Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.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
  • Recommended Topics

Lowell/carter claimform - old lloyd od 'debt'***Claim Discontinued***


dhn2013
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3017 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

:whoo:

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If you go read a few carter claims here

 

You will see that's his STD response

 

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

Ok. Have seen that - dug a little deeper again.

 

Note a few of them have done a CCA1974 request to Lowells, I haven't. Should I?

 

Assume next step is to prepare an embarrassed defence stating docs haven't been returned?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Have seen that - dug a little deeper again.

 

Note a few of them have done a CCA1974 request to Lowells, I haven't. Should I?

 

Assume next step is to prepare an embarrassed defence stating docs haven't been returned?

 

Not applicable to overdrafts

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

OD are not covered by the CCA.

 

 

and no such thing as an emb def

 

 

went out the window years ago.

 

 

no paperwork/holding

 

 

if you copy and paste the title of your thread in to the search cag of the red toolbar

 

 

you'll see lots of like threads

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

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

Thanks again DX.

 

Bit heavy for this time of night but think I understand the main points.

 

Next steps will be no paperwork/holding defence. Will draft that up in the next few days and post here - assume you don't mind checking - and then submit on my 33rd.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tues 11th by 4pm

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

  • 2 weeks later...

OK, so defence being submitted tomorrow. Have put this together based on other threads. If anyone could have a quick review that would be greatly appreciated as always.

 

The only query I have is Para 2 - I have had contact from Lowells - is this an issue?

 

 

 

Particulars of Claim

 

1.The claimants claim is for the sum of just over £900 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 between the defendant and Lloyds under account reference XXXXXX.

 

2 And assigned to the claimant on 03/07/2013 notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

3.The defendant failed to maintain contractual payment under the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served which has not been complied with.

 

And the claimant claims £900

 

4.The claimant also claims statutory 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 £75

 

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 dealings with Lloyds in the past. It is denied I have any knowledge of the above Claimant or if any alleged debt was assigned to them. The Claimant has never made any contact apart from the issuing of this claim.

 

3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment.

 

4. Paragraph 3 is denied as the claimant has not complied with Section III & IV and annex B of the PD Pre Action Conduct as stated above they have never made any contact or request prior to the issuing of this claim. They have even failed to serve a letter before action before issuing proceedings. They dont plea they have...remove all this

 

On receipt of the claim form the Defendant sent a CPR 31.14 request dated 20/07/2015 for a copy of the overdraft facility agreement, Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974, notice of assignment and a statement of account showing how the amount claimed has been reached, which form the basis of this claim.

 

This was signed for by the claimant on 21/07/2015 and finally acknowledged in writing 28/07/20153. However, the claimant has yet to comply.

 

Therefore the claimant in their none 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.

 

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 how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

© show Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974

(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.

 

On the alternative, if 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.

 

Until such time the Claimant can comply with my request for a copy of the Overdraft facility agreement/Notice served under Sections 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974 it relies upon they are prevented from enforcing or requesting any relief as pursuant to the CCA 1974.

 

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

Defence suggested amends......

 

Particulars numbers changed

 

See your point 1. I have added the main point you removed in red.

 

 

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.

 

Your point 2 referring to their para1

 

2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had financial dealings with Lloyds in the past.It is denied any balance is outstanding. I have not serviced this account since (insert date) due to the punitive charges and interest being applied which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate.It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue as any alleged balance will have be created and added by Lloyd's Bank.

 

Your point 3 referring to their para 3

 

Paragraph 3 is denied.The assignee would not be in a position to know or evidence this fact and is therefore irrelevant.

 

Your point 4 referring to their para 4

 

The Claimant is denied from claiming further interest pursuant to sec 69 of The County Court Act.....any alleged balance would have continued to accrue interest subject to its terms and conditions of the facility provided.

 

 

Rest of the defence is fine dhn.

 

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

No you dont...its only here for reference as to check what you are replying to.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

OK - so got the Notice of Proposed Allocation to small claims today - odd, because I expected another template from Carter before this came. Looks like they've just said "Yes we want to proceed" to the Courts.

 

Form looks like I just need to: agree yes it can go small claims track, yes to mediation and put my local court in? Assume this goes to both court and Carter but not Lowell?

Link to post
Share on other sites

back to the court only

 

 

doesn't mean carter IS going to pay the fee mind...

 

 

go read a few carter threads here

usual game

Edited by Andyorch
Hilight

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

OK - Thanks DX.

 

Yes have read a lot, some of them get what I believe you have referred to as a "standard begging letter before discontinuation" - was half expecting that.

 

Will keep the thread updated with replies and outcomes etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry DX ...copy to the Claimant Sols also.

 

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

silly me

 

 

thanks andy

 

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Finally heard something on this.

 

Since last update I've filed the questionnaire, and have been given notice it's transferred to local court.

 

Today received notice of court date (late January 2016 - seems a long way away!?)

 

Also attached to the notice is an instruction to Lowell/Carter which reads;

 

Upon the court noticing this appears to be a consumer credit act claim but that it does not comply with PD7B paragraph 7.2 IT IS ORDERED THAT the claimant must amend the particulars of claim so that they comply with PD7B (by DATE) and file and serve them accordingly or explain why PD 7B does not apply
Any ideas what that means - only thing Google turns up is something to do with a hire purchase agreement? And is it strange that the hearing is so far away?

 

Thx

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part07/pd_part07b

 

 

Matters which must be included in the particulars of claim

 

7.1 Where the Consumer Credit Act procedure is used, the claimant must state in his particulars of claim that the claim is a Consumer Credit Act claim.

7.2 A claimant making a claim for the delivery of goods to enforce a hire purchase agreement or conditional sale agreement which is:

(1) a regulated agreement for the recovery of goods, and

(2) let to a person other than a company or other corporation, must also state (in this order) in his particulars of claim:

(a) the date of the agreement,

(b) the parties to the agreement,

© the number or other identification of the agreement (with enough information to allow the debtor to identify the agreement),

(d) where the claimant was not one of the original parties to the agreement, the means by which the rights and duties of the creditor passed to him,

(e) the place where the agreement was signed by the defendant (if known),

(f) the goods claimed,

(g) the total price of the goods,

(h) the paid up sum,

(i) the unpaid balance of the total price,

(j) whether a default notice or a notice under section 76(1) or section 88(1) of the Act has been served on the defendant, and, if it has, the date and the method of service,

(k) the date on which the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued,

(l) the amount (if any) claimed as an alternative to the delivery of goods, and

(m) the amount (if any) claimed in addition to –

(i) the delivery of the goods, or

(ii) any claim under sub paragraph (l) above with the grounds of each such claim.

 

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

  • 2 months later...

After a few quiet months from BC, a few calls to the Court to see if they had any updates from BC, I've today come home to a letter from BC.

 

Nervously opened it, it's a Notice of discontinuance. :!:

 

Does this mean it's actually over and finished with??

 

I think I owe everyone on here, specifically DX and Andyorch, a huge thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...