Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I got a letter saying the police have not received my form, license that I had to send off for 3 points, I have paid the £100 aswell, I sent the license off and form, on the 12th of November, and it got there on the 15th of November, it was signed by the court and it was photographed, for proof..   The letter states I have  an extra 7 days to send it in.. received the letter on the 24th of November...   what happens next? I cannot phone the number on the letter until Monday, its a Monday-Friday helpline...   The last thing  I want is them at my door for arrest, or even banning me from driving...
    • 3rd Try   STATEMENT OF  I Mr will say as follows:    INTRODUCTION  1: I am the defendant and state that the facts contained in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge.   2: There are several documents attached with this statement. (paginated)   3: The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29/09/2017 a notice of assignment, incorrectly dated (See Exhibit 1) was sent to the defendant. It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct, disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. The claimant then issues on mass claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.   4: 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.   BACKGROUND   5: The Claim relates to an Alleged Credit card agreement between the defendant and Vanquis bank.   6: Whilst it is accepted that the defendant has in the past had contractual dealings with Vanquis, the defendant is unaware of what alleged debt the claimant refers.   7: The defendant has requested on numerous times a copy of the CCA, the first time, claimant has replied back on 23/11/2020 (Exhibit 1) with a copy of the agreement and notice of assignment, the agreement being a printed out application form, followed by my another letter containing statements(not enclosed). Defendant then again requested on the 07/12/2020 (see letter attached Exhibit 2) a copy of the CCA, claimant has replied back on the 28th Jan 2021 claiming that the evidence enclosed rebuts defendants defence and encloses a statement and default notice. (Exhibit 3) 8: The defendant stated in his defence that no evidence of the CCA has been provided. 9. The alleged account is £less that £200 over the credit limit but the default notice states that the arrears on the account is £200. Under section  87/88 of the CCA the default notice should not include unlawful fees in it sum requested. 10. The defendant sent a Subject Access Request letter dated 30/11/2021, on writing this witness statement nothing has been received.   DEFENCE:   11: The claimant has not provided a true copy of the CCA despite numerous requests being made firstly in September and secondly on the 07/12/2020 in response to claim despite stating in the letter dated 23rd October 2020 `please find enclosed a copy of the agreement. Should the claimant magically supply some form of CCA at trial, defendant would highlight why this wasn't provided, when requested, on numerous times before trial. Defendant would then highly stress to the court that this is indeed not the true copy of the executed Credit agreement.   12: There is no valid copy of an executed consumer credit agreement that complies with the CCA1974   13: The `so called ` copy of agreement stated in claimants letter dated 23/11/2020 is in fact stated as an online application and is no more than a log from either the OC`s operating system or one that has been constructed since with details from the account to look like an application. 14. The notice of assignment dated 11th May 2017 (Exhibit 1) states that the debt was sold to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd on the 29th September 2017. This is confirmed in 2 separate letters. One from Vanquis and the other from Lowell Portfolio I Ltd. Section 82A of the CCA 1974 states that the assignee must arrange for notice of the assignment to given to debtor. The above letters show that the notice of assignment has incorrect dates, thus rendering the notice of assignment invalid and thus the claimant has not acquired the debt correctly and thus cannot claim.   IN CONCLUSION:   15: Without a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA1974 the claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt and has in fact attempted to mislead the courts in to believing that they have the necessary paperwork.   16: The incorrect dated Notice of Assignments letters questions the ability of the claimant to maintain correct paperwork and thus the defendant is unsure what paperwork supplied is correct.   17: It is therefore requested that the Claimants Claim is struck out pursuant to the above.   Signed  Dated this day…….      Could you check out this part   "14. The notice of assignment dated 11th May 2017 (Exhibit 1) states that the debt was sold to Lowell Portfolio I Ltd on the 29th September 2017. This is confirmed in 2 separate letters. One from Vanquis and the other from Lowell Portfolio I Ltd. Section 82A of the CCA 1974 states that the assignee must arrange for notice of the assignment to given to debtor. The above letters show that the notice of assignment has incorrect dates, thus rendering the notice of assignment invalid and thus the claimant has not acquired the debt correctly and thus cannot claim."
    • Please fill out our court claim sticky on this forums homepage.   Dx
    • My site team colleague @FTMDave has now gone through the entire thread – or 238 posts across 10 pages. He agrees that on your first judgement you have claimed too much because you have included the entire cost of producing the rear patio when in fact you have only paid a deposit. Whereas your judgement is for almost £3000, your claim should have been:       And instead you claimed £2905 and got a judgement for that figure and for which you have just instructed the sheriffs.   Firstly, this clearly is an unjust result because as shoddy and as brutal as they appear to have been, the judgement should only have been for £795. Secondly, when you began the claim, you paid fees calculated on a claim of £2905 but the true claim fee should have been calculated on a claim of £785. This means that not only have you claimed too much in terms of damages but also you have incurred claim fees which were unnecessarily high. In my view this matter needs to be addressed and frankly I think the first thing you should do is that you should contact the sheriffs on Monday and tell them there has been an error and tell them to suspend the enforcement. After that I'm not too sure how to proceed and I have asked my site team colleague @Andyorch for his view about it. On the second claim, you were about to make the same error – but by a far more serious margin. In fact your margin of error was going to take you off the small claims track onto the fast track. Of course none of this has been helped by the failure of Lords to engage with the claim at all. However, the fact that they didn't mount a defence doesn't mean that you were entitled to the judgement which you sought.
    • Hi ref post #176 posted doc, I notice that no date is shown for hearing fee to be paid by? Is this usual for a phone hearing, given current circumstances? Working through lots of success and other posts re witness statements, not easy, "one size does not fit all", will hopefully post tomorrow Sunday. Thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Aliance & Leicester the unethical building society. Mortgage

