Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wrong as usual Jugg    Did Michael Cohen Commit Perjury In The Trump Trial? WWW.ZEROHEDGE.COM ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero Michael Cohen. He still has one day of cross examination ahead of him on Thursday. With the government resting after Cohen’s cross examination, I believe that an honest judge would have no alternative but to grant a motion for a directed verdict and end the case before it goes to the jury. Judge Juan Merchan will now have to give the full measure of his commitment to the rule of law. Given the failure to support the elements of any crime or even to establish the falsity of recording payments as legal expenses, this trial seemed to stumble through the motions of a trial. Michael Cohen was only the final proof of a raw political exercise. For critics, some of Cohen’s answers appear clearly false or misleading. Like their star witness, the prosecutors have shown that they simply do not take the law very seriously when there is an advantage to be taken.
    • So to sum up. 1.  You & your friend did the right thing on 28 December and are in the right legally. 2.  You are in the early stages of the threatening letter cycle.  We've seen these letters quite literally over 10,000 times.  For the moment your friend has nothing to worry about. 3.  No-one will turn up at your friend's door. 4.  If months down the line this got to court, you would win.  It's blatant disability discrimination.  Some time back I looked through the results of Excel v Caggers court cases, well we won 85% of the time, and you would be 100& certain to win. But this is the bit that you won't like ... 5.  Excel don't care that they are legally in the wrong.  They want your money.  They will go on and on with their letters hoping you'll give in. 6.  They are also the most litigious of the private parking companies and it's perfectly possible, months hence, that they will take your friend to court.  You have to be prepared for this.  They would lose.  But they don't care about the losses since, sadly, presumably so many people are afraid of court and so give in and pay.  7.  We will of course support you all the way!
    • Hi, Just updating that I'll be submitting the SJPN shortly this evening electronically.
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
  • 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

Lowell/carter claimform - Vanquis 'debt'***Claim Discontinued***


Doingmybest
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3179 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

Hi there,

Received a claim form from Lowell via Bryan Carter this morning.

 

 

Going to acknowledge the form and send the CPR 31.14 request but wondered if there was any more I need to do at this stage.

 

 

Do I also do a CCA request or is that included in the CPR 31.14?

 

thanks in advance

 

Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio

Date of issue – 24 March 2015

 

 

What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?

 

 

The claimants claim is for the sum of £2840.41.

Being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974

between the defendant and Vanquis under account reference xxxx

and assigned to the claimant on 01/07/2014, notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

The defendant failed to to maintain contractual repayment under the terms of the agreement

and a default notice has been served which has not been complied with.

 

And the claimant claims £2840.41

 

The claimant also claims satatutory interest pursuant to s.69 of the county act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum

from the date of assignment of the agreement to date but limited to a maximum of one year and a maximum of 1000 amounting to £164.99

What is the value of the claim? £3005.40 court fee £185, sol costs £80 total £3270.40

Is the claim for a current account (overdraftlink3.gif) or credit/loan account or mobile phone account? Credit card

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? 2011

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor

or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. assigned to Lowell

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I can't remember

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

 

Why did you cease payments? Financial difficulties

 

What was the date of your last payment? Not sure but probably late 2012 early 2013

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No dispute but I did do a CCA request which was ignored.

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor

and make any attempt to enter into a debt managementlink3.gif plan? No management plan but I did inform Vanquis of my difficulties

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

yes send a cca request to lowells

£1 blank PO

don't sign anything

 

 

you might get luck

issue here is this is post apr 2007 agreement

so a recon will suffice

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

 

I've checked with Royal mail and the CCA request and the CPR 31.14 have been received and signed for.

 

 

I guess I just sit and wait for their responses

 

 

.I received a letter from Bryan Carter on Friday informing me that they had gone to court

 

 

and that I will have a judgement against me etc,

 

 

Is this usual and do I need to respond?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only issued the claim 7 days ago...just follow the procedure and ignore their letter.

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

25th April (33 days from and including the date as day 1 on the summons)

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning.

 

Received a reply to the CPR 31.14

 

 

which just says that they've got proof of everything I've asked

 

 

but don't have to provide it which makes no sense to me

 

 

- I thought the point was that they had to provide these thingsconfused.gif

 

What is a deed of novation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Deed of Novation is used where one party transfers its rights and obligations under a contract to another party. A novation usually happens when the seller of a business transfers the contracts with his customers to the buyer. The consent of all three parties - the transferee, the transferor and the other contracting party - is required to effect the novation.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

All rather pointless really because they will have to disclose everything if they wish to proceed to trial.

 

 

In most cases you will get this type of response to a CPR 31.14 request on a small claim track claim..

...the bit he does not understand that at this stage the claim is trackless and therefore CPR 31 does apply.

 

 

..it is a presumption although it is inevitable

 

 

..but at least you have requested it and they are failing to comply.

 

 

..which comes in very handy for your defence.

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Okay, so after lot's of reading I've think I've got my defence sorted. Please have a look and let me know if it's okay. It has to be in on the 25th.

 

The particulars of the claim are as follows:

 

1. The Claimant claims the sum of 2840.41 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Vanquis.

 

2. The Defendant's account number was************* and was assigned to the Claimant on 01/07/2014 notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

3. The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the default notice has been served pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

4. The Claimant claims the sum of 2840.41 and costs. The Claimant has complied, as far necessary, with the pre-action conduct practice direction.

