Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A judge says Anthony Levandowski carried out the "biggest trade secret crime I have ever seen". View the full article
    • Yes, let us know if they honour the agreement to pay.   Thanks for Donation made and anything further you can make - it helps us keep helping !
    • Mark Bauwens from France takes us through his week during the coronavirus pandemic. View the full article
    • Thankyou very much i will be around all day it would be appreciated Below is another attempt :     IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ***************                 CLAIM NO:**********     BETWEEN:   LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD CLAIMANT   and   MRS *********************** DEFENDANT   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   WITNESS STATEMENT OF ******************   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   I, ******************************************* WILL SAY as follows:   I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim.     INTRODUCTION   1. It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed 10p to 15p in the £1 and to which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. Lowell Portfolio I Ltd issue claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.   2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   BACKGROUND 3. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card Agreement between the defendant and Vanquis Bank   4. Whilst it is accepted that the defendant has in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis, the defendant is unaware of what alleged debt the claimant refers, and the defendant has not entered into any contract with the Claimant.   5.The defendant made a formal written request to the Claimant for them to provide me with a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the 27th August 2019 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order to which the defendant received a reply dated 6th September 2019 putting their account on hold whilst they tried to gather the information.   6.The defendant received a reply dated 24th October 2019 with no CCA attached other than the documents which enclosed a statement, default notice, notice of assignment from Vanquis to Lowell & a reconstituted copy of an agreement which the claimants have already provided in their witness statement dated 3rd August 2020.   7.On 15th January 2020, I received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £******. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £********* in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no ******************* pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). Contained within the claimants particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment from Vanquis to Lowell on 24 June 2015 with notice given.   CONCLUSION 8.To date no valid full true copy of the executed credit agreement or the terms and conditions have been disclosed .the claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt.   9.The claimant disclosed various screenshots taken from the originators software of the application and also confirms on their covering letter the relative legislation The Electronic Communications Act 2000 with regards to wet signatures and the requirement of a tick box to validate the application. The screenshots are devoid of any tick box or any authenticity of IP address conformation check.   10.Therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and pursuant to section 78 6a of the CCA1974 the claimant is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.   11.For the above reasons the claim bought by the claimant is without merit and an abuse of the court process. It would be far more gracious and forthright for the claimant to admit that they do not have possession of the correct valid paperwork and this is an attempt to mislead and convince the court that the claimant can disclose the legal valid documents on which its claim relies on. It is therefore requested that the Claimants Claim is struck out pursuant to the above.   STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I, ************** the defendant, believe the facts stated in this witness statement are 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 its truth.   Signed: …………………………………………… Print Name: ************* Dated: 4th August 2020
    • Allen Blue, who co-founded professional network LinkedIn, reveals how start-ups can achieve growth. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 8 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
neil_tp

JBW visit today Council Tax debacle posts

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1581 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Sorry OB but this is all FMoTL baloney.

 

You are aware that these conditions can be curtailed if the actions are compatible with the law and requirements of a democratic society, There are also we must remember the rights of the creditors, Particularly when rights to enjoyment to goods etc. is considered.

 

The exemptions to HRA only apply if the pertinent laws and guidelines are applied correctly so human rights issues may come into play in cases breach.

However courts give bailiffs a huge leeway,

 

In short if the bailiff is misbehaving you are better using the prescribe statutory remedies rather than pursuing an action under human rights if indeed you even can.[/quote

 

 

Actually the only baloney here Dodgeball is what you continually post in CAG on the debt forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am not going to disagree with what you say, neil_tp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not this argument again ! People have different opinions and no argument changes minds, so not sure what the point is.

 

Buttercup is mostly right. People don't have to deal with Enforcement Agents, unless it relates to a criminal fine, where they can force entry. If people want to pay what is affordable directly to those they owe money to, there is nothing stopping them, as payment cannot be refused. For council tax liabilities, those threatened with enforcement can seek help of Magistrates, where councils are trying to get a LO to farm out for enforcement.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry OB but this is all FMoTL baloney.

