Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant 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; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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. 9. 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.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

E-Petition - everyone please sign . Re. Debt Purchase and unfair Statutory Demand and Bankruptcy procedure use.


storm01
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3442 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 know you've been doing great work, helping people get set asides....well on all aspects really, no argument there ;-) It is purely that it DOES all need change, you are right there haha! And to think that £750 Bankruptcy threshold, the debt buyer would have paid under £75, (no point in guessing how much lower) and so the law presently lets them take your home/possessions even though they only paid out way under, hence a big part of my dispute, I want to see how much they paid, I expect the judge to view this figure. I don't think it is unreasonable. I argue that what was unsecured should never be changed to secured as that wasn't what was applied for from offset.

The latter is interesting (boom boom)....no seriously, some interest rates were raised and raised. The FOS occasionally look at whether there was good cause in the raises, paperwork and explaination. To think some started at maybe 14% and went to 29% especially if people miss a payment or so. (Just example).

 

 

Judges need a heads up on everything.

 

 

I may seem like I want the impossible, but I am trying to do this for everyone's sake, a lot of thought and experience has led to this petition.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I did mean the title of the thread, storm.. not the petition. Although I believe there have been many other petitions in respect of this particular issue.

 

 

 

I think the courts are waking up to the fact that many Debt purchasers are using Stat Demands innapropriately, so they arent all getting away with it. We have seen many SDs set aside on this forum and others.

 

What is so frustrating is that often the amounts are just over the BR limit of £750.00 which is crazy.

 

There really needs to be a total overhaul of the way debt is sold - pursued - collected.

 

I also believe that creditors should be forced to advise in their advertising and on their credit agreements that ALL debt, even unsecured debt can, if not repaid, land a person with a charge on their home or B/R

 

Please note that those Debt purchasers who use the Insolvency process to collect debt, tend to target home owners - there is little point in targetting someone who doesnt have any assets !

 

I think it should also be made clear that unsecured debt usually has a higher interest rate, so if they do manage to get a charge on a property, there should be some relief from the very high interest rates previously paid to the creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Signed and will post a link on Facebook. (To my 2 friends)

 

 

Thank you sooooo much....

 

 

I have run out of ideas.... did send to newspapers...and they didn't respond...too scared hahah. It is on various sites....but anyone is welcome to try any avenues they can think of.

 

 

COME ON CAGGERS.... GET SIGNING LOL (This is FOR YOUUUU)!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

REMINDER 100,000 signatures needed - please can you assist in trying to obtain.... to enable this to go to House Of Commons... potentially.

Every single person that is having trouble with DCAs or Debt buyers should be signing.... no pressure, as the choice is yours of course.... but it would help.

 

 

Thanks everyone :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed

 

I think that maybe the petition should be re worded to deal with *HOW* DCAs are allowed to breach the law and guidence as much as they like.

 

That the DCAs should only be allowed to recoup what they paid for the debt

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed

 

I think that maybe the petition should be re worded to deal with *HOW* DCAs are allowed to breach the law and guidence as much as they like.

 

That the DCAs should only be allowed to recoup what they paid for the debt

 

I know what you are saying. It should lead to a major overhaul....the Gov should surely be interested in the Tax Relief claimed by banks etc.... hmmm... (no comment)...

 

 

Sadly, there is no access to change the petition, it has been checked and authorised by Gov. personnel.

 

 

Thank you :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Having read many posts on this issue and also having been recently been threatened with a charging order on an unsecured debt. I had a close look at the CCA 1974 sec 55a.

I think this will be of great interest to those threatened with loosing their home due to an unsecured debt.

I would welcome well informed comments on my proposition here since I plan to start court proceedings on this soon. I far as I can see any creditor who issues a credit agreement without giving the oral explanation as detailed below is precluded from further action as described. ie putting a charge on the debtors property which could lead to their home being repossessed, or indeed taking legal action at all. Does anybody know of anybody who has had this explained to them prior to signing a simple credit agreement? Indeed would any reasonable person sign such an agreement in these circumstances.

What this means in effect is that the creditor is guilty of negligent misrepresentation to put it kindly. Remember if you or I did the same in any other business it would be deemed as fraud. The good news is that misrepresentation by omission is actionable, notwithstanding that the creditor would be in breach of their statutory duties and the terms of their credit licence. Furthermore a contract that is made by misrepresentation is voidable and can be rescinded.

I have copied sec 55a below. and will post again.

