Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

PRA MBNA Credit Card***Settled by Tomlin Order***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2802 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi guys

 

Just need a quick bit of input from Andyorch, when you have time Andy.

 

It's been a couple of months since I've been on here - just been too busy to look in.

 

Anyway, unfortunately one of my old post-2007 credit card debts has raised its ugly head in the meantime. I knew it was looming as PRA had resumed activity a few months ago, then their mates J&P sent an LBA a month back. I was hoping to intervene before they could issue the claim but I'd been away and they didn't hang about. Claim form duly received! :-(

 

I've done the acknowledgement and now just need to enter a defence. I haven't sent off the usual CPR or CCA requests as PRA had already sent the online agreement and I have no intention of going to court on this. I just want to buy some time and eventually try to negotiate something.

 

I'd be very grateful if you could run your eye over the defence below.

 

Particulars of claim:

 

The claimant claims the sum of £8xxx.xx for debt and interest.

 

1. On xx/xx/2008 the defendant entered into an agreement with MBNA Europe Ltd for a credit card under reference 1234567890123456.

 

2. On xx/xx/2013 the defendant defaulted on the agreement with an outstanding balance of £6,xxx.xx.

 

3. On xx/xx/2013 the debt of £6,xxx.xx was assigned to Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS Zug Branch, who itself, assigned the debt to PRA Group (UK) Ltd on xx/xx/2014.Notices of assignment were sent to the defendant in accordance with s136 Law of Property Act 1925.

 

And the claimant claims:

 

1. The sum of £6,xxx.xx

2. Statutory interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00% per annum from xx/xx/13 to xx/xx/16 £1,xxx.xx, and thereafter at a daily rate of £1.xx until judgement or sooner payment.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

PROPOSED DEFENCE

 

1 The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have, in the past, had an agreement with MBNA Europe Bank Ltd but I do not recognise this specific account number.

 

4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a valid Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am not aware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)

 

 

4. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and;

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and;

c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim

 

5. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed

 

6. 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

 

7. 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.

 

Is the above ok to submit? Do you have any further comments to add.

 

Many thanks!

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

That will suffice Shammy....I would send a CPR 31.14 though and include it in your point 2. as an addon to seeking clarification....it will bolster your point 4 also.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one thing Sham...those figures are not stacking up....6k - 8K ? Section 69 is at the discretion of the court...cant be included in the debt claim.

 

Its inflating the debt and also the claimants book figures?

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen a few of these this week...hope the courts are picking up on it...they can ask for it and they write it in the Particulars along with their calculation...but they cant add it.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unless MCOL have changed their system..which I am not aware of...you input section 69 interest separately after the debt entered figure.

 

As it stands you owe £6,xxx.xx...not £8xxx.xx...so its inflated.

 

Look at how they drafted their first line.....

 

Particulars of claim:

The claimant claims the sum of £8xxx.xx for debt and interest.

 

Then look at the last part.......

 

And the claimant claims:

 

1. The sum of £6,xxx.xx

2. Statutory interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00% per annum from xx/xx/13 to xx/xx/16 £1,xxx.xx, and thereafter at a daily rate of £1.xx until judgement or sooner payment

 

Very sneaky...but run with it for now then you bring it to the courts attention in your Witness Statement that the claimants are falsifying their claims by inflating the base debt with 8% interest.

Therefore their pleadings are untrue.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, thanks Andy. I'll run with it for now as you suggest but will look into it.

 

Besides the POC box, the front page finishes with figures for: 'Amount claimed' - 'Court fee' - 'Legal representative's costs' - 'Total amount'.

 

Any claim forms I've received previously have always included statutory interest in the total.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean that the 'Amount claimed' had the interest included. I'll see if I can get my hands on one of the previous forms tomorrow to check, but it's not overly important at the moment anyway, as my negotiation won't be starting any higher than the defaulted figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean that the 'Amount claimed' had the interest included. I'll see if I can get my hands on one of the previous forms tomorrow to check, but it's not overly important at the moment anyway, as my negotiation won't be starting any higher than the defaulted figure.

