Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi,   I have been informed that I will get a £1900 backdated payment for UC and that it is being processed. However, I will not see a penny of it. They intend to give it all to Bristol City Council for a housing benefit overpayment of £2900, despite that alleged overpayment being the subject of a tribunal as I don't owe them the money. The housing benefit overpayment occurred when I moved to a different location to get access to my treatment quicker, this was when I was on ESA. The new council told me I needed to apply for UC but the DWP wrote to me at my new address informing me that they had reviewed my claim and were going to keep me on ESA and that I need to apply for housing benefit from the council. I went round in circles for months, during this time my old council paid my housing benefit and then raised an invoice for the so called overpayment.   I can not tell you how sick I feel. I have accrued so much debt living off credit cards during this period to pay for food and bills. I had really hoped I could use the backdated payment to pay off some of the debt and get a little more financially buoyant. What a totally perverse system. They wont use any of the £1900 backdated payment to pay the £550 remaining for the advance I had while waiting for my UC claim to be processed after pushing me off ESA. So those payments for the loan will still be deducted from me monthly. It just couldn't be any worse. I don't have the words.   I had intended to make a donation to this site because you guys have been very helpful and I am very grateful to you all. I'm sorry that won't be happening now.    When did Britain become such a terrible country?   James        
    • defence is not due till day 33 follow post 7 carefully.   you can use recorded post for the cpr  but as they never reply anyway a waste of money just use 1st class stamp with free proof of posting from any po counter.
    • 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  
  • Our picks

Mike_hawk

Sent, service, serve.......legal definition?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2118 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

I'm having a bit of a senior moment [again] :-)

 

I have an ongoing claim v a financial institution to which it has counterclaimed the debit balance.... terminating the account 2 days prior to filing its defence and cc.

 

Within its particulars it relies on a DN served some 5 years ago, my issue is that I do have the original DN and whilst its bad it makes no mention of this but relies on one it alleges it 'sent' to me some 3 days later...... I certainly have no record of this second DN, all previous enquiries with the defendant prior to filing disclosed no mention of this within its account logs and notes, there being no entries for that date.

 

The day of 'sending' the 2nd DN as particularised being a Sunday, is there any method of service or interpretation of sending or serve which specifically refers to a Sunday?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I'm aware of Mike ...but if they state Sunday you can read how much authenticity there is in that statement.

 

 

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 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Andy

 

That's about the only conclusion I could come to, can't post much at all regarding the case as it has engaged the same counsel that another defendant did a while back and I know my posts are monitored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right...... I've upset it's counsel, apparently this client is nothing like sha*west and whilst it declined any prescribed ADR remedy or mediation it would like to compromise the case in order to avoid me being on the receiving end of a ccj should it 'win' its counter. I did point out it's less than a 2k case and with the very slim possibility of it winning there's not a hope in hell of it registering judgment if the dj doesn't come down on my side.

 

One thing I have learned is that all financial institutions, without bar, will fabricate data to suit its position.

 

'What do I want to settle the case'............ FFS Susie, the quantum of claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" One thing I have learned is that all financial institutions, without bar, will fabricate data to suit its position."

 

Surely not !!! :madgrin:


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say 'you wouldn't believe' but I think you might, lol

 

Sheesh, the sooner they make fabrication of data a criminal offence the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't get as far as questioning the veracity of its statement today.

 

Very nice DJ, very affable counsel with an extremely good compromise tabled... suffice to say it was a satisfactory outcome (for me).

 

Not sure that I agreed with everything the DJ had to say (s140 trumping limitation?) but really wasn't about to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...