Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Honestly you are all amazing on this site, thank you so much for your help and time. ill keep an eye out and only return when i receive a claim letter for sure also, i updated my address with amex and tsb before i even missed payments. the initial address was my family home but i dont reside there. to avoid a bombardment of letters there i have now updated my address, will they send all threats etc to the new address? Or old address?   do you reccomend i send both tsb and amex my update in address via a letter?
    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • 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: _____________________
  • 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

EAC2 Complaints to court about bailiffs and complainants ordered to pay costs.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2725 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

Something is not right here OB. In the case that I dealt with (albeit, quite a few years ago) the Ministry of Justice became involved and I would expect nothing less.

 

If it is the case that a local authority have instructed their contracted enforcement company to enforce a warrant that does not exist, then MOJ should be doing something.

 

What has been the response from TEC?

 

Have you taken your complaint to a senior person at TEC?

 

TEC didn't know about the matter until the pensioner and I enquired as to whether the LA had registered an alleged debt and sought authorisation to issue a warrant. TEC have done nothing wrong and are not at all at fault. It is the LA who are responsible and are now squealing like stuck pigs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There was a case a little while ago where enforcemen't was authorised incorrectly i seem to remember.

Made quite a stir in the press.

 

I don't think that the ICO would be Intersted personally, unless this was endemic.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

TEC didn't know about the matter until the pensioner and I enquired as to whether the LA had registered an alleged debt and sought authorisation to issue a warrant.

 

But now that TEC are aware (that an attempted has been made to enforce a warrant supposedly bearing their authorisation)....what are they going to do about it !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But now that TEC are aware (that an attempted has been made to enforce a warrant supposedly bearing their authorisation)....what are they going to do about it !!!

 

No Charge Certificate in existence. It never went through TEC. What sanctions can TEC/MoJ impose on an LA in such cases? Even the LA's in-house data protection team has told those responsible that a breach of data protection has occurred, but those in the department involved are in denial they have done anything wrong.

 

Aside, a PCN can be registered nine times in all before TEC refuse further registration and enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Charge Certificate in existence. It never went through TEC. What sanctions can TEC/MoJ impose on an LA in such cases? Even the LA's in-house data protection team has told those responsible that a breach of data protection has occurred, but those in the department involved are in denial they have done anything wrong.

 

Aside, a PCN can be registered nine times in all before TEC refuse further registration and enforcement.

 

How long as this been ongoing, has enforcementt now ceased. Please forgive my cinicysem, but this is not the first time that massive ICO action has been reported on these pages, it just never seams to happen somehow. Are there an other reports of this case ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as the enforcement company were told that no warrant was in existence, to their credit, they ceased enforcement action immediately. An investigation is ongoing into the matter of how the LA allowed the pensioner's personal data to be sent to the enforcement company when it knew it had no justification for doing so, claiming a fault with their computer system, then claiming something completely unrelated was the reason.

 

The reason the ICO has become involved is that when the matter of the pensioner's personal data was sent to the enforcement company, by the LA, without any justification for doing so, the enforcement company acted on it and, as a result of this, the pensioner was assaulted by the EA for defending his property, which the EA had no awful authority to even attempt to take. The EA's attitude did nothing to help either. The EA has been hauled over the coals by the courts due to him misrepresenting his powers as an EA in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Tomtubby and Ploddertom have both said, exhaust all avenues of complaint and resolution with the enforcement agent's employer, the creditor and any statutory regulators first. The EAC2 is a very last resort and, in my view, should only be considered in cases of serious misconduct by an enforcement agent, e.g. assaulting an alleged debtor.

 

I am currently dealing with a case where a pensioner was badly beaten by an enforcement agent who, it turned out, had no lawful authority to be at the pensioner's address and continued regardless when told by the pensioner he should not be at his address. The enforcement agent's client has been unable to come out with a credible explanation, changing its story three times and trying to blame the pensioner for what happened! The matter is currently with the ICO as it involves a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

Coming back to your initial post earlier today, it is absolutely the case that an EAC2 complaint should not be considered unless all other complaints avenues have first been undertaken.

