Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks Dx. I have tidied the defence up with your suggestions amended. Does it look right now? Thanks!   1.    Monies due under current account facility xxxxxxxxxxxx. The claimants claim is for the balance outstanding under the facility provided by Halifax to the defendant. It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable by the defendant in full on demand.   2.    The defendant has failed to repay the amount due following the service of a demand.   3.    The debt was assigned to the claimant.   4.    The claimant therefore claims 1. 5k 2. costs   Defence   1. 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.     2. The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.    3. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.   4. Paragraph 1, Whilst I accept that I have in the past held a current account with Halifax Bank Plc. I have not serviced this account since 08/07/2016 due to the punitive charges and interest being applied which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate. The amount claimed is far in excess of any agreed overdraft limit with Halifax Bank. I deny that the account exceeded an agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds and claim that this is a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue.    5. Paragraph 2 is denied as the original creditor has failed to serve a Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence any breach.    6. Paragraph 2 is further denied as i am unaware of Halifax Bank ever providing me with a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   7. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. 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. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   8. Paragraph 4 is denied. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.   9. As per Civil Procedure icon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.     a. Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on. b. Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification. c. Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. d. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   e. Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   10. On receipt of this claim I immediately requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request, which was received by the Claimant on the *******. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. Therefore the claimant in their non compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.     11. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
    • MPs are pushing authorities to respond to allegations of potential fraud at certain banks, whereby it’s claimed home repossession documents weren’t actually signed by the authorised signatory View the full article
    • Thanks Dx. Amended defence set out below. Does it look right now?   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. 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.     2. 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.     3. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of any payment terms for the stated agreement.     5. Paragraph 3 is denied. It is denied that Cabot Financial served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the claimant or the original creditor.     7. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. 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 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. 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'm generally convinced that there is at least 2 users on MSE that's in my thread that has friends or family or even themselves that have similar line of work to MB or Gladstone.   I don't mind different opinions but they're just throwing out playground insults to me for using that letter saying I'm stupid, prat, idiot etc etc for doing it and not including in the letter without prejudice so it can't be used against me in court. I think I'll leave MSE and just stick with CAG and in this case.    
    • Fraudsters are using the details of firms we authorise to try to convince people that they work for a genuine, authorised firm. Find out more about this ‘clone firm’. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2228 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 am extremely ashamed of my actions but on 23rd August 2014 I was caught stealing from Primark (Goods worth around £59). I am 21 years of age. I have never stolen anything and have never been in any trouble with the law.

 

Yesterday I received a letter from RLP and they have asked for ‘A fixed contrition to all the losses is therefore sought in the sum of £130’. The £130 will apparently settle the claim and I have 21 days to pay.

 

I think it is worth explaining the details of the incident:

Once I walked out with the goods, a security guard stopped me and asked me to walk with him to the detention rooms downstairs. On arrival another man asked me if I had stolen the items and out of fear and regret; I told the truth about everything. Things got progressively worse. The man asked me about my ethnic background and I told him and he called a third security man into the room saying he was from the same country as me and said ‘Here’s one of your cousins’ to the man. Later another comment ‘Teach your wife a lesson’. This security man was then sent to calculate the cost of the goods. As I had other shopping with me (Matalan and Poundshop) the receipt of these goods were also looked at which was all fine. My Matalan shopping included baby clothes and Poundland shopping had baby wipes which were for my niece who was staying over at my house and the security man said to me ‘your child would be ashamed’. The security guard also had me empty the contents of my handbag which included a novel I was reading and another sarcastic remark was made ‘so beauty and brains, but you still want to steal’. A female security member (of European background) was also present who was taking my details from my provisional license and she made a comment ‘If this happened to me in your country, my hands would have been chopped off’ I am not even from the middle east so making such a remark was uncalled for.

 

On my arrival at the detention room, there was already a girl there who only had one security member in the room with her. My point is that at one time there were probably at least 4-5 security members in the room. My letter from RLP states that I am covering the losses of Primark’s business and their security loss. Security clearly had no reason to have that many people in a small room and all they were doing is bullying, patronising, intimidating and making racial remarks at me!

 

My questions are:

 

Should I be paying RLP the outstand settlement of £130? (I have read many threads saying to not pay RLP a penny but I am very confused as my number one priority is to get them off my back and never have to deal with this again).

 

If I do pay the £130, will RLP be seeking more money from me? (the letter is titles ‘Letter before claim’ so I am wondering if this will follow with another letter asking for more money).

 

If I don’t pay, will debt collectors harass me?

 

Will my credit history or rating be affected?

 

Could I be summoned to court or go to jail?

 

Do you think a visit to Citizens Advice would help?

