Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are 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.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

Bailiff Advice

Vehicles on HP can be sold by bailiffs if there is a beneficial interest. Debtor ordered to pay costs of £3,400

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 971 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

I think there has been some movement on this, and to the benifit of the debtor. I would ignore uniformed comment and rhetoric though, and wait for the situation to be revealed on here.


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

If it's to the benefit of the debtor, what are we waiting for? Who has the update?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully those who stay in touch with these cases will update the thread.

 

We do find that any news related to enforcement company successes in court seem to be communicated to social media much quicker that any debtor success against enforcement companies. These enforcement companies do seem to want to create social media buzz, to create fear amongst the public, when usually the court cases are about very specific circumstances and the legal position has not been made totally clear.


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

The cases that go against the debtor seem to get posted on here pretty sharpish, sometimes on the same day. I would've hoped the same benefit was given to cases that benefit the debtor.

 

Fortunately, I've done a little digging about.

 

The debtor lost his case in court on 16th August. He was also ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of £3,400. He was refused permission to appeal.

 

Neither the debtor or his legal representative have made an application to appeal and accordingly, given the importance of this subject, the enforcement company have given me permission to provide an outline of the case in the hope that it may help other debtors to avoid making the same mistake.

 

This was incorrect.

 

 

Mr MH was allowed to appeal to the High Court, and from what I can gather the Judge ruled that a car on HP cannot be taken control of and sold.

 

 

The case was against Newlyn's (again) who seized a taxi that was subject to HP.

 

 

This has been a long, drawn-out case that has seen Mr MH lose his employment and being forced onto benefits.

 

As far as I am aware, costs have been awarded in favour of Mr MH, which may be into five figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has there been any update on this case?

 

As a brand new 'visitor' to the forum, perhaps you would be kind enough to let us all know the outcome.

 

Hopefully those who stay in touch with these cases will update the thread.

 

We do find that any news related to enforcement company successes in court seem to be communicated to social media much quicker that any debtor success against enforcement companies. These enforcement companies do seem to want to create social media buzz, to create fear amongst the public, when usually the court cases are about very specific circumstances and the legal position has not been made totally clear.

 

The regulations were completely overhauled exactly 3 years ago and any previous case law relating to distress went with it.

 

Even John Kruse has written of the need for court rulings to be made in order to clarify the law. Despite social media posts about frequent court successes for debtors, the reality, is that nothing has ever been published as evidence...and this has been the case for many years.

 

Fortunately, I've done a little digging about.

 

This was incorrect. Mr MH was allowed to appeal to the High Court, and from what I can gather the Judge ruled that a car on HP cannot be taken control of and sold. The case was against Newlyn's (again) who seized a taxi that was subject to HP. This has been a long, drawn-out case that has seen Mr MH lose his employment and being forced onto benefits.

 

As far as I am aware, costs have been awarded in favour of Mr MH, which may be into five figures.

 

There has been no 'digging' so stop being quite so childish. It is common knowledge that the case was in court yesterday and it is a remarkable 'coincidence' that you just so happen to join the forum today.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, Mr MH (the debtor) did not have 'clean hands' and for life of me, I cannot fathom out why he did not just pay his penalty charge notice as he should have done. I can only assume that he received 'advice' to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fortunately, I've done a little digging about.

 

 

 

This was incorrect. Mr MH was allowed to appeal to the High Court, and from what I can gather the Judge ruled that a car on HP cannot be taken control of and sold. The case was against Newlyn's (again) who seized a taxi that was subject to HP. This has been a long, drawn-out case that has seen Mr MH lose his employment and being forced onto benefits.

 

As far as I am aware, costs have been awarded in favour of Mr MH, which may be into five figures.

 

This is the kind of ill informed speculation i was hoping to avoid.

 

I think all comments should be treated with a huge pinch of salt unless proof is provided. As usual the looney forums will claim this is a cure for the flu, and the EA will say it is of no consequence, until evidence is provided it is pointless speculation. Personally I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.


