Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: 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. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 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 21/12/2022. 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 Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. 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: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
  • 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

Hearing for my stay to be lifted.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6369 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

NEWS on my Abbey claims

 

A bit unexpected as well.....

 

Claim 1 (£700) Request for stay to be lifted submitted on 9 October. Still with the District Judge

 

However

Claim 2 (£3800) Request for stay to be lifted submitted 19 October (I know, 10 days later!!)

 

"the hearing of the claimants application for Stay to be Set Aside will take place at 11.30 on the 24 November."

 

I am surprised at this. I expected the stay to either be lifted, or the application to be refused. I'm also surprised the one applied for first is still with the Judge.

 

So, off to court to get the stay lifted! I wonder if I will end up going for the smaller claim also.

 

I paid the standard £35 fee (application without a hearing) for each claim

Spoke to the court and apparently the Abbey will have to attend.

 

After going for my citi hearing i'll almost be on first name terms with the staff at the court........:rolleyes:

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have a hearing for my stay to be lifted on 27th November. Do we actually have a chance to speak, and if so, has anyone successfully had their stay removed, and what did they say?

Kate

Preliminary Letter Sent: 05/08/06

Letter Before Action Sent:23/08/09

Money Claim Online Filed:11/09/06

Settlement Offered: 13/10/06

Wrote letter accepting settlement but rejecting confidentiality clause 16/10/06

Allocation questionnaire received 07/11/06

Phoned solicitor to find out what happening, told to resubmit letter accepting settlement but rejecting confidentiality clause 13/11/06

Received letter from Lloyds giving notice that they are closing my account in 30 days 18/11/06

Money received in full 20/11/06

Wrote new letter to Lloyds asking for repayment of all charges imposed since 11/09/06 on 21/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we do have the opportunity to speak. I am guessing we will need to put forward our points as to why we would like the stay lifted.

 

I've looked but can't find any other stay hearings. Everyone else seems to have them lifted without a hearing!

 

Is yours with the Abbey also Kate?

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Keren,

No, my claim is with Lloyds TSB. I hadn't realized that some people were getting stays lifted without a hearing - I've not been visiting the forum often enough. It does seem that policy is being written on the hoof - I managed to get the hearing to have my stay lifted by writing a letter to the court - other people seem to have to pay up to £65 and fill in special forms. I'll keep an eye out to see how you get on on the 24th.

Good luck,

Kate

Preliminary Letter Sent: 05/08/06

Letter Before Action Sent:23/08/09

Money Claim Online Filed:11/09/06

Settlement Offered: 13/10/06

Wrote letter accepting settlement but rejecting confidentiality clause 16/10/06

Allocation questionnaire received 07/11/06

Phoned solicitor to find out what happening, told to resubmit letter accepting settlement but rejecting confidentiality clause 13/11/06

Received letter from Lloyds giving notice that they are closing my account in 30 days 18/11/06

Money received in full 20/11/06

Wrote new letter to Lloyds asking for repayment of all charges imposed since 11/09/06 on 21/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you will have an opportunity to speak to your application grounds for the removal of a stay.

If you have submitted the spreadsheet of settled claims it will be an opportunity to submit an updated version and also to make any additional point you wish to make.

 

I suggest also that you print out and summarise the main points in the the competition commission report which I have linked in the stickies. Take that along and point it out to the judge.

Also raise any new idea which have come to you.

 

It will be good practice in court because it is not a crucial event suchg as a full hearing.

You should try to learn from the experience.

 

Also, having pointed out the conclusions from the Comp.Comm document, ask the judge for standard discl0sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Karen,

 

I got my stay lifted at a hearing. I've already replied on your Abbey thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/11437-keren29-abbey-9.html#post366507

 

If you would like to see or use my stay removal guidance notes, let me know.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dear Keren,

Good luck for tomorrow, I hope your stay gets lifted.

Best wishes,

Kate

Preliminary Letter Sent: 05/08/06

Letter Before Action Sent:23/08/09

Money Claim Online Filed:11/09/06

Settlement Offered: 13/10/06

Wrote letter accepting settlement but rejecting confidentiality clause 16/10/06

Allocation questionnaire received 07/11/06

Phoned solicitor to find out what happening, told to resubmit letter accepting settlement but rejecting confidentiality clause 13/11/06

Received letter from Lloyds giving notice that they are closing my account in 30 days 18/11/06

Money received in full 20/11/06

Wrote new letter to Lloyds asking for repayment of all charges imposed since 11/09/06 on 21/11/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the best for tomorrow we will be think about you!!

First Direct - Settled in full :eek:

Lloyds TSB - AQ completed Central London CC :confused:

RBS - Settled in full :p

Morgan Stanley - Settled in full :lol:

Capital One - Settled in full ;-)

Citi Cards - Transfered to Mercantile Court 19/10/06

Nationwide - Settled in full 8)

Capital One Acct 2 - Prelim letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers guys, fingers crossed.

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back.

 

The Abbey didn't attend, but sent a letter saying they neither agreed with nor objected to the stay being lifted.

 

He lifted the stay and , as I predicted, has scheduled it for 22 February with all the the others.

 

He said that if he had seen the application earlier he would not have had the hearing and would have added it to the 22nd Feb list, but a Deputy had ordered the hearing today.

 

He said that he understood that it was causing me financial difficulty but that if he now listed my case separately it would defeat the object of having a big hearing on the 22nd and that the earliest hearing dates were February anyway. He said they had lots to deal with and had to consider the available resources in the court.

 

He said the reason he had originally put stays on the claims was because he was waiting for some 'meaty' claims to go through the Mercantile, but because they had all been settled, he had decided to lift all the stays he had ordered and push them through all on one day. He will be dealing with all the Abbey cases together, then all the Nat West ones etc.

 

He said that the hearing date will either be a damp squib because everyone will have settled, or it will be a mad scramble for seats!

 

That means I have all three of my outstanding claims (2 with the Abbey and 1 with Citicards) on the same day at the same time!!)

Abbey - Claim 1

full hearing 22 Feb 07 - Settled in full £710 :D

Abbey (Claim 2)

full hearing 22 Feb 07- Settled in full £4000 :D

Abbey (Claim 3)

Court date 27 June -

Capital One (claim 1)

£467 Settled in full 20 Sep :D

Capital One (claim 2)

£72 refunded 19 Aug :-D

Associates (Citicards)

claim 8 Aug/judgment by default 30 Aug/set aside hearing 9 Oct/Stay denied, ordered by Judge to reveal breakdown of charges andfull hearing 24 May/FULL DISCLOSURE ORDERED BY 8 MARCH/JUDGE TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE AS NON-COMPLIANCE/DEFENCE STRUCK OUT PAYMENT IN FULL REQUIRED IN 14 DAYS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Abbey didn't attend, but sent a letter saying they neither agreed with nor objected to the stay being lifted.

 

Isn't that a surprise *sigh*

I really wish the slippery &^%*$£@ would either get into a court to argue the toss or completely admit every claim right off the bat.

 

Anyway, sounds like the hearing went well Keren & your judge is pretty switched on - 22nd Feb should be interesting :)

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...