Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Hastings direct refusing to pay garage storage fees - ** RESOLVED **


gillia
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3839 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

I am hoping someone can advise me on this forum, not sure if I am in the correct place.

 

Hastings Direct has refused to pay the storage costs for their clients car being held in our garage whilst they sorted out the claim.

It has been with us for 1290 days at a cost of £10 per day when the assessor eventually came out to assess the damage. The car was written off. As a gesture we agreed to freeze the charges at £1290. The car is still with us today.

 

Because there were complications with the customers claim it wasn't sorted for months and the customer had to involve a solicitor in order to fight his claim. The date of the accident was 11th March 2013 and the client was settled on the 16th October 2013

We periodically contacted Hastings to remind them that their charges were increasing and at no point within the corresponding did they inform us that they were not going to pay the fee.

 

The claim has been sorted and they have refused to pay the fee. After several emails they told us we could keep the car towards the cost but as we aren't breakers we declined their offer as the car is of no value now. They then offered to pay £500 less than half of the fee. We then asked if we could keep the car to scrap at a value of £160 which would at least replace some of the shortfall. They refused to let us keep the car. So we have an offer of £500.

 

Can anyone tell me if we have a case and what would be the best course of action to take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I replied on your other thread.

 

Legally, it would either be the owner of the car or whoever entered into the storage arrangement who would be liable.

 

If Hastings did not enter into a storage arrangement for which it was known to them what the fee would be, then you would have to seek relevant compensation from the owner of the car. So if you started a court claim against the car owner, they should then contact Hastings

and you may get a full settlement without need of a hearing. I just could not see the car owner or Hastings wanting to argue the toss in a court.

 

What Hastings are gambling on here is that you won't take this to court, because you could not be bothered. So they offer you £500, which you reluctantly accept or they can evidence to the court in a hearing as offering paying if it got that far.

 

Probably the best course of action for you at this stage, is to send a recorded delivery letter to the owner of the car, headed 'letter before actionlink3.gif', in which advise them that it is your intention to issue a court claim against them for the cost of storing their car. Provide them with details of the storage. In the letter you can explain that Hastings have refused to settle the full storage cost, which has led to you to this unfortunate postion and that you suggest that they contact Hastings to see if you can avoid this court action. Give them 21 days to settle the full storage cost to avoid a court claim being issued.

 

If they don't pay, you could simply issue a small court claim using MCOL.

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply unclebulgaria67.

 

Looks like that will be our way forward. This is the first time we have come across this and have learned a great deal from the experience.

 

One thing for sure is we won't be recommending Hastings Direct to any of our customers. Their claims process has been a very long and disappointing process for their client.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply unclebulgaria67.

 

Looks like that will be our way forward. This is the first time we have come across this and have learned a great deal from the experience.

 

One thing for sure is we won't be recommending Hastings Direct to any of our customers. Their claims process has been a very long and disappointing process for their client.

 

If you know the Hastings policy information, it is worth going via Jamie to try to resolve this. Once these niggles get into the public domain, Insurers usually like to resolve them quickly.

 

Hastings are like any other Insurers. They have an obligation to minimise claims costs, so they will have procedures which try to achieve this. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. Depends on the person or trader on the receiving end of this minimisation exercise.

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hoping someone can advise me on this forum, not sure if I am in the correct place.

 

Hastings Direct has refused to pay the storage costs for their clients car being held in our garage whilst they sorted out the claim.

It has been with us for 1290 days at a cost of £10 per day when the assessor eventually came out to assess the damage. The car was written off. As a gesture we agreed to freeze the charges at £1290. The car is still with us today.

 

Because there were complications with the customers claim it wasn't sorted for months and the customer had to involve a solicitor in order to fight his claim. The date of the accident was 11th March 2013 and the client was settled on the 16th October 2013

We periodically contacted Hastings to remind them that their charges were increasing and at no point within the corresponding did they inform us that they were not going to pay the fee.

 

The claim has been sorted and they have refused to pay the fee. After several emails they told us we could keep the car towards the cost but as we aren't breakers we declined their offer as the car is of no value now. They then offered to pay £500 less than half of the fee. We then asked if we could keep the car to scrap at a value of £160 which would at least replace some of the shortfall. They refused to let us keep the car. So we have an offer of £500.

 

Can anyone tell me if we have a case and what would be the best course of action to take.

Was the car involved in an accident and then towed to the storage compound? Where Hastings notified that the car was in storage and if so what measures did they take to reduce costs, i.e. did they advise the owner to have it towed elsewhere to a cheaper storage location? How long was it in storage before an assessor checked the vehicle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...