Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Hoist Portfolio 2/? claimform - old Barclaycard 'debt' ***Claim Still Struck Out ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2574 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

A witness statement is done after a defence...not at the same time...you are the witness to your own defence...you don't submit it until after allocation...you submit now as per the court's directions.

 

:faint:

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

  • Replies 349
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

"3.The Default Noticed was issued 24th May 2010 and served several months after the initial breach

thus the cause of action delayed by 7 months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and 7 months

which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run."

I'm actually relying on the claimant providing me with a signed agreement and valid default notice, the above is all I have.

 

You are going to need a carefully worded WS or you could end up torpedoing your own defence.

 

 

Using the last payment date as the sb start date (my view that's fundamentally flawed is no secret)

so the validity, date of a DN or even if one was issued becomes irrelevant.

 

If you harp on about DN's and their validity,

a different date on the DN to the one on the claim etc

you're running the risk of agreeing with what will be the claimants position

that a DN is required before court action can commence.

 

The first thing I would try to do in court is to try to get you to accept on the need for a DN before a claim could be brought.

 

 

So I would go through your WS for any mention of DN's and highlight them to the judge

to show that you agree on the need for a DN otherwise why would you bother to mention it.

 

Hopefully you can see where I am going here wandsworth

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks guys. My witness statement for defence will be based on SB from the last date of payment. I'm researching the format as I have never had to do this.

 

I have nothing else to send the court to rely on, but my witness statement, I'm placing everything into the hands of the claimant to prove they have a case to bring in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks guys. My witness statement for defence will be based on SB from the last date of payment. I'm researching the format as I have never had to do this.

 

I have nothing else to send the court to rely on, but my witness statement, I'm placing everything into the hands of the claimant to prove they have a case to bring in the first place.

 

Thats fine...you wont or shouldn't have anything to disclose on a SB pleaded defence...apart from the WS itself.

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

So I add the following to the witness statement or does it require any "human" element from me?

 

1 The Claimant's claim was issued on 29th february 2016.

2.The date last payment made was the 5th Oct 2009 used for business, LTD company which is in administration.

3.The Default Noticed was issued 24th May 2010 and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by 7 months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and 7 months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

4.Therefore the Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation acticon 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

5.The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied

 

I noted that the following points need to be achieved for SB to be valid, what does acknowledging the debt mean?

 

I've written to the creditors in 2010 disputing the debt and stating that litigation was the best course of action to resolve it. Again March 2015 requesting a copy of the agreement and DN, they sent me a screen shot of an account which made little sense and a last simple statement of payments, which confirmed the last payment was Oct 2009.

 

The debt will be statute barred if you, someone representing you, or someone else you held the account with (eg your partner) haven’t:

made a payment in the last 6 years

written to the creditor acknowledging that you owe them money in the last 6 years

had a county court judgement (CCJ) against you for the debt in the last 6 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget to add the headers and a statement of truth ...dated.

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

Yes, I've found a template on the website.... about my other comment.

 

Can responding to the creditors communications "reset" the SB clock?

 

No not unless payment has been made or written acknowledgment only ...requesting information is not an acknowledgement

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

This is pretty much my entire "story" it is the facts in chronological order, nto sure admitting I was conned is the best plan, but here it is.

 

The only additional information I can provide, is a copy of the DN, (not original) and a typed statement showing the last payment, its not a real statement, I could of knocked it up on my pc.[/

 

 

 

 

In the County Court Case:

 

Parties: Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 LTD Claimant

Defendant

 

Witness Statement - Defendant

 

1. I, , live at. I am the defendant in this claim and unless otherwise indicated, this statement is from my own knowledge. Where I state matters of information, I will provide a source for that information or belief, where available. This statement has been created chronologically.

 

2. I founded a limited company in 2002. Due to the global financial crisis, the business lost a significant client in Jan 2009 and I made the difficult decision to place the company into administration in 2009.

 

3. I had obtained credit in the form of a loan and credit cards to support the activities of the business between 2004 and 2007.

 

4. The administrator of the limited company was Bond Partners Llp and the practitioner Mr….

 

5. I reassigned as a director of the limited company September 2009 and my salary ceased.

 

6. Mr P advised me that any personal debts related to the business, should be managed by debt company. He advised me to use Momentum Network Limited, a lump sum was paid to Momentum Network Limited and all further creditor correspondence forwarded to them.

