possibly a case that will help other Applicants......I can't see a lender asking the Chamber to send a case that would assist Applicants can you?

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the chamber are allowing you to see what the lenders would rely on so you can see how you can fight it.

 

Surely it's good that you know what you're up against and enable you to prepare to fight it.

 

If you scan it you should be able to post it up.

 

That would be a first........why would the Chamber show all applicants a lenders "hand" before the trial???

 

They sent out 'lamb'.....that was strange also.... got us all in a tizzy on here.....

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is a case sent to the Chamber by the Applicant.....then it is possibly a case that will help other Applicants......I can't see a lender asking the Chamber to send a case that would assist Applicants can you?

 

Apple

 

Whoever it helps it has to be better to know in advance than let them spring any surprises on the day.

 

TimetogoRAM asked if it could be posted if he scans it, and it can by hitting Go Advanced on a new post and using the paper clip to attach the scan.

 

If it's a new case it may not be on the legal databases yet.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be a first........why would the Chamber show all applicants a lenders "hand" before the trial???

 

They sent out 'lamb'.....that was strange also.... got us all in a tizzy on here.....

 

Apple

 

In a court case it's standard practice for both sides to provide a bundle of documents that they intend to rely on in court to enable them to prepare their arguments. I attended a dwp tribunal a while back and received a bundle in advance. I don't see why this tribunal wouldn't ensure parties had the opportunity to prepare in advance too. Often documents submitted on the day are not allowed or an adjournment will be allowed to read and digest the new info. Let's not forget the tribunal should be fair to both parties.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it before or after the lame case as I can't find it any where , also why would the chamber send this out.?

It's not from an application as no one on here has asked about it erm some thing fishy here

 

I think TTGR said it was 'March 2013'.......'lamb' was July 2013..... we found 'lamb' ok.....if this case was 'before' 'lamb'.......it must be on the data base by now...surely...??

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think TTGR said it was 'March 2013'.......'lamb' was July 2013..... we found 'lamb' ok.....if this case was 'before' 'lamb'.......it must be on the data base by now...surely...??

 

Apple

 

No idea. Just a suggestion. If TimetogoRAM has a copy and can post it, it saves everyone hunting for it.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a court case it's standard practice for both sides to provide a bundle of documents that they intend to rely on in court to enable them to prepare their arguments. I attended a dwp tribunal a while back and received a bundle in advance. I don't see why this tribunal wouldn't ensure parties had the opportunity to prepare in advance too. Often documents submitted on the day are not allowed or an adjournment will be allowed to read and digest the new info. Let's not forget the tribunal should be fair to both parties.

 

Yes, but it is never the 'court' that send details from the other sides case..it is normally the respondent as party to a trial that would be ordered to disclose any documentary evidence it intends to rely upon.......(the court don't do it for either party) .... yet....we are seeing it is the 'tribunal' (court) sending out particular cases...they are not sending a 'bundle'.....the other side are not sending the 'bundle'.....we are not seeing an 'actual' objection......it is strange behaviour......

 

Ah well.... we haven't yet seen the case...we may not get to discuss it anyway....and if we can't discuss it.... then there is no point it having been sent out in the first place....

 

Surely...if they are looking to prepare both sides.... why not send the complete 'bundle' then... why are they sending it in bits and bobs??

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No idea. Just a suggestion. If TimetogoRAM has a copy and can post it, it saves everyone hunting for it.

 

I think we should let Sequenci have a quick look first.... then, if no joy then we may have no choice.....but... I'm not sure I like this case management approach from the Tribunal in sending out bits and bobs at all......it makes it all seem un-professional...almost 'knee jerk; and reactive.... rather than proactive if you will :sad:

 

Apple


[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here's the case from property chamber

 

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BLUNSDEN -V- MR JOSEPH HENRY FERGUS..

 

Well done PJ! I didn't have access to a scanner till later.. Saved me a job. Thanks for this.

 

The first line of this document underlined says it all really - County Court unapproved judgement

Edited by TimetogoRAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but it is never the 'court' that send details from the other sides case..it is normally the respondent as party to a trial that would be ordered to disclose any documentary evidence it intends to rely upon.......(the court don't do it for either party) .... yet....we are seeing it is the 'tribunal' (court) sending out particular cases...they are not sending a 'bundle'.....the other side are not sending the 'bundle'.....we are not seeing an 'actual' objection......it is strange behaviour......

 

Ah well.... we haven't yet seen the case...we may not get to discuss it anyway....and if we can't discuss it.... then there is no point it having been sent out in the first place....

 

Surely...if they are looking to prepare both sides.... why not send the complete 'bundle' then... why are they sending it in bits and bobs??

 

Apple

 

Really strange behaviour. It's almost as if the Chamber are trying to put a stop to this.

I know the lender are definitely using tactics to put a stop to it...

 

I have again been copied in to a third email to the Chamber, which is again requesting more time to submit objections to the application.

 

What makes me laugh is that they mention requesting more time because the application has been stayed pending the outcome of similar applications and due to "the tight deadline" - what tight deadline? They've had plenty of time to submit objections.

 

I am still yet to receive any notification from my lender that they have instructed a solicitor - contrary to rule 14 (2)

They also again mention saving costs - which they would like to add will be added to the borrowers mortgage account - contrary to rule 13 (1)©

Edited by TimetogoRAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Marika

 

If there is stuff you don't understand... you should let us know.....

 

I know GHAM has been posting up stuff to assist...but if it is not 'hitting the spot'....do advise...ok?

 

Apple

 

Thank you Apple will do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2110 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...