 

Proposed 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. Paragraph 1 is noted from a vague recollection I have had financial dealing with VANQUIS in the past but I am unaware what the claimants refer to, in particular or the account number in question. I have never been contacted by VANQUIS with regards to any alleged outstanding monies. – I remember disputing penalty charges on the account and asking them to explain the balance at the time I went into arrears but they did not get back to me. – I don’t know if this is relevant here or how to word it.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is denied I am unaware of any alleged assignment purported to the account number referred to nor ever served any Notice of Assignment.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied. If true what is denied is that I have never been contacted with regards to payment since any alleged assignment.

 

5. It is also denied I have been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974. As the Assignee of this alleged debt the claimant would not be aware whether one had been served or not.

 

6. The Claimant has not complied, as far necessary, with any pre-action conduct practice direction. They have never contacted me with regards to this alleged debt nor have I ever heard of them up until receipt of this claim.

 

7. Notwithstanding the above a request was made under the customer credit Act 1974,by way of a section 77/78 for a copy of the agreement, and on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00; the Claimant is and remains in Default of said s77/78 request. Any Agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant without an order of the court by the reason of the fact that both the Original Creditor and the Assignee remain in default by reason of Section 78 of the Act.

 

A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has responded that, they will not provide the Deed of Assignment as it contains “commercially sensitive information”.

 

8. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the Claimant; and

b) Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

c) Evidence any nature of breach and provide proof of any Default Notice and Notices of Sums in Arrears; and

d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

9. 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.

 

10. The Agreement cannot be enforced against the Defendant without an order of the court by the reason of the fact that both the Original Creditor and the Assignee remain in default as set out above and by reason of Section 78 of the Act.

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bit waffly and repetitive

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've read through it again and will reword point 4 of the defence and lose 5;4.

 

 

Paragraph 3 is denied.

If true what is denied is that I have never been contacted with regards to payment since any alleged assignment.

 

 

It is also denied I have been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

As the Assignee of this alleged debt the claimant would not be aware whether one had been served or not.

 

 

Point 2 will be changed to:

 

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted from a vague recollection I have had financial dealing with VANQUIS in the past

but I am unaware what the claimants refer to, in particular or the account number in question.

 

 

I will leave out the other bits as not sure how to word that the account was in dispute.

 

 

Can't really see what more to add or remove.

Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok well post it up

and put their poc at the top again

so we can check it properly

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

copy and paste from NOTEPAD not a word processor program

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done some more reading and headed what you have said dx and changed it again;

 

 

The particulars of the claim are as follows:

 

1. The Claimant claims the sum of 2840.41 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Vanquis.

 

2. The Defendant's account number was************* and was assigned to the Claimant on 01/07/2014 notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

3. The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement and the default notice has been served pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act 1974.

 

 

Proposed Defence

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant has no knowledge of, or has in their possession any agreement pertaining to the account number referred to in its Particulars of Claim.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have no knowledge of any legal assignment.I have never been served any Notice of Assignment from either the original creditor or the claimant pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is denied It is not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the original creditor; and

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

c) Show or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears,

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

5.Despite a request being made under the consumer credit Act 1974, for the agreement and the other documents referred to in the Statement of Particulars, and on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00; the Claimant remains in breach of the sec78 request.

 

6.A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued, has also failed to elicit a copy of the agreement and other documents on which the Claimant claim relies upon.

 

7.Until such time the claimant can comply with the above sec78 request is therefore prevented from enforcing or seeking the relief claimed or any relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your 1 & 3 responses do not adequately answer/respond the claimants particulars of same Doingmybest...rest of the defence is sufficient.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy,is this better?

 

 

The particulars of the claim are as follows:

 

 

1. The Claimant claims the sum of 2840.41 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant under a regulated agreement originally between the Defendant and Vanquis.

 

 

2. The Defendant's account number was************* and was assigned to the Claimant on 01/07/2014 notice of this has been provided to the Defendant.

 

 

3. The Defendant has failed to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement

and the default notice has been served pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

Proposed 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.Paragraph 1 is noted I have had financial dealing with VANQUIS in the past but I am unaware what account the claimants refers to.

I have never been contacted by VANQUIS with regards to any alleged outstanding monies.

 

 

3.Paragraph 2 is denied I have no knowledge of any legal assignment.I have never been served any Notice of Assignment from either the original creditor or the claimant pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

 

4.Paragraph 3 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the consumer credit Act 1974.

 

 

As an Assignee of this alleged debt the claimant would not be in a position to state whether one had been served or not, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement with the original creditor; and

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

c) Show or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears,

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

 

5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

 

 

6.Despite a request being made under the consumer credit Act 1974, for the agreement and the other documents referred to in the Statement of Particulars and on payment of the statutory fee of £1.00; the Claimant remains in breach of the sec78 request.

 

 

7.A further request made via CPR 31.14, after the claim had been issued, has also failed to elicit a copy of the agreement

and other documents on which the Claimant claim relies upon.

 

 

8.Until such time the claimant can comply with the above sec 78 request is therefore prevented from enforcing or seeking the relief claimed or any relief.

Edited by Andyorch
Amended.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...