 

 

 

 

Pre-contractual explanations etc

 

(1)Before a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, is made, the creditor must—

(a)provide the debtor with an adequate explanation of the matters referred to in subsection (2) in order to place him in a position enabling him to assess whether the agreement is adapted to his needs and his financial situation,

(b)advise the debtor—

(i)to consider the information which is required to be disclosed under section 55(1), and

(ii)where this information is disclosed in person to the debtor, that the debtor is able to take it away,

©provide the debtor with an opportunity to ask questions about the agreement, and

(d)advise the debtor how to ask the creditor for further information and explanation.

(2)The matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a)the features of the agreement which may make the credit to be provided under the agreement unsuitable for particular types of use,

(b)how much the debtor will have to pay periodically and, where the amount can be determined, in total under the agreement,

©the features of the agreement which may operate in a manner which would have a significant adverse effect on the debtor in a way which the debtor is unlikely to foresee,

(d)the principal consequences for the debtor arising from a failure to make payments under the agreement at the times required by the agreement including legal proceedings and, where this is a possibility, repossession of the debtor's home,and

(e)the effect of the exercise of any right to withdraw from the agreement and how and when this right may be exercised.

(3)The advice and explanation may be given orally or in writing except as provided in subsection (4).

(4)Where the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (2) is given orally or in person to a debtor, the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs © and (d) of that subsection, and the advice required to be given by subsection (1)(b), must be given orally to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

s55a introduced 2/11, as per eu directives. (not retrospective)

cld be worth a try.

they usually now state in writing prior (the small print/ads), as required, that home cld be at risk, which wld prob cover the CO aspect. whether how they advertise that though is enough?

ss3 - orally or in writing. so, if given in writing doesnt need to be oral. but if oral, then ss4

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument is very interesting. Wouldn't arguing this in court be prohibitively expensive though?

 

 

 

Having read many posts on this issue and also having been recently been threatened with a charging order on an unsecured debt. I had a close look at the CCA 1974 sec 55a.

I think this will be of great interest to those threatened with loosing their home due to an unsecured debt.

I would welcome well informed comments on my proposition here since I plan to start court proceedings on this soon. I far as I can see any creditor who issues a credit agreement without giving the oral explanation as detailed below is precluded from further action as described. ie putting a charge on the debtors property which could lead to their home being repossessed, or indeed taking legal action at all. Does anybody know of anybody who has had this explained to them prior to signing a simple credit agreement? Indeed would any reasonable person sign such an agreement in these circumstances.

What this means in effect is that the creditor is guilty of negligent misrepresentation to put it kindly. Remember if you or I did the same in any other business it would be deemed as fraud. The good news is that misrepresentation by omission is actionable, notwithstanding that the creditor would be in breach of their statutory duties and the terms of their credit licence. Furthermore a contract that is made by misrepresentation is voidable and can be rescinded.

I have copied sec 55a below. and will post again.

 

 

 

 

Pre-contractual explanations etc

 

(1)Before a regulated consumer credit agreement, other than an excluded agreement, is made, the creditor must—

(a)provide the debtor with an adequate explanation of the matters referred to in subsection (2) in order to place him in a position enabling him to assess whether the agreement is adapted to his needs and his financial situation,

(b)advise the debtor—

(i)to consider the information which is required to be disclosed under section 55(1), and

(ii)where this information is disclosed in person to the debtor, that the debtor is able to take it away,

©provide the debtor with an opportunity to ask questions about the agreement, and

(d)advise the debtor how to ask the creditor for further information and explanation.

(2)The matters referred to in subsection (1)(a) are—

(a)the features of the agreement which may make the credit to be provided under the agreement unsuitable for particular types of use,

(b)how much the debtor will have to pay periodically and, where the amount can be determined, in total under the agreement,

©the features of the agreement which may operate in a manner which would have a significant adverse effect on the debtor in a way which the debtor is unlikely to foresee,

(d)the principal consequences for the debtor arising from a failure to make payments under the agreement at the times required by the agreement including legal proceedings and, where this is a possibility, repossession of the debtor's home,and

(e)the effect of the exercise of any right to withdraw from the agreement and how and when this right may be exercised.

(3)The advice and explanation may be given orally or in writing except as provided in subsection (4).

(4)Where the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of subsection (2) is given orally or in person to a debtor, the explanation of the matters specified in paragraphs © and (d) of that subsection, and the advice required to be given by subsection (1)(b), must be given orally to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just received a decision from the FOS that said the Nationwide are treating me fairly by going to court to get a charging order, because of debt arrears, when I was sick in 2012. It said the nationwide cannot be expected to keep on accepting a token payment, and they are within their rights to go to court. must ask them where did it say on my agreement that they are entitled to my home.

LilythePink

If you liked what I said, and if it helped in any way, please tip my scales..... thank you:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...