Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. 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. 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 24/12/2022. 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 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: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
    • No, nothing from Barclays. Turns out i have 2 accounts on here, and i posted originally on the other one. Sorry about that.  
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3172 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

Number removed as requested.

 

I saw no ipad's or anything else except the folders they had which remained closed all the time I was there.

 

Like I said I saw no papers of any kind but I only went there after they had already entered the house and my

daughter had called me, so do not know what was said previously.

 

Things had been taken from a wall in the front room and she had to put them back after they left.

 

They did have free roam during the time they had entered before she returned from her friends across the road

so I assume they made a list of inv during that time.

 

 

The £110.00 was charged and was paid as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fee for £110-00 is to be used once the items are removed and sold, so now you have a reason to complain to the LA and ask for this to be refunded as no sale took place and no goods were removed....

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Things had been taken from a wall in the front room and she had to put them back after they left.

 

They did have free roam during the time they had entered before she returned from her friends across the road

so I assume they made a list of inv during that time.

 

The £110.00 was charged and was paid as well.

 

I would not want to cause your daughter any further upset but if you could find out from her whether a list of items (a Controlled Goods Agreement) was completed I would be most interested.

 

The £110 is called a 'sale stage fee' and becomes payable when there has been a distinct change between the enforcement and 'sale' stage. The best example would be where the enforcement company actually call for a removal vehicle (therefore actually incurring a liability to a third party contractor).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fee for £110-00 is to be used once the items are removed and sold, so now you have a reason to complain to the LA and ask for this to be refunded as no sale took place and no goods were removed....

 

Unfortunately this is not quite the case MM. I have oulined the correct position in my above post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for me requesting that you remove your reference number is because you can be identified from it by the office of the EA so they can and do often frequent these types of boards... Thank you for doing so, it can often protect you from prying eyes....

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though my post may seem incorrect the EA can not prove that the van was called, so again this is open to interpretation as always, BA not trying to cause issues here but obviously this situation provides full proof that you must lock your door when leaving your premises, as then it will stop this sort of thing happening to other debtors, sad thing is that the door was left open and peaceful entry gained it makes things even harder in this case would you not agree?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe that challenging the £110-00 fee is the right thing to do in this case as no-one was present to contradict this!

 

 

 

If someone was they may have still paid in full like they did so this is revenue gathering at its worst

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always ask the EA why and still complain to the LA, even though BA has said otherwise because the debt was paid in full at some time and BEFORE goods were removed, it is entirely up to you but a formal complaint to the LA is where I would go, since your daughter had some sort of discussion with the EA before goods were removed, she must of to make the payment when she did...

 

 

I can not make your mind up for you but seeking legal advice from the CAB/LA could get you this fee back, but making a claim for this could prove expensive, please consider your options fully before you make your decision... This is a must... We can only speculate what was said or done as we do not have the full story of what was said or done once the debtor and EA spoke...

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that they arrived in a van and that at no time was any of my daughters items removed from the property

 

They did not make any calls for a vehicle to remove stuff (or any other calls for that matter)

 

I can also confirm that my daughter who is fairly strong willed was feeling intimidated by them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is what could have happened, your daughter steps out of her home and feels comfortable not locking the door, the EA arrives and knocks, no reply, as normal practice they try the door.

 

 

They find it unlocked, the step in thus far they have gained peaceful entry, now you cannot stop them looking around or asking them to leave, whilst making an inventory your daughter returns home and see 2 or more men in her home, a heated discussion takes place the men state they are bailiffs and demand the money due, after some more discussion and heated exchanges your daughter agrees to pay the debt, this may have been in cash or card.

 

 

Then the EA may I say may have added the £110-00 fee to bolster their fees the debt is paid in full the matter closes, but is this fee chargeable I don't know this but it may be challenged in this case due to the fact your daughter paid the debt in full before the EA had left, so this is what could have happened.

 

 

If the EA's did leave then they abandoned their goods, so to speak... Others may say different..... The reason behind my thoughts are the EA's could not be 100% certain they were in fact at the correct address in the first place, given the LO could have been issued to a different address altogether...

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously I cannot type as fast as some think so I pre-empted your response and had it ready to post before your reply, I hope you don't mind me doing that...

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm that they arrived in a van and that at no time was any of my daughters items removed from the property

 

They did not make any calls for a vehicle to remove stuff (or any other calls for that matter)

 

 

It is important to know whether an inventory was completed and if so, what items were recorded on the form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would me daughter know if one of these inventories had been completed. Would

she have had to sign something?

yes

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 OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

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

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...