 

7. During early 2015 I discovered that directors of both Bond Partners Llp and Moment Network had been found guilty to multiple cases of personal and company fraud.

 

8. March 2015 I started to receive debt chasing letters from MKDP with reference to a Barclaycard account and I responded to them requesting proof of documentation.

 

9. MKDP were unable to provide me with a copy of the default notice or a signed agreement. But presented me with a screen shot of an account and a printed copy statement, but no proof of any debt. The debt chasing continued.

 

10. 1st Oct 2015, I received a notice of assignment from the claimant

 

11. 29th February 2016, the Claimant's issued C5AL240M

 

12. 3rd March 2016, I requested copies of all documentation using a CCA request to the claimant, no documents received.

 

13. 3rd March 2016, I requested copies of all documentation using CPR 31.14 from the claimants’ solicitor, Howard Cohen and Co, no documents received.

 

14. In order to defend this case, I therefore made the assumption the agreement is valid and noted the last payment made, was the 5th Oct 2009

 

15. The Default Noticed was issued 24th May 2010 and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by 7 months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and 7 months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

 

16. Therefore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

 

17. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £16,765.15 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied

 

18. I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a recent draft that I have done...post #98 give you a few extra points on layout and content.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?467294-Lowell-Lowell-sols-claimform-old-cat-debt-Urgent-Help-Court-Hearing-29-7/page5

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

Not at all...but always good to look at others and pick up tips:wink:

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

What do you think Andy, cleaner?

 

In the County Court at CLAIM NO:

 

BETWEEN:

Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 LTD, Claimant

-and-

Mr, Defendant

 

WITNESS STATEMANT OF MR

I, , the defendant in this claim, make the following statement believing it to be true will state as follows:-

 

1. It is admitted that I have held two credit card accounts with Barclays in the past. One account was opened in 2007 and the other approximately 2005, both were used to facilitate business transactions with in a limited company I founded in 2002.

2. The limited company was placed into administration on 17th September 2009 and I resigned as a director on the same day.

3. The administrators of the limited company, advised me to place all personal debts related with the limited company into a debt management company, this was completed Nov 2009.

4. The last payment made to Barclays was Oct 2009.

5. The Claimant's issued XXXXXXXX on the 29th February 2016.

6. I had yet to receive a copy of the agreement and default notice, which I requested pursuant to CPR 31.14 on receipt of the claim, in order to clarify which account this was and to prove its validity.

7. In order to defend this case, I have made the assumption the agreement is valid and noted the last payment date made, was the 5th Oct 2009.

8. The Default Noticed was issued 24th May 2010 and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by 7 months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and 7 months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

9. Therefore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

10. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £16,765.15 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

 

Signed ……………….

 

Dated on the day ………………..2016

Edited by Andyorch
Removed reference number
Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumb: A lot more snappy and less rambling.

 

Well done.

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

Blank out the claim number for anonymity wandsworth

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I edit a post?

 

I have done it for you

 

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

Could you explain these two, their written in some legal language so its hard to understand it?

 

 

8. The Default Noticed was issued 24th May 2010 and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by 7 months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and 7 months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.

9. Therefore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation acticon 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DN and SB have no relevance to each other.

 

The cause of the breach dates to the 1st missed payment, this is the breach and the cause.

The action is the issuing of the DN so you are arguing that it is SB on the grounds of the last payment made.

 

I cant see what the post number is as im on my phone but refer back to dx100uk post at 16:49 17th july for clarity

Edited by martin2006

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that they decided to issue the DN late...7 months after breach rather than 2/3 months as per guidelines...therefore in reality they have stretched time from 6 years to 6/7months from the date of the initial breach.

 

Cant explain it in any simpler form

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

Now I understand, so the guidelines are that a DN must be issued within 3 months of the last payment and if that's delayed, the "cause of issues" becomes the last payment and not the default notice provided after the three months period.

 

What guidelines are they, the consumer credit act?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ICO (Information Commissioner Office) with regards to registering the default marker.

 

The CCA is rather more sketchy as to when it should be issued.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/VII/crossheading/default-notices

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...