Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • 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
  • 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

Richard Durkin wins Supreme Court appeal – beware lenders!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2655 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

My MP (Frank Doran) has been "trying" to persuade ministers to do something about the persistent criminal bankers that hold us to ransom with threats of defaults and then annihilate our lifestyles (and worse) when they illegally apply them.

 

He says he's been "brushed off".

 

I'm due to see him again on October 17th.

 

Let me know which other MPs have been approached on this matter. I'll encourage him to team up to try and get a better response.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Word is that parliament believes that the consumer is adequately protected by legislation! (Neither the government nor shadow government seem willing to commit this to writing)

 

Still no word on what I should have done. It seems that we're expected to pay the ransoms despite being told that we shouldn't give in to terrorism!

 

So, the situation is set to continue where the banks keep on ignoring the legislation without fear of prosecution. They are the terrorists.

 

A vote for Tories, Labour or SNP will not help change this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update.

 

"supreme" court, after more than a year, has finally decided that we must pay at least some expenses to the perpetrators from the lower court.

 

They've essentially passed the buck back to Edinburgh, the very court that screwed us in the first place!

 

As far as expenses in the "supreme court" go, my solicitors will need to negotiate with the perpetrators!

 

Still no news from either the government or the shadow government on what we're supposed to do when the banks continue to refuse to abide by the law.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "supreme court" seems to have ruled unanimously that a default doesn't prevent a mortgage.

 

Of course, that's not the case. They know it.

 

Here's the truth about my case:

 

https://ukinjusticebydurkin.wordpress.com/

 

I'm running out of ideas.

Edited by Durkin
Dodgy link
Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't get any sense from the government. They're in it with the banks. Just look at the latest HSBC scandal

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have to step it up to euro courts but they can take forever.

 

The judges at the supreme court need disbarring for that verdict. Otherwise since its now case law everyone needs to harass mortgage companies into complying. And if they don't, take them to court.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit to being a bit confused here, what case law are we referring to and which legislation is being ignored ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DB,

 

I had assumed my case. It was more the "supreme" justices failing to recognise that a default prevents folk obtaining a mortgage, despite the evidence.

 

If it's left like that, which seems most likely, no one now can claim proper reparation as banks continue to ignore the law.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the only judgment in your Supreme court case was that an agreement made under section 12 of the cca implies a linked sales agreement ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

We already knew that.

 

The important bit for reparation purposes was that a default prevents a mortgage and reparation is due.

 

The lower court recognized this but the "supreme" court didn't. Nor did the Scottish appeal court for that matter.

 

I think this was the only piece of the judgment which actually we did not know.

 

I think we were already aware that a reduced credit score can reduce the chance of getting finance.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we were already aware that a reduced credit score can reduce the chance of getting finance.

 

..yet the "supreme" court has ruled that a default can't prevent a mortgage. Absolute tosh.

 

Total annihilation. Not just a "reduced" credit score.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi Folks,

 

It seems as if I may have to go it alone for phase 2 against HSBC.

 

Proposed claim is attached. It's based on the theory that the UK "Supreme" Court were claiming not to have jurisdiction in Scotland. Hopefully, the trial court has jurisdiction to award damages again.

 

The Scottish appeal court judges seem to have avoided misconduct charges because the Supreme Court appeal took longer than 3 months! It's a joke what they can get away with so easily.

 

I'm keen to avoid res judicata in this fresh claim so I've geared it more towards defamation but I'd be happy to hear any other advice.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've left your address on it Richard.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pose a silly question on the topic of credit scoring. When a mistake is made by a company and they refuse to remove the untrue item why aren't they exposed to a charge of libel and hence damages? To publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Libel cases are horrendously expensive to fight and outside the reach of most people.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I sue for libel then, instead of defamation?

 

Publishing a false credit reference. No defence on that. Or should I sue for both? Or just defamation?

 

Is there a chance HSBC could defend an action for libel? (Apart from the standard dragging it out). What could a judge say to help them out?

 

These are the questions I need answered ahead of time as I'll be going in alone this time.

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I sue for libel then, instead of defamation?

 

Publishing a false credit reference. No defence on that. Or should I sue for both? Or just defamation?

 

Is there a chance HSBC could defend an action for libel? (Apart from the standard dragging it out). What could a judge say to help them out?

 

These are the questions I need answered ahead of time as I'll be going in alone this time.

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Cheers,

 

Richard

 

Sorry Richard. I was responding to brat's question. I really have no knowledge worth mentioning on libel or defamation.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Richard. I was responding to brat's question. I really have no knowledge worth mentioning on libel or defamation.

 

Brat raises an excellent point that I'd be happy to explore. HSBC has plenty of money seemingly!

 

Richard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

defamation = libel/slander

 

Thanks. It seems reasonable to stick with defamation then. Lord Hodge seemed to suggest that he'd have adopted that approach if he was ever in our shoes.

 

Richard

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...