 

Thankfully, complaints following the TCoG regs are significantly reduced and in fact, this was the subject of comments from John Kruse this week.

 

Would you be kind enough to update the thread with any progress reports about both of these cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as the enforcement company were told that no warrant was in existence, to their credit, they ceased enforcement action immediately. An investigation is ongoing into the matter of how the LA allowed the pensioner's personal data to be sent to the enforcement company when it knew it had no justification for doing so, claiming a fault with their computer system, then claiming something completely unrelated was the reason.

 

The reason the ICO has become involved is that when the matter of the pensioner's personal data was sent to the enforcement company, by the LA, without any justification for doing so, the enforcement company acted on it and, as a result of this, the pensioner was assaulted by the EA for defending his property, which the EA had no awful authority to even attempt to take. The EA's attitude did nothing to help either. The EA has been hauled over the coals by the courts due to him misrepresenting his powers as an EA in the past.

 

So who do you think is responsible for this in the outset OB is it by intent or error do you think.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

OB, I hope the EA gets prosecuted for assaulting the child, but I am not holding my breath, hopefully the ICO will tolchock the EA and their company for the breach, and CPS have to act against that EA for beating up the pensioner .

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

Coming back to your initial post earlier today, it is absolutely the case that an EAC2 complaint should not be considered unless all other complaints avenues have first been undertaken.

 

Thankfully, complaints following the TCoG regs are significantly reduced and in fact, this was the subject of comments from John Kruse this week.

 

Would you be kind enough to update the thread with any progress reports about both of these cases.

 

Certainly. My experience of dealing with cases of malfeasant EAs is that referring the matter to the Complaints Manager at the enforcement company has resulted in the matter being resolved in most cases. Where LAs are concerned and council officers try to fob one off to the enforcement company, I have found involving local ward councillors and MPs can be useful. Although TCoG has clarified matters where civil enforcement is concerned, there are, sadly, EAs who seem to be under the impression it is "business as usual" and behave as if TCoG does not exist.

 

OB, I hope the EA gets prosecuted for assaulting the child, but I am not holding my breath, hopefully the ICO will tolchock the EA and their company for the breach, and CPS have to act against that EA for beating up the pensioner .

 

The matter of the flying 11 year-old is currently with the police, BN. As for the case of the pensioner, the matter is with the ICO for investigation. The data protection breach appears to lie with the LA. Despite referring the case back to the CPS at district and regional levels, they will not have it that the EA should be prosecuted, even though the injuries the pensioner sustained amount to ABH.

 

So who do you think is responsible for this in the outset OB is it by intent or error do you think.

 

The LA's in-house data protection team has advised the sending of the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company is a breach of data protection, in the circumstances. The ICO have become involved because of what happened to the pensioner as a result. As to what you say, DB, I have my suspicions, but I await the outcome of the ICO's investigation before commenting further.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they checked whether the LA has a Data Sharing Policy in place for Third Parties and the LA has a Signed Data Sharing Agreement with the Third Party?

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the case of the pensioner, the matter is with the ICO for investigation.

 

I subscribe to the ICO monthly newsletter and whilst there have been some extremely serious breaches of data recorded, it is the case that breaches of 'data' involving one person rarely lead to a monetary award being made.

 

All ICO decisions now appear online. If it is the case that the ICO find against the LA, I will start a thread on here to highlight the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to your initial post earlier today, it is absolutely the case that an EAC2 complaint should not be considered unless all other complaints avenues have first been undertaken.

 

Thankfully, complaints following the TCoG regs are significantly reduced and in fact, this was the subject of comments from John Kruse this week.

