Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   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. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. 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.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. 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.   5. 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 © 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;   6. 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.   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.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

mikv

Why is Expendture ignored and Savings only taken into account ?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2029 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 realise the limit for savings is 6000.00 when on benefits , but what I don't understand is how any surplus money could be considered any more fraudulent than someone who is spending all their money on things that have no relevance to their needs i.e. satellite , booze , excess food etc

 

The reason I ask is because while being as bad as I am ( bed bound 4 yrs ) I have saved more than I thought ( over 6000,00 ) because of my physical limitations and inability to lead a " normal life " ( even by most disabled standards ) i.e. not being able to drive or own a vehicle or using a carer ( my mother has helped ) , or going out to spend money due to being housebound ,or using phones because I can barely talk / have no one talk to any way etc etc

 

I also never had my flat adapted or been able to seek treatments because there's none that exist here ( which is not my fault ) without traveling ( Which I have been unable to do ) or go to America ( which is far more than I can afford ) to get an operation. ( which is available there but not in the UK )

 

I am pretty annoyed by this because I feel that this lack of service in this country for my condition not only borders on discrimination but negligence too , and as result denies me the same rights more common disabilities have to be catered for in way that leads to them having less money ( Because they have something that helps them )

 

I mean if there is possible cure / treatments and it is only available in the US and not here , why should someone be punished for saving for a chance to help themselves rather than the person who chooses to waste it all on indulgences ?

 

To me that is unfair, belittling and just encouraging someone with no choices or options ( through no fault of their own ) to blow money for fear they will be punished for a service their government doesn't provide.

 

Are there any cases where exemptions for conditions / circumstances are made by the DWP or does the one rule fit all mean some will forever be doomed to never get the chance for treatments more popular conditions by default get ?

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have savings and wish to spend them on medical treatment, then the issue of "deprivation of capital" would come into play. Since each such case is decided on its merits, it seems likely to me that you would suffer no penalty should you choose to spend the money thus.

  • Confused 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up to you what you spend your money on. Why not pay your Mother for the care she gives? Then it's up to her what she does with her income. Who knows, she might choose to save it up to go towards the cost of a relative's trip to America ...

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's up to you what you spend your money on. Why not pay your Mother for the care she gives? Then it's up to her what she does with her income. Who knows, she might choose to save it up to go towards the cost of a relative's trip to America ...

 

Which could be seen as false accounting and deprivation of capital if this suddenly starts to happen, now that any savings have gone over £6k.

 

As long as you stay under £16k you will be still entitled to some means tested benefits albeit at a reduced rate.

 

Outgoings are never taken into account as it would be unfair as everyones' outgoings are different, hence any benefit is based on income only. Otherwise you could have someone earning £20k a month claiming as all of their wages go on mortgages, household bills etc leaving them with nothing at end of the month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pretty annoyed by this because I feel that this lack of service in this country for my condition not only borders on discrimination but negligence too , and as result denies me the same rights more common disabilities have to be catered for in way that leads to them having less money ( Because they have something that helps them )

 

Even some of us with more common disabilities face this.

 

As Antone mentioned - it's decided on a case by case basis, which is what someone else told me too. So, the person spending all their money on booze may still be treated as having that money; but if for example, you needed to replace worn out furniture, you shouldn't be.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for your replies.

 

As far as the op in the US ( never mind consultation , xrays etc ) I would probably be looking at something that costs far more than 16,000.00 and prob closer to 100 at least .

 

And the only way I could even close to ever getting that was if I had some property I could perhaps rent such as this flat - which of course would mean I'd lose benefits which in nutshell is the dilemma of being expected

to live on under 6 grand - or even 16 grand.

 

There are other treatments ( some less expensive ), but they are not proven or that cheap ( like stem cells ) or more experimental things which would prob be more temporary and require multiple / yearly returns .

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's up to you what you spend your money on. Why not pay your Mother for the care she gives? Then it's up to her what she does with her income. Who knows, she might choose to save it up to go towards the cost of a relative's trip to America ...

 

I intend too she had been helping since 07 , but she was told her pension rules her out of carers allowance because her pension is over £60.00 a week.

 

mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benefits system can't be fair to everyone under all possible circumstances. It's not even intended to be. In the end, the best we can manage is to do our best to ensure that people aren't starving in the streets.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The benefits system can't be fair to everyone under all possible circumstances. It's not even intended to be. In the end, the best we can manage is to do our best to ensure that people aren't starving in the streets.

 

Well that was the original idea!!


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

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

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that was the original idea!!

 

Well, yes, true. The system we have today has its...er, failings.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

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...