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2333 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

This story starts 18 years ago by way of this company getting a repossession order on my property. I was sick with worry and knew nothing of the law, however after seeing my Solicitor, he had a Barrister appointed to my case.

Subsequent action in the courts and a side room conversation between my Barrister and the Alliance & Leicester Solicitor, ended in the building society agreeing, in front of a judge, to all conditions my Barrister laid down. This included all court cost being paid, all charges being removed from my account, along with the withdrawal of the repossession order.

There were other stipulations that the bank should in future treat me fairly. I was unaware at the time, why the Alliance & Leicester solicitor looked very shame faced and agreed to every stipulation my Barrister proposed and even the judge was taken aback by their agreement, but as I understand it, the Barrister could have pressed for breach of contract, plus other undisclosed unlawful acts by this company.


Over the years since that time however, I have had a quite clearly antagonistic approach from this company, regarding any dealings with my account.


According to my mortgage agreement, this is an endowment mortgage, where the principle is paid at he end of the mortgage term and interest only payments are made on an annual interest basis, charged at monthly rests..


Having been unemployed at various times, arrears had accrued on the account, but on every occasion I worked, I paid £100 a month in excess as a capital repayment to clear any debts. However the debts did not decrease as expected and I queried this with the building society, to which there was no response.

I again became unemployed due to an accident, and despite me paying extra into the account, the Alliance & Leicester monthly calculations for payment made no sense as they were clearly far greater than the interest.

I tried to get this company to confirm in writing how they were calculating repayments, but they deigned not to reply.


As I knew a Solicitor at he time who was and is a firm believer that justice should be had for everyone, he wrote to this company and asked them to provide this information. They replied by sending an annual statement with no explanation.


Roll on a number of years where the building society have made threats as to court action, only to find they won't despite me urging them to do so, as they do not wish to arbitrate.

Enter a comlaint to the financial Ombudsman where the adjudicator decides there is no case to answer, to which I ask for the Ombudsman opinion.

I was given some money by my father to pay off any arrears and pay towards future short falls in monthly interest charges.

The Alliance & Leicester decided o treat his payment as a payment towards shorfalls in the monthly rests, still calculated in the way they refuse to tell me how.

The Ombudsman refused to deal with he main problem, but made a parial ruling by way that where the money paid cleared off any debt above the mortgage figure,this should be treated as a capital repayment and imediaely reduce the interest charged to the point where it was again the agreed mortgage interest amount.

Now the Alliance & Leicester decided to reduce the whole amount of any money owed, including the actual mortgage amount, from that date forward. As soon as the amount which was lower than the agreed Morgage figure increased over the reduced figure they called this arrears on the mortgage and decided to make charges based on this assumption.

After the Ombudsamn made her ruling the Alliance & Leicester changed my account by the amounts shown, did not inform me of any rest payment amounts expected from me for this year, then decided they were going to phone me 3 imes a day over a period of 3 months, until I again contacted the Financial Ommmbudsman with a complaint.


I returned to the financial Ombudsman, who told me the case was now closed and that the Alliance & Leicester had done as the Ombudsman had ruled. Despite them clearly not doing so.

I queried this with the Financial Ombudsman Service, adn asked in view of the BCOB schedules, if they thought this was fair. I have not received a reply.


As I have had no formal explanation from either the Financial Ombudsman nor the Alliance & Leicster about how they have calculated the monthly rests, I decided to ask under the data protection act.

Again I received statements with writing so small I would need a magnifier to read and a copy of my mortgage agreement, which they have clearly not abided by.

I informed the ICO after the prerequisite time scales of 40 days + another 14 days, to be told that the ICO have produced a case number and have contacted the Alliance & Leicester.


I received another phone call fro the Alliance & Leicesterwhere I asked them to send me details through and they replied by saying I must now correspond with heir Solicitors.

I really don't think I should be contacting their solicitors, as my agreement is with he Alliance & Leicester, so all correspondence should be written to the company itself. If I were to instigate anything in writing to their solicitors, then I would be billed by their solicitor.


I am now stuck as the Financial Ombudsman will do nothing, the Alliance & Leicester refuse to comply with the law by providing the information required. Now I am told they have appointed a Solicitor.

What do I do next. ?

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...