 

Coming back to the above post from yesterday. In light of John Kruse's article, (and the comments on this thread since yesterday), it will probably be better if I start a new discussion thread on the subject of 'complaints'. Hopefully I should have some spare time later today.

 

PS: One last question for Old Bill. How old is the 'pensioner' that you are assisting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I subscribe to the ICO monthly newsletter and whilst there have been some extremely serious breaches of data recorded, it is the case that breaches of 'data' involving one person rarely lead to a monetary award being made.

 

All ICO decisions now appear online. If it is the case that the ICO find against the LA, I will start a thread on here to highlight the case.

 

The ICO has informed me the matter of compensation is something that has to be pursued separately, TT. As to them fining the LA, I wil have to wait and see what transpires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to the above post from yesterday. In light of John Kruse's article, (and the comments on this thread since yesterday), it will probably be better if I start a new discussion thread on the subject of 'complaints'. Hopefully I should have some spare time later today.

 

PS: One last question for Old Bill. How old is the 'pensioner' that you are assisting?

 

To answer your question, TT, at the time of the assault, the pensioner was aged 69/70 years, which, according to retired counsel I have spoken to, is an aggravating factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they checked whether the LA has a Data Sharing Policy in place for Third Parties and the LA has a Signed Data Sharing Agreement with the Third Party?

 

The LA had no lawful authority to pass the pensioner's personal data to the enforcement company, stu007. In all fairness, the enforcement company advised me the pensioner's personal data was in a digital file with other persons' personal data. They have been helpful in this respect. It is likely they will need to revise their procedures to prevent a recurrence of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that the ICO would issue a fine for a single error like this, as said the fines are generally issued where the offences are indemic, this appears to be a single no fault error and given the vast number of cases handled by the TEC every day...

 

I am also confused about the ICO giving statements regarding the LA guilt in this, when apparently this case is still awaiting issuance to a case officer.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do however see how there could be cause for a damaged claim against the LA, this wold probably be the best course if action for your friend.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe that the ICO would issue a fine for a single error like this, as said the fines are generally issued where the offences are indemic, this appears to be a single no fault error and given the vast number of cases handled by the TEC every day...

 

I am also confused about the ICO giving statements regarding the LA guilt in this, when apparently this case is still awaiting issuance to a case officer.

 

Until ICO start their investigation, DB, we don't know who else they have been disclosing this pensioner's personal data to without proper authorisation or outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. For you to claim it is single "no fault" error, my response to such a statement is:-

 

1. Do you have insider knowledge; and

 

2. How do you know it is a "no fault" error?

 

The LA have changed their story as to how this happened a number of times. They cannot seem to get their story straight. Without you seeing the exchange of communications between myself and the LA, I doubt you would be posting the comments you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, i find that most people are only posting based on what they know or have seen. I can understand why it is then infuriating to be questioned.

 

If a council has passed on a persons data in error leading to unfortunate consequences, then the ICO do have a proper remit to look into this. They don't just look into whether there is a wider issue, unless the one case leads them to believe the council in this case, has a problem with their DPA processes. Whether they choose not to do anything, is another matter, but they might have searching questions for the council to answer, which might lead to the council admitting to a mistake in this case and being accountable to the pensioner concerned.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until ICO start their investigation, DB, we don't know who else they have been disclosing this pensioner's personal data to without proper authorisation or outside the ambit of the Data Protection Act 1998. For you to claim it is single "no fault" error, my response to such a statement is:-

 

1. Do you have insider knowledge; and

 

2. How do you know it is a "no fault" error?

 

The LA have changed their story as to how this happened a number of times. They cannot seem to get their story straight. Without you seeing the exchange of communications between myself and the LA, I doubt you would be posting the comments you have.

 

I don't think this would come under the ICO remit anyway TBH. The bailiff are after all the authorised data handler for the authority, it is not as if data had been released to the gp.

 

To be fair OB it is not the first time you have tried to Involve the ICO in situations where it is entirely inappropriate.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...