 

You are aware that these conditions can be curtailed if the actions are compatible with the law and requirements of a democratic society, There are also we must remember the rights of the creditors, Particularly when rights to enjoyment to goods etc. is considered.

 

The exemptions to HRA only apply if the pertinent laws and guidelines are applied correctly so human rights issues may come into play in cases breach.

However courts give bailiffs a huge leeway,

 

In short if the bailiff is misbehaving you are better using the prescribe statutory remedies rather than pursuing an action under human rights if indeed you even can.[/quote

 

 

Actually the only baloney here Dodgeball is what you continually post in CAG on the debt forums.[/QUOte]

 

Hi MARK

 

Charming as usual, anything intelligent to say, go on break a habit of a lifetime.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And I am not going to disagree with what you say, neil_tp.

 

Do me a favour that is no endorsement of either of you.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry OB but this is all FMoTL baloney.

 

You are aware that these conditions can be curtailed if the actions are compatible with the law and requirements of a democratic society, There are also we must remember the rights of the creditors, Particularly when rights to enjoyment to goods etc. is considered.

 

The exemptions to HRA only apply if the pertinent laws and guidelines are applied correctly so human rights issues may come into play in cases breach.

However courts give bailiffs a huge leeway,

 

In short if the bailiff is misbehaving you are better using the prescribe statutory remedies rather than pursuing an action under human rights if indeed you even can.[/quote

 

 

Actually the only baloney here Dodgeball is what you continually post in CAG on the debt forums.

 

Hi Mark

 

Just been looking t you posting history on here, you seem to just make one or maybe two posts of abuse towards me or intelligent posters on here then vanish. Is this that inferiority complex playing up again, I think it is.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The subject matter was regarding council tax, do keep up at the back!

 

Council tax is a civil debt brain box. :)


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi Mark

 

Just been looking t you posting history on here, you seem to just make one or maybe two posts of abuse towards me or intelligent posters on here then vanish. Is this that inferiority complex playing up again, I think it is.

 

 

Some points for you,

 

1 Been on CAG since 2007, way before you I might add.

2 I don't spend nearly 24 hrs a day on CAG

3 From your posts it just costs posters more money!

4 Nearly everything you post in the debt forums is wrong :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Council tax is a civil debt brain box. :)

 

Quote the whole post and not what just suits you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Some points for you,

 

1 Been on CAG since 2007, way before you I might add.

2 I don't spend nearly 24 hrs a day on CAG

3 From your posts it just costs posters more money!

4 Nearly everything you post in the debt forums is wrong :(

 

I dont know a lot of intelligent and knowledgeable people think my points are correct anyway:

 

perhaps if you were to give incidents of my posts which is wrong ? and your alternative theory of course.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I dont know a lot of intelligent and knowledgeable people think my points are correct anyway:

 

perhaps if you were to give incidents of my posts which is wrong ? and your alternative theory of course.

 

Actually i was posting on here in 2006 :)


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You just wait til the EA returns the Debt to the LA, then nothing is owed to the EA company. Of course alot of authority's do not pass any money on either anyway. That's the great thing about FOI requests.

 

Must dash going outside in the nice weather!

 

Yes and thereby you illustrate the extent and accuracy of you knowledge, enjoy the sun.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its Pote then apologies to mark, i thought even you were not that hopelessly misinformed.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we stop this personal bickering between you two,

it is getting boring.

 

You both have different points of view, just accept it and move on.

 

You both could be correct or both wrong , it is all down to interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nh its not. Anyway he keeps popping up and insulting people he deserves what he gets, perhaps he should try making some sensible points and argue like an adult.