 

I am extremely stressed out and feel as though this is affecting my everyday life. Please help with any advice and anything I can do moving forward. The experience has left me humiliated and distressed.

 

I would be happy to send a photo of the letter I was sent from RLP to make clearer the settlement issue. I feel like I do not fully understand it.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

I will assume this is lesson learned so no need to dwell on that angle so let us get straight to the other issues.

 

IF there was any video and audio recorded in the security room then you could try and get it as this sort of behaviour (while not unusual) is unacceptable.

 

 

Please read as many threads as possible to understand why you should not pay RLP.

 

I will add more detail shortly

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, the only people to get involved with you were security and no other staff were involved. As such, any costs claimed are wrong as the staff get paid anyway whether or not they apprehend anyone. The are business costs, not losses and as such cannot be claimed for. Letter writing. They don't have to write to you!

 

The things you should know. This won't go away any time soon. It could be up to a year of begging letters although from next month you may see a tone of the letters as if they send you anything that can be classed as misleading or aggressive have been outlawed.

 

Yes, debt collectors will harass you but they have as much power as me to do anything to you. i.e NONE. Your credit file will not be affected by this matter. Neither will there be any summons or jail time. The police did not get involved at the time so the chance has gone for the store to do anything now.

 

If you choose to post up a picture of the letter, please make sure that all identifying data is removed. This includes names, addresses, reference numbers and any barcode or QR code.

 

If you can stick this out to the end then all will stop.

 

3 more things to remember.

1 RLP cannot take you to court

2 The debt collector cannot take you to court

3 Primark 'could' take you to court but the don't

 

I am yet to find any cases where Primark have taken legal action against anyone

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for a speedy reply. Of course this is a lesson learned and never will I do this or put myself through this again.

 

There was definitely a CCTV camera in the room but I am not sure about audio and am unsure about how I can get hold of this.

 

As for police involvement… the goods that I walked out with were over the value of £50 and as per Primark policy, Primark did call the police. However, no police turned up. I am not sure why that is but the security man passed if off as ‘the police are not coming, I’m giving you a second chance’. No other explanation was given and after that I was escorted out of the shop. At the time, another security man did take my details (date of birth, name and address) for the police phone call so now I am worried if I am on some sort of police record if Primark gave my details over the phone?

 

I should also mention that a photo was also taken of me but the man did specify that this was for Primark’s record. Will this be passed onto the police? Primark also took a photocopy of my provisional ID.

 

As for the letters that will be coming from RLP in the future, am I to completely ignore them? Or should I be contacting them back to leave me alone?

 

I am having problems with attaching the image of the letter. How can I do this?

 

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you don't have many posts, the posting of pictures is more complicated (to stop spammers) so there is a way but for now I can't find the relevant post. Bear with me.

 

As for the letters, you could ignore them or you could simply send them a one liner.

 

"Any liability to you or to any company you claim to represent is denied."

 

Just that, nothing more. Personally I don't belive in wasting a stamp on them.

 

You could write to the store asking for the CCTV evidence although they may want to charge you for this and they may refuse you out of hand.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have attached the picture of the letter. I would appreciate if you could explain to me if the £130 is the only payment they want or if they are indicating that more payments will follow as they have titled it ‘Letter BEFORE Claim’.

 

Regarding my earlier post… should I worry about the police being given my details over the phone (name, address, DOB)? If Primark can give the police my photo? Will I be on any police record?

Link to post
Share on other sites

RLP have put a number of untruths in their letter to you as to why they are asking for money. They will write to you again and that letter will also contain things that arent true. You can ignore them or you can send the short response outlined above, the choice is yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prob not.

The only thing that stops them is ignoring them and their DCA

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen that letter many times and it is a standard template letter with mailmerge to ad your details. Total cost to them. About 2p (not including postage) This is the reason they are quite happy to send them as they cost so little yet cause so much stress. Whether you send a one liner or not will not stop the letters coming but once you have realised what they actually are, you will see there is no need to be stressed when you get one.

 

I did notice at the top of the letter, "Letter Before Claim" This is both misleading and threatening. RLP cannot take you to court but by placing that at the head of the letter, it gives the reader the impression that they will take you to court. Wrong, wrong, wrong!

 

One day I hope to see someone turn the tables on RLP and sue them for misleading and aggressive practices.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

There will be no police involvement unless you go to the police to make a complaint about the security guards' conduct

 

I would be tempted by a letter to RLP something along the lines of :

 

I deny any liability to you or your clients.

 

I presume that you are taking this approach on behalf of your clients to hide the very unpleasant racist remarks that were directed towards me.

 

Should you choose to continue your involvement in this matted then I will presume that you sympathise with the racist statements and will include you in any further action that I might take.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...