 

True...but as you can see from the above...that's the correct way....and even worse if your debt was 9K and they got you into Fast Track:-)

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy. My new thread has somehow become merged with my old thread?

 

Just noting on the attached example, the POC does not state a defaulted figure, but states that the claim includes interest. We can only conclude that the Amount Claimed includes the interest. Am I getting that correct?

 

Furthermore, looking back at page 1 of this thread where I have given an overview of my POC on that claim, the format seems pretty similar to this more recent one...except that it does not state a figure for interest added. I guess I'll have to dig the actual form out.

 

Anyway, I'll bear all this in mind and will address it at the correct time. Maybe it will have actually sunk in my then! ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore sorted.

 

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread title amended....Section 69 interest should not be added to any figures (in the total boxes) it can be wrote in the particulars at the end of the PoC and show the calculation (days etc) and can show the figure they would like to claim if they get judgment ...but it cant be added to the debt at any time.

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy. I very much appreciate you taking the time to go through this with me.

 

At which point should they formally ask for interest to be applied on top - after judgement? Or is this at the judges discretion, and based solely on the request made within the POC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once they have judgment ....section 69 may be allowed on the judgment..at the courts discretion...maybe not the full 8%..some only 4 %..depends how the claimant has behaved during the process ...(pre action protocol etc)

 

Check MCOL...i bet its down as a £8xxx.xx and not £6,xxx.xx ...also your CRAs....and then we get in to the realms of incorrect data reporting with the ICO.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Andy! I'll follow those points up in due course. Defence is due over next couple of days so I'm going to get the CPR request off today and then submit the defence.

 

I'm not expecting too much from this due to being post-2007 online application, but it will be interesting to find out if any cracks show up.

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once they have judgment ....section 69 may be allowed on the judgment..at the courts discretion...maybe not the full 8%..some only 4 %..depends how the claimant has behaved during the process ...(pre action protocol etc)

Andy the act uses the wording of "simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed,"

The Judgment Debts (Rate of Interest) Order 1993 is where the 8% comes from the base rate was about 6% then (so heaven knows why it hasn't been changed) the base rate is now 0.5 and has been since 2008 so is the rate for the entire term in any likely money claim.

 

So the equivalent rate of interest would be 0.66% (a third more than 0.5 same as 8 is a third more of 6).

Surely this would be a valid argument to put to a judge based on the wording of the act and that 8% represents a punitive rate and that an 8% rate merely encourages the claimant to wait longer close to the sb limit in order to basically obtain a windfall - assuming that they win of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered why a claimant wouldn't wait for as long as possible to issue a claim and accrue 8% interest rate. Some people are happy to get that return on their property rentals. I know Andy has already answered one aspect of this - i.e. it can be requested, but not guaranteed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy the act uses the wording of "simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed,"

The Judgment Debts (Rate of Interest) Order 1993 is where the 8% comes from the base rate was about 6% then (so heaven knows why it hasn't been changed) the base rate is now 0.5 and has been since 2008 so is the rate for the entire term in any likely money claim.

 

So the equivalent rate of interest would be 0.66% (a third more than 0.5 same as 8 is a third more of 6).

Surely this would be a valid argument to put to a judge based on the wording of the act and that 8% represents a punitive rate and that an 8% rate merely encourages the claimant to wait longer close to the sb limit in order to basically obtain a windfall - assuming that they win of course.

 

Very true MB...this has been subject for review over numerous years and yet it still trundles along.Rather than hijack Shamy's thread I will start a thread in the future on this very subject.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi guys

 

Just a quick update. I've negotiated a F&F settlement on this by way of a Tomlin Order. The Order looks straight forward, but do you advise having it checked over by a professional, or can you suggest any common pitfalls that may be built in and I can check for?

 

Regards,

 

Shamrocker

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...