Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Whoops........... I think I might have missed that bit off 😆   Here it is in its entire form:   1.    The defendant opened a studio regulated consumer credit account under reference ********* on 30th November 2011. 2.    In breach of the agreement the defendant failed to maintain the required payments and the agreement was terminated.  3.    The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 25th September 2015 and written notice given to the Defendant. 4.    Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £716.38 remains due and outstanding.  And the Claimant claims; a) the said sum of £716.38; b) interest pursuant to s69 Count Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.157, but limited to one year, being £57.31; c) costs.     Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.   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.   Paragraph 1 is admitted insofar that a contractual relationship in the past with Studio did once exist but I do not recognise the account number referred to by the claimant.   Paragraph 2 is noted but not admitted. The claimant would not be aware of any alleged breach or in a position to plead such fact as an assignee as the defendant did not enter into any agreement with the claimant and is therefore put to strict proof to verify the nature of the alleged breach and service and copy of a Default Notice pursuant to CCA sec 87.1.   I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served 25th September 2015 pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974.   On the 30th September 2019 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a Section 78 request. To date the claimant has failed to comply to my CPR 31.14. The claimant also remains in default of my section 78 request and are therefore unable to enforce any agreement until such compliance.   On the 7th October 2019 Lowell provided a photocopy of an agreement and statement.  They confirmed that they have requested a copy of the Default Notice from the original creditor and this will be sent to me upon receipt.  To date, 23rd October 2019, I still await their compliance.   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 requested by CPR 31. 14 and sec 78 CCA1974 and therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; 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 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;   As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   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. If there is anything that needs amending or changing please let me know. The debt becomes SB on the 23rd Nov, so if I can drag it out to then I am guessing that there is nothing they can do?
    • Hi thanks all off you for your help.   I'm having rest now.
    • I haven't sent my N180 paperwork back to the Court yet (due next week) but Idem have sent me a copy of theirs.   They have ticked 'no' to mediation and have informed me that they're requesting a hold on proceedings for a month so that they can attempt settlement. 
    • just to update, i have received a letter this morning from Arrow Global-   We thank you for your letter and acknowledge your request for documentation pursuant of the consumer credit act 1974. We do not accept that we are the creditor as envisaged by the above statute. However, we are willing to assist in obtaining that which has been requested.We will now process your request for documentation from the creditor and will respond in due course. We confirm that all collection activity will be suspended pending provision of the documents.   So i assume Arrow have not bought the debt and are collecting for either another DCA or indeed the origianol creditor in this case would be Marks & Spencer. not sure to as if this is good news that they have not produced it or bad news they may be going back to M&S,Can anyone chuck some light on it for me   Many Thanks to all
    • Hello. I'm asking a question regarding paying a PPI company. I won't name names, unless anyone thinks it's relevant. My partner made a claim to a PPI company a few weeks before the deadline. He received a letter from Lloyds asking for authority for them to act, which he supplied. A couple of weeks later, rather unexpectedly, he had a letter from Lloyds with an offer, which he accepted. He's now received the payment. In all of this time, he had nothing from the PPI company apart from the odd text, asking him to keep them informed if he heard anything. He scanned the letter with the offer from Lloyds and emailed it to them as requested, expecting them to invoice him, he has no intention of not paying, even though they seem to have done next to nothing. This week, he receive 2 letters from them containing 3 forms in total, for him to complete, checking his details as Lloyds told them there was an error. I've advised him to ignore the form, since he's been paid & is just waiting for them to claim the money from him, and if they're so inefficient, that they ignore emails virtually offering them money, they might forget about it altogether! Is this the right course of action? He's concerned they'll take him to court for not paying, but I don't see how they can, when they've never even asked for any. Any advice greatly appreciated.  
  • Our picks

surrey_36

Council tax - single person discount cancelled wrongly

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1908 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

Hi, I am really confused and worried about this situation - if anyone can have a read and let me know initital thoughts would be really great, I've been single since last year and been claiming council tax single person discount since we parted. I was working up until August last year and then went onto income support as have 2 very young children and found it too difficult to work/look after etc on my own. One baby 13 month,the other 2.5. The local council recently have been saying that they believe my expartner is still residing at my address, he is not, he has severe mental health issues and we went our serperate ways last year. He does however has lots of contact with the children which he visits mainly at my home (he is a little unstable to take them off on his own)

I have explained this to the council but they say because his bank etc are still registered to this address, they have to assume he is still living here.

This is my first confusion - how do they know who his bank is? They said they ran a credit check on him but I thought you had to get authorisation from the person whos the account holder to do this? They said they ran a credit check and found' lots of' accounts registered to this address. Bank, sky tv - that's it I think.

 

 

NEXT - I get A letter from the DWP (department work and pensions) saying the need me to go over there for an interview. I must my take bank statements. In the interview they warn me that someone has 'made an allegation', has reported me. Not many people apart from close family and friends know that I am currently receiving benefits so I don't believe its anyone I know. It sounds to me like to council called up.

 

 

NEXT - my ex who is currently on the local council housing register, loses his banding, so where as last week he was quite far up the list for getting a council property, he now is 'not eligible' at all. This is devastating for him as currently sofa sofing and was hoping to get sorted soon. The sad thing is the only places he can crash are people who drink and smoke a lot and being round that situation is just not good for him.

 

 

I just dont understand whats going on but I feel as though they are talking to each other and rather than telling me the truth just cutting all the benefits and ex partners eligibility for housing.

 

 

The thing is that my ex partner is not in a good placed, recently diagnosed with a mental disability he is struggling to cope, We are still friends and I support him as much as I can but there's only so much I can do. He desperately needs housing as it is impossible for him to live with anyone else.

 

 

I feel really angry , I know they have people ripping them off and they need to make their checks that fair enough, but they know his situation and they know my situation,but they have stopped my single person discount - unnecessarily, and they have take my ex off the housing register which is unnecessary.

 

 

It just all seems a little odd!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not odd at all. A person would normally change their address for their accounts to their new address and if they are sofa surfing so that is difficult then they need to find a friend or relative who is not claiming benefits so that he can use their address as a care of address. Failing that, the DWP can provide an adress for mail to go to as they do for homeless people. Him having his accounts set at your address creates a financial tie between you and muddies the waters as to whether you are a couple. It's simple to reectify, ask him to change all of his addresses to somewhere else so you cut off all financial links with him. Once that is sorted he can reapply for a place on the LA housing waiting list.

 

The DWP can run checks on accounts held at your address. If any household bills are in his name or are paid by him then they will definitely deem you to be a couple.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the council/dwp don't need your permission to check your bank details,not if you are on benefits,when you get the benefits you sign approving this

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...