Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. 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. 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 24/12/2022. 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 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: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

Outstanding debt by my new partner and her ex - £40K


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3619 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

Guy's,

 

My new partner and her ex fell Into financial trouble after a job loss and subsequently their house was repossessed and sold with o/s debt. She has now had letters and set-up a payment plan of what she can afford.

 

If I was to offer a % of this debt would it remove her liability for the remaining debt ??

 

We are wanting this nightmare to end and need to get on with our new life together without looking over our shoulder

 

HELP PLS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if the ex has also set up a plan or has he dumped it all in your partner's lap ?

 

I will try and find someone who can help :)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, offering a settlement for her 'share' won't work - it would have to be a settlement for the whole. Your partner and her ex are jointly and severally liable for the shortfall, and the mortgagee will take it from whoever is easiest to obtain it from.

 

If you are in a position to offer a settlement figure for the whole, you can do this. If it is accepted and paid, then your partner is free to sue her ex for 50% of that settlement figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can word the offer so that it does exactly what you say.... Remove your partners liability for the debt. That way they will go for the remaining amount from the other person.

 

You are more likely to get accepted on those terms than a full and final offer IMO.

 

Go for it - I would hope you should see 50% after negotiation but start lower than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, offering a settlement for her 'share' won't work - it would have to be a settlement for the whole. Your partner and her ex are jointly and severally liable for the shortfall, and the mortgagee will take it from whoever is easiest to obtain it from.

 

If you are in a position to offer a settlement figure for the whole, you can do this. If it is accepted and paid, then your partner is free to sue her ex for 50% of that settlement figure.

 

I have seen this done successfully. Rather than settle for the whole, the person settled to absolve their liability. For about 40% IIRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can word the offer so that it does exactly what you say.... Remove your partners liability for the debt. That way they will go for the remaining amount from the other person.

 

You cannot remove a partner's liability - each partner is liable for the whole of any unpaid debt.

 

If a creditor can get money from one party, they will do so with no regard for who owes what part of joint debts.

 

I can't see how or why a creditor would agree to collect only half a debt from one party, and then go after the other party. They have no need to do this.

 

:-)

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen this done successfully. Rather than settle for the whole, the person settled to absolve their liability. For about 40% IIRC.

 

Where, when and how exactly? This anecdotal type of statement never holds up in the face of reality, unfortunately.

 

The mortgagee already has a money judgment for the outstanding debt, which, since the house is sold and the shortfall is established, is £40k. You're suggesting to the OP that the mortgagee will happily settle for £10k (50% of the shared liability), yet they have a judgment for the full £40k...they have zero reason to accept 50% of the whole, let alone a mere 25%.

 

The mortgagee can pursue both parties, or one, it makes no difference to them so long as someone pays up.

 

My advice stands; the partner and her ex are jointly and severally liable for the debt, and if the partner pays off 50% then goes on to buy something else, they'll come after her for the remaining 50% (or slap a charge on the new house) - because they almost certainly won't agree to discharge her liability - and particularly in circumstances where they see her offering lump sum payments!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know if the ex has also set up a plan or has he dumped it all in your partner's lap ?

 

I will try and find someone who can help :)

 

I have no idea what, if anything is being paid by the other party. My partners plan is very minimal as she rents currently and doesn't earn a mass amount anyway. I'd think that a one off lump sum from me is better than 20yrs of a v.small amount ??

 

Help

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what, if anything is being paid by the other party. My partners plan is very minimal as she rents currently and doesn't earn a mass amount anyway. I'd think that a one off lump sum from me is better than 20yrs of a v.small amount ??

 

Help

 

Sadly, as you can see from responses by Slick and Leah, this is a joint debt and it is unlikely they creditor will accept that she is only responsible for half the debt

:(

 

If she were to apply for Bankruptcy, then the creditor would focus on the ex partner for full settlement.

 

As she has entered into a payment plan, I would say she has acknowledged the liability

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can't see how or why a creditor would agree to collect only half a debt from one party, and then go after the other party. They have no need to do this.

 

 

Oh it does happen, and quite often. They'll accept a percentage in full & final settlement of one person's liability. This allows the lender to go after the other party still but not the person that has made the settlement - the lender would be estopped from doing so. I've done scores of these for people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably there would have to be a cast iron, in writing, gaurantee that the person would no longer be pursued !

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably there would have to be a cast iron, in writing, gaurantee that the person would no longer be pursued !

 

100% without any doubt. That's a very good point as some people don't follow the right process only for it to really bite them later on down the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your partner has no assets and subject to the usual caveats then going BR could be a more attractive and neater option.

They would be cut loose financially from their previous relationships.

Worth exploring.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If your partner has no assets and subject to the usual caveats then going BR could be a more attractive and neater option.

They would be cut loose financially from their previous relationships.

Worth exploring.

 

How can I find out if both parties are paying ?? Is this easy ?? We've not discussed bankruptcy !! I'd like a 25% - 30% payment to be accepted and then walk if possible

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should have been more precise in my wording earlier.

 

She is joint and severally liable. When I said earlier 40%, I meant of the whole debt (which she can be held liable for). So I hope i haven't raised expectations of 25%...

 

As for finding out if someone else is paying, she can ask for statements if she is not getting them annually. That will show the payment history.

 

It might be worth phoning National Debtline to explore your options. I didn't recklessly post an anecdote in post #5, but I can't find the link. However, National Debtline will know if that is an option open to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...