Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Evening, I received this pack yesterday its an application notice to change claimants. Will they be chasing me for this as they were successful with the first claim? many thanks Webb 1.Application Notice N244rd.pdf 2.Asset Transfer Deed r.pdf 3.Notice of Assignment Part A Letter 1 & 2rd.pdf 5.Claim Form rd.pdf 6.Draft Order rd.pdf
    • Hi, If they haven't followed the court's directions there will be little tolerance of the court. Anyway please can you upload a copy of the court paperwork
    • Yes, you should have applied for an immediate strike out as soon as the deadline expired. Without the agreement, they are stuffed Forget Barclaycard, Asset link is now the creditor, and it is down to them to provide the agreement.  That needs to go into the witness statement. They have not provided the agreement contrary to directions of the court and request the court strike out the claim as to the original court directions.
    • I did not receive a notice via post but in my claim status it shows my claim was transferred to a court I requested in my DQ, as it is closer to me.    Defense I filed:  1.       The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2.       The defendant paid the lead tenant a fixed sum monthly bill without fail for the extent of the rental period of the accommodation their contract was associated with who was responsible to make payments to the claimant, ending in June 2023. 3.       After moving out, a month later, the claimant wrote to state that an outstanding sum existed. Further stating, as one of the 10 tenants at the time, I now owed them the full sum instead of my 1/10 proportion of said debt, as 10 students were at the dwelling. They also intimated that they were legally allowed to charge me the full sum if the other renters were not to pay their share under some equal and joint severity rule. 4.       Despite sending numerous requests prior to the court claim being raised for copies of said bills for said utilities covered by the agreement, the claimant failed to send any clear bills. This included a CPR 31.14 on xx/xx/xxxx sent via post. 5.       The defendants stress that they acted in good faith to settle the outstanding balance, as evidenced by the confirmation received from the claimant.  Any subsequent demands for additional payments are unwarranted and contradict the claimant's previous acknowledgment of settlement. 6.       Pursuant to OFGEM code of back billing rules the alleged charges relate to charges which have not been billed correctly by Co-operative Energy and are therefore prevented from charging. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to: - a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. 7.As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation                  that the money is owed. 8.It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • 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 2832 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

You can't be traced, if there is nothing on any database. It would have to be a mobile anpr trace which would be very lucky of them. They might not even know about the car, as the debt is not for anything related to a car and DVLA records might not have been checked.

 

As said on the other thread, you should speak to the DRO company about this. You might be responsible for some of the HCEO fees and can include them in DRO. I am not sure all of the HCEO fees would be automatically cancelled, if they stopped enforcement, because they could not get you to pay. Hence why DRO company should be aware of situation.

 

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't be traced, if there is nothing on any database. It would have to be a mobile anpr trace which would be very lucky of them. They might not even know about the car, as the debt is not for anything related to a car and DVLA records might not have been checked.

 

As said on the other thread, you should speak to the DRO company about this. You might be responsible for some of the HCEO fees and can include them in DRO. I am not sure all of the HCEO fees would be automatically cancelled, if they stopped enforcement, because they could not get you to pay. Hence why DRO company should be aware of situation.

 

+2

Link to post
Share on other sites

can an enforcement agent clamp or sieze a vehicle on finance

 

Hi steve

I am sure some one will be along with a more definitive response but it may help you to read the

following thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451273-Vehicles-on-HP-can-be-sold-by-a-bailiff.-Evidence-must-be-provided-that-there-is-no-beneficial-interest.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

can an enforcement agent clamp or sieze a vehicle on finance

 

Steve start a new thread

And tell us the full story

Quick answer is no

As its not yours

 

But start a new thread anyway

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

can an enforcement agent clamp or sieze a vehicle on finance

 

Steve

I think the thread you have been directed to quite an old one. There has been a lot happening on this over the last 12 months, you really are best starting your own thread so that people can give the up to date information. In the mean time do not risk it and hide your car if the bailiff is due to call.

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

All nonsense posts removed......

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi steve

I am sure some one will be along with a more definitive response but it may help you to read the

following thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451273-Vehicles-on-HP-can-be-sold-by-a-bailiff.-Evidence-must-be-provided-that-there-is-no-beneficial-interest.

 

The above thread and the subject matter, (vehicles subject to finance/HP can be taken into control by an enforcement agent if there is a 'beneficial interest) is of vital importance. Another debtor is currently arguing the 'beneficial interest' point in court. It may well be that I will be updating the above thread very soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure why this post is repeatedly removed? The only point I am making is the case referred to above is not a precedent setting case as it is in a lower court. This means the critical issue of beneficial interest will not be determined one way or another by the judgment. It will remain arguable either way.

 

Surely it is in members' interests to be aware of this?

 

I am trying to word it and reword it in a way where it cannot be read as having a dig at anyone. It is simply stating information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The above thread and the subject matter, (vehicles subject to finance/HP can be taken into control by an enforcement agent if there is a 'beneficial interest) is of vital importance. Another debtor is currently arguing the 'beneficial interest' point in court. It may well be that I will be updating the above thread very soon.

 

I made a very brief mention yesterday that another case regarding 'beneficial interest' is going through the court system. It is another County Court case and the outcome (when it is known) cannot of course be used as a 'precedent'. If the outcome is similar to a previous one, this will only serve to further harm all debtors whose vehicles (that are subject to finance) are seized by an enforcement agent.

 

If the outcome is not in favour of the enforcement company/local authority, I would strongly suspect, (although I don't know) that the importance of the subject matter, will lead to an immediate appeal being issued. A precent will therefore be set one way or another.

 

I intend starting a new thread today on a slightly different subject and may well refer very briefly to the subject of 'beneficial interest'. This will of course be in the 'discussion' area of the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, v-interesting indeed.

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

It is interesting. What has been posted is only pretty much what I have said already, yet it was removed twice.

 

Purely on a point of accuracy, the precedent would only be set if there was an appeal by one side or another. As we do not know whether this will happen, we cannot state a precedent will therefore be set one way or another.

 

The issue of whether or not it would serve further to harm all debtors is significant, but regardless of that, debtors need to be aware of what the situation is. A discussion will be interesting reading. It will be important to ensure the information is balanced, explaining both sides of the argument so people are as informed as possible. I will read it with great interest.

Edited by Coughdrop
Link to post
Share on other sites

As said previously the advice is simple.

 

 

If your vehicle is on HP(not a PCP of a hire contract) then treat it as if the EA can seize it .

 

It is far easier than having them take the vehicle and then trying to argue some technical point whilst they have your car.

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

 

If your vehicle is on HP (not a PCP of a hire contract) then treat it as if the EA can seize it .

 

And could not be simpler.

 

As I have said quite a few times, approx 80% of vehicles are purchased under a finance scheme and in the vast majority of these cases, the 'finance' is through a Personal Contract Plan. A PCP is not 'hire purchase' and the vehicle will be completely exempt.

 

There could never been a situation of a 'beneficial interest' applying to a vehicle obtained under a PCP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...