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
There has been no 'digging' so stop being quite so childish. It is common knowledge that the case was in court yesterday and it is a remarkable 'coincidence' that you just so happen to join the forum today.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, Mr MH (the debtor) did not have 'clean hands' and for life of me, I cannot fathom out why he did not just pay his penalty charge notice as he should have done. I can only assume that he received 'advice' to the contrary.

 

What's the aggressive tone all about? Are you not pleased with this outcome?

 

It is common knowledge that the case was in court yesterday and it is a remarkable 'coincidence' that you just so happen to join the forum today.

.

 

So why didn't you update the forum with the ruling?

 

This is the kind of ill informed speculation i was hoping to avoid.

 

I think all comments should be treated with a huge pinch of salt unless proof is provided. As usual the looney forums will claim this is a cure for the flu, and the EA will say it is of no consequence, until evidence is provided it is pointless speculation. Personally I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

Bailiff Advice has already confirmed it was 'common knowledge'. You need to ask her why she declined to update the forum with this favourable ruling. I can't fathom why.

 

and the EA will say it is of no consequence

 

As this was a High Court ruling, it is of great consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As this was a High Court ruling, it is of great consequence.

 

It depends on what the judge said surely, if it was a decision which could be precedent setting and not just one which turned on its own evidence and so on.

 

As said it is pointless speculation unless some proof of what went on is provided. This will be provided in due course i am sure. So why not wait and see.

 

Sorry. just to add, of course you could always provide a transcript if you have one.


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 depends on what the judge said surely, if it was a decision which could be precedent setting and not just one which turned on its own evidence and so on.

 

County Courts will now be bound by this decision.

 

Sorry. just to add, of course you could always provide a transcript if you have one.

 

Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether the usual source for these court cases that often favour EC's, will be so quick to provide emailed confirmation that he had lost a case and confirm what the precedent is exactly.

 

Looking back at the thread, i was always highly dubious of EC's taking finance company owned vehicles in pursuit of beneficial interest that might be owed to the debtor on sale of a vehicle. No EC's without a courts authorisation can force a finance company to sell a vehicle to release possible beneficial interest.


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

Indeed. When this case went against Mr MH in the County Court, Newlyn's (or their solicitor) ensured this was posted on here without delay. Now it has been reversed, leaving them with a big bill, there seems to be reluctance to update us all.

 

In fact the person who posted the earlier ruling stated that they had been given permission to provide the details. I can only assume permission was not given this time. Not that permission is needed anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.

 

If the court case was yesterday, I really can't see how a transcript of the case would be available today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps forget about the jokes and show some evidence and details.


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

Oh I'm sure Peter Felton has updated Bailiff Advice already, so I'm sure her word will suffice.

 

 

As Colin11 said, this ruling was only yesterday so paper evidence won't yet be available. Oh, and you've already acknowledged it on your blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.

 

So for the first time, a debtor has actually won a case in court and for some very odd reason, there is a reluctance to share the judgment (which was being handed down yesterday).

 

There could be two reasons....the judgment may be very critical of the conduct of the debtor (with justification)......or there may be an application for appeal. There may even be a combination of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how any of that means an update couldn't be provided. A petulant declaration of "we'll appeal this" in the heat of the moment could quickly fade away.

 

It seems that you're implying you have been informed by Newlyn's or Mr Felton. If so, please do share. There would be no sub-judice as no appeal has yet been listed.

 

Well you see, I've approached the person who gave me a copy but they stated to me that they would prefer that I do not share the judgment on here. That is their choice and I have no intention of ignoring them.

 

It seems the joke was lost on you, so lest we forget - [link removed-dx]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to soon be able to report two other judgments. One regarding a debtor who was ordered to pay £4,000 after a failed EAC2 complaint against an enforcement agent.

 

The second one has far reaching implications for all debtors who pay creditors direct (in order to avoid paying bailiff fees).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why delay them?

 

Ooh should've added... are these County Court or High Court judgements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really pointless.

 

We are arguing about something no one has yet seen.

 

We had all this with Murgatroyd and what did that turn out to be.

 

So lets see what it is we are talking about eh.


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

thread will now be closing until/unless confirmed evidence of this is provided to our admin email address.

 

 

dx

siteteam


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 971 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...