Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is my slightly amended WS taking on board your previous comments, any suggestions for amendments would be most appreciated.  Thank you for you time.   1.        I am the Defendant in this matter. 2.        The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. 3.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 4.        The alleged Letter of Claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address. 5.        The Judgement debt was not familiar to me so I began investigations to ascertain what the debt related to and how such a figure had been equated in any event. 6.        I made immediate contact with the Court, the Claimant Solicitors and the Claimants thereafter, asking them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.  7.        I sent a Data Subject access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided – See appendix 1 which details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclaycard as well as copies of correspondence between us. 8.        I do not admit to entering an agreement with Barclaycard in 2000. 9.       The claimant has failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis and therefore this claim should be automatically struck out.  10.    The claimants have failed to disclose a true executed copy of the original agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim. They are not entitled to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 12.   The reconstituted standard Barclaycard agreement that the claimant has included in the court bundle does not satisfy any CCA request and so the claimant is and remains in default of my CCA request and therefore unable to enforce the alleged agreement. 13.  The claimants have failed to provide proof the assignment, such as a deed of assignment. 14.  The claimant has failed to provide a statement of account setting out how the alleged debt accrued under that agreement 15.   Despite numerous requests to the claimant, I have still not seen any evidence, such as an original agreement or deed of assignment, that substantiates the claimant’s assertion that I owe the debt to the claimant, nor evidence of how the debt was accrued. 16.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. I believe that 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.
    • A set aside application costs £275 which is more than the judgement so not worth it. Not that they would grant a set aside anyway.  Set asides are granted, for example, to people who moved and didn't get the court papers, so have a genuine reason for not defending.  Forgetting doesn't count. Your only choices are to pay up within 30 days, or defy the court and not pay.  If the latter, we've never seen a PPC enforce judgement for a single ticket, ever, you would get away without paying - but you would have a CCJ and a knackered credit file for six years.
    • oh no just logged in and it says a judgment was issued literally 2 hours ago! see attached Screenshot 2024-04-29 214754.pdf
  • 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

Welcome secured loans/charge - sold to Alpha/Prime -repo received - ***Claim Dismissed***


cruzhughes
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1698 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

are the fleecers there?

 

 

dx

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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No.

 

I am already out didn't even go into a room. He asked where the solicitors for the other side I explained they had sent me a letter to say they were adjourning and give him the letter.

 

He walked in his office came back out and said

 

SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY due to them needing to undertake a review on what I've stated in defence.

 

Where does this leave me now and what happens next?!

 

Thank you ell-en and dx

Link to post
Share on other sites

told ya.

 

 

so now you look at what you stated in your reply to the repo

its not a defence.

 

 

so to refresh us what was said..

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

that's brill

now the interesting bit starts then...

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

cummo engage brain...

 

 

what did the judge say....go read it again..

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

I didn't think they'd turn up, if they want to carry on with a repo claim they're going to need a re-think.

 

Just wait and see what they send you (if anything)

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure what I'm trying to deciper here dx.

 

Alpha could still say I owe them money albeit £7888 less than they originally said?

 

Alpha could find the £7888 and wipe the slate clean?

 

Alpha could sell debt?

 

Alpha could take me back to court??

 

Alpha never contact me again and the charge remains?

 

Alpha send me a cheque for the £7888?! :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

one tip I've learned

if not here

elsewhere

write down now exactly what the actually judge said

as in time it get twisted and added too in your mind.

 

 

you now have the upper hand by a long shot.

 

 

you know that, according to what you said above

the judge said...

 

 

SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY due to them needing to undertake a review on what I've stated in defence.

 

 

so I've already pointed to I don't think he said defence.

so recall it and get it right.

 

 

they'll go nowhere near a court again until the above is resolved

and as the whole thing is mentioned in your statement to the court

the whole thing needs to be reviewed.

 

 

pers i'd be sticking in some rather large tent pegs and weather the storm.

and stick to you statement and what the judge said.

the whole thing needs a review.

and if its not to your satisfaction [i'e write it off removed the charge totally.

 

 

you reject anything they do/say until that's achieved.

 

 

let them go back to court call their bluff too.

 

 

dx

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

SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY due to them (Alpha) needing to undertake a review on account

 

. Lightfoots themselves stated this too in letter to the court requesting adjournment

 

Do I need to do anything at all or do I just sit back and wait any wait until they contact me and I then barter with them to get the charge gone.

 

Thank you for making this more clearer to me

Link to post
Share on other sites

You sit and wait to see what happens next

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you'd be walking the streets with just a carrier bag if you'd not come here.

 

 

let things settle

you know what you want..

 

 

whatever you do

don't blindly do write say or think anything without asking.

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

Take a break for a bit, there's nothing more we can say, or you can do, at the moment.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just had 2 letters. One from court and one from prime..

 

I don't know what prime are playing at. I sent them a 3rd request for information on 15th may and also enclosed the SAR and a cheque for the £9 as they had already had the £1 for a CCA request back in march and have still not responded to that but asked for the extra £9 for the SAR.

 

Nothing ventured nothing gained and all that....

 

Just read their response it's laughable when they cashed the £9 cheque on the 22nd.

 

They have still not provided anything I asked for since march either.

 

Any thoughts?

Court Decision.pdf

Prime Response 30th may.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

just send a fresh SAR

 

 

dx

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

SAR done again.

And I've put this letter in too.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Further to your letter dated 30th May in regards to your letter dated 24th March. The contents which have been noted.

You state that you cannot trace receipt of the requested information and are closing the matter.

 

However I would like to bring to your attention of my letters to you dated 08/08/2017 enclosed was a postal order for £1. Further to this my letter dated 29/03/2017

 

On the 15/05/2017 I wrote to you which was my third request for information and requested information under Section 7 the Data Protection Act 1998 for a Subject Access Request (copy enclosed for your reference). In which I enclosed a cheque for the remaining £9.00.

 

On the 17/05/2017 a member of your staff signed for delivery of my written request and I have electronic proof of the delivery showing their signature and the date. This above cheque was cashed on the 22/05/2017.

 

As you are aware you have 40 days to comply with this request which started on the 17/05/2017. I request you do not close the matter until I receive everything I have requested from you.

 

I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just noticed on the court letter is says

 

It is ordered that the claim be adjourned generally with liberty to restore. What does this mean? This is what lightfoots put on their letter to the court.

 

And what's happened to what the judge said about suspended indefinitely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means there is no date for a further hearing and the claimant can apply to the court to restore a hearing if necessary.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...