Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • 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: _____________________
  • 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

equita hand delivered 'notice of enforcement'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3574 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

Hello all. I just received a 'notice of enforcement' which was hand delivered 7 days after the stated date (cheeky monkeys) I understand the laws have changed. I was wondering if they can now force entry? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

What date was the letter written?

What date did you receive it?

Do you know what postal service was used - Royal Mail, Uk Mail, DHL etc?

Do you know what level of service it was send by - 1st Class, 2nd Class or another?

What date and/or time have they given you to reply by?

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What date was the letter written?

What date did you receive it?

Do you know what postal service was used - Royal Mail, Uk Mail, DHL etc?

Do you know what level of service it was send by - 1st Class, 2nd Class or another?

What date and/or time have they given you to reply by?

 

OP says hand delivered 7 days after the stated date

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry was a bit vague earlier. The date stated on the letter was 10th July. It was hand delivered today. It said they will come back on the 18th at 17:30. So specific I thought the law had changed to allow forced entry which had me worried

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law states that you must have 7 clear days notice before the bailiff can knock on your door to either collect all the money outstanding including their fees; make an arrangement

to pay off the amount over a period of time; or take control of sufficient of your goods to sell at auction and pay the debt.

 

At the moment they cannot do any of that until the 7 days have elapsed ie. 25th July [sunday is not included]. This is to give you time to arrange a repayment schedule with the

bailiff to avoid him coming to your house. [if you don't make an arrangement his visit will add £230 to your bill so you do need to sort things out sharpish.]

 

Your first thing is to complain to the CEO at the Council stating that the letter was delivered on Thursday17th July and the EA says he will come on Friday night 18th July giving you no time to resolve the matter and is in breach of the recent Taking Control of Goods Act which states they you must have 7 clear days notice. Then ask him to confirm that noone will call until the 25th July at the earliest and get them to confirm how much you owe the Council and what you need to pay to prevent the bailiff coming. Once you know that you can either make an arrangement with the CEO to pay that amount and then contact the bailiff advising him that you have come to an agreement with the Council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we having to watch Equita more closely, as if indeed it was hand delivered on day 7 after the date, Formal Complaints will need raising. You could contact your local councillor also to ask what they think regarding the unlawful actions of their agents. What council is this as it might be a Capita stitch up one, as in Capita do the backkoffice and revenue functions, they own Equita.......

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtually all mail is hand delivered whether by postmen, TNT or the bailiff company. Unless some one was in the house or there is cctv who is to know

who actually made the delivery. Whoever it was, should a bailiff turn up today that is a blatant breach of the Act.

I cannot find it now, but I seem to recall that were a bailiff to come round within the 7 day period that the Control of Goods was cancelled and the £235 fee cancelled. Am I

right on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The £235 would be applied when they call. As this is Equita, we can advise chinoky to be very careful with Equita, and make sure there is no handy car to take control of, and not to let them in, as they have not given 7 Clear Days notice to allow for an arrangement. If they turn up huffing and puffing thell them you are initiating a complaint on the ground of no notice before calling in breach of Taking Control of Goods and will not be letting him in to take control of squat.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they come as promised?

 

My view is that the Notice of Enforcement is non-compliant & thewrefore they cannot charge £75 for it. There is nothing stopping them doing it correctly though. Is there any chance you can pay the Council whilst you have a chance.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new bailiff regulations provide that the Notice of Enforcement may be SERVED by a variety of methods (by post or hand delivered etc). If hand delivered, the '7 clear' days must still apply. I would 'assume' that the bailiff will try to state that the NoE that he hand delivered is merely a COPY of one that had previously been posted. I would be interested to hear his response.

 

Interesting question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new bailiff regulations provide that the Notice of Enforcement may be SERVED by a variety of methods (by post or hand delivered etc). If hand delivered, the '7 clear' days must still apply. I would 'assume' that the bailiff will try to state that the NoE that he hand delivered is merely a COPY of one that had previously been posted. I would be interested to hear his response.

 

Interesting question.

 

I have come across another the same as this whereby the letter has been delivered by hand and saying contact must be made within 2 days. Again it is Equita - seems as if they have their own agenda.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that Equita, are being creative with the Taking Control Regulations, possibly with the connivance of Capita if they happen to infest the council where the debtor is resident.

 

We should watch this one closely, as Equita will hand deliver on the seventh day or a couple of days later than the date on the letter to try to apply Compliance and Enforcement fees immediately if they feel they will get away with it rather than posting it via Royal Fail or TNT Post etc, A new interpretation of their previous MO, of upfront fee fraud perhaps.

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

All local authorities need to tread carefully where enforcement of Council Tax arrears is concerned. It would appear that court staff at magistrates courts are waking up to the fraud and corruption relating to Liability Orders. A case I am currently helping someone with has revealed a local authority only has summonses but no Liability Orders against the person I am helping. The magistrates court staff very kindly informed us of this. On my advice, the person is now writing to the Court Manager to request copies of the Informations the local authority would have to lay in order to obtain summonses and details of Justices and Justices' Clerk who were sitting on days the local authority claimed LOs were granted and who granted the Liability Orders (if any were, in fact, granted).

 

As for this thread, any local authority which has contracted Capita and its two attack dogs, Equita and Ross & Roberts, will need to keep a very close watch on what they are doing. If the new regulations are not being complied with, unless local authorities have had the sense to insert an indemnity clause into contracts, apparent non-compliance on the part of Equita and Ross & Roberts could prove very expensive for Council Tax payers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...