In the mean time if you are bored i suggest you go and entertain yourself elsewhere.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a perfect example.....people need to realise that they have a perfect lawful right to make the local authority/council accept their payments for their council tax. This may well be not the full amount - but this does not matter. They can pay what they can, even as little as a £1.00 per week if they are in so much need themselves, and the council have to accept this. The council will purport to have all sorts of powers and authority....take you to court - which yes, is in a court - but it is in a side room with a council person!! Plus they get you to agree to pay alot more than you can afford!! I personally would insist on seeing the magistrate - i did ask this once and they were ALL horrified!! Then they send bailiffs now called enforcement agents - debt collectors to me and you! - they have no powers - UNLESS YOU LET THEM!! LOCK YOUR DOORS AND WINDOWS - DO NOT ANSWER THE DOOR TO THEM - THEY WILL ONLY PUT THEIR FOOT IN THE DOOR AND JAM IT OPEN AND TRY AND WEAR YOU DOWN - DO NOT DO IT!!!!

 

COUNCIL TAX 'BAILIFFS/ENFORCEMENT 'OFFICERS' - WHICH ARE ACTUALLY JUMPED UP DEBT COLLECTORS WITH NO EDUCATION WHATSOEVER!!! THEY HAVE NO POWERS TO PUSH PAST YOU OR FORCE ENTRY - YOU CAN REASONABLY FORCE THEM BACK IF THEY TRY - BUT THEY WONT AS THEY HAVE A LICENCE TO PROTECT....

 

DONT GET ANGRY - GET EVEN

 

I PERSONALLY THINK THEY HAVE HAD THEIR DAY - WE ARE ALL TOO WISE NOW AND THANKS TO WEBSITES AND THAT SHOW - CANT PAY - TAKE IT AWAY - IT SHOWS US ALL HOW TO PLAY THE IDIOTS...

 

 

Do not entertain them!!!

 

Go back to your local council - pay them what you can - they cannot refuse this payment! Set up your own arrangement directly with the council. Feck the bailiff!!!

 

i accept no liability for anything said above.

 

i agree old bill!

 

THE FACTS ARE THAT ALL AND I MEAN ALL LOCAL AUTHORITIES - COUNCILS - HAVE TO - HAVE TO!! DEAL WITH YOU DIRECTLY.

 

THEY CANNOT REFUSE.

 

THEY SIMPLY CANNOT REFUSE!

 

IT IS THIS SIMPLE - THIS IS NOW APRIL 2016 - THEY CANNOT REFUSE YOU!!!!!

 

IGNORE THE SEE YOU NEXT TUESDAYS AT THE DOOR

 

KEEP YOUR DOORS LOCKED

 

DO NOT ANSWER THEM

 

DO NOT EVER SPEAK TO THOSE ****! THEY ARE PUT AT LEAST £400 ON YOUR BILL!!!

 

THEIR MUMS WILL AND ARE TOTALLY ASHAMED OF THEM!! DONT FORGET THAT.

 

THEY CANNOT BREAK IN.

 

IGNORE THEM WHEN THEY KNOCK!!!!

 

YOUR HOME IS STILL YOUR CASTLE!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but i think very, very freely indeed

 

x

 

Surprise to me that you are capable of thought at all :)


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't happen. Once the LA have their money the LO has been paid. There won't be any other method because the LO is paid. Just hope capital Con stays on CAG to update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The £235 is disputed anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The £235 is disputed anyway.

 

Only by you and the OP, importantly not by the LA or the EA.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your guessing now & assuming. Lets agree to disagree and let CC d ecide, which he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only by you and the OP, importantly not by the LA or the EA.
Of course the EA can't be wrong and neither can the LA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your guessing now & assuming. Lets agree to disagree and let CC d ecide, which he has.

 

Nope dont guess or assume, you guess if you like, it is all in the TCE.:-)


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course the EA can't be wrong and neither can the LA?

 

Childish gibberish


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What by disagreeing with DB, or stating that capital con shouldn't pay the £235?

 

I can show all the supporting legislation and previous cases , all you seem to do is state your belief. Which is fine , but not